Earlier today, a new campaign finance initiative was filed with the Secretary of State. Sponsored by Rep. Peter Buckley (D-Ashland), former Rep. Larry Perry (D-Eugene), and former AP capitol reporter Chuck Beggs, the measure is known as the "Common Sense Campaign Finance" measure. [Previously, Buckley withdrew his support for other campaign finance efforts currently collecting signatures.]

The complete text of the proposed constitutional amendment:

The Constitution of the State of Oregon is amended by creating a new section 25 to be added to and made a part of Article II, such section to read:

Section 25. (1) A corporation or labor organization may not make a contribution from treasury funds to any candidate for nomination or election to state or local public office, or to any political committee supporting or opposing a candidate for nomination or election to state or local public office.

(2) In a calendar year, an individual may not contribute an aggregate amount exceeding $15,000 to all candidates for nomination or election to state or local public office and all other political committees supporting or opposing a candidate for nomination or election to state or local public office. This subsection does not apply to contributions made from the personal funds of a candidate to the candidate.

(3) For each calendar year, the Secretary of State, by rule, shall adjust the amount of the aggregate contribution limit described in subsection (2) of this section to account for changes in consumer prices. The secretary shall use an official indicator of consumer prices and round the adjusted amount to the closest dollar.
[ BlueOregon: Common Sense Campaign Finance ]

Keep it simple.

No artificial entity that receives tax deductible donations or that receives funds that are not derived directly from individuals with their complete verifiable consent or that can claim the benefit of limited liability under the laws of this state or under the laws of any other state or the federal government shall use any of their resources or their name to support or oppose candidates for elective office.

Under such a formulation the owner members of Oregon Restaurant Association could themselves form an association of "owners" from their personal resources, their individual after tax personal resources.

Under such a formulation the individual members of Oregon Education Association could themselves form a parallel association, with funds derived from their individual after tax personal resources.

A state constitution is a document of limitation, not authorization. The above formulation would limit the ability of the legislature to play favorites in the election process through authorizing the creation of an ever growing, and dizzying, array of artificial entities.

I see no reason why a rich person should not be free to spend themselves into the poor house by supporting or opposing some candidate or issue, other than their receipt of a loan, in which case the lender should immediately be deemed to have been the contributor.

I say let the advocates of artificial entities fight those who believe that free speech and our government belongs to individuals. Let them knock themselves out and let them show their true colors as the principal opponents of individual liberty.

UPDATE further comment:

Suppose a write-in candidate were to receive 50 percent of the vote, plus one.

Is there any feature of the manner of campaigning leading to that vote that would allow the presently empowered government officials to use their position to prevent the people's new choice from assuming the new title associated with an elected office?

A necessary component of democracy is the willingness of present elected officials to voluntarily consent to transfer to someone else. You need to go study some more about violent battles in many places around the world where the issue of voluntary transfer of democratic power has been illuminated in great detail.

I would surely not like to see the day that officials within our government would claim that because some person X had spent in excess of prescribed spending limit Z that a write-in candidate with 50 percent plus one of the votes was not validly chosen by the electors. That frustration would apply equally based on whether a person joined forces with another person to help advocate for a candidate; such association should not be called a criminal conspiracy.

Note the semi-colon in the following sentence that recognizes two parts to the section

"Section 8. Freedom of speech and press. No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever; but every person shall be responsible for the abuse of this right."

The second part involves a potential cause of action that is independent of the successful election of write-in candidate as posed above. The formulation which I posed in a previous comment would not prohibit the legislature from authorizing the Secretary of State to subsequently dissolve a corporation and thus deny them the conditional privileges they had obtained via some sort of incorporation.

The actual character of an artificial entity is largely a matter of a choice by an incorporator and is not based on a crystal clear multiple choice style test to verify that the claimed character exactly matches the actual entity, to the exclusion of the other conceivable characterizations. Someone would have to claim to be God or something to stir the passions of the folks that accept the filing that this might not be a legitimate entity, and even then they might say whatever, we'll let you file it if that is what you want.

This is to say that I would not want to place too much emphasis upon the claimed character of an entity by either the incorporator or the government. Rather it would be confined to an examination of whether an association was comprised of individuals, to the exclusion of any artificial entities, and that each participant consented to the expression of the association. Individual members can have private claims against an association but that is a private matter and not one that involves a government restraint for purposes of state action.

Apply the above to Nader:

The Nader legal battle was never perceived as hot as it would not have resulted in him even gaining a plurality. Nevertheless, the legal inquiry could have and should have been treated with the same vigor that would have been applicable if the court determination would have resulted in Nader being recognized as Oregon's choice for president in the general election.

The low level attacks on speech are no less hideous than where the voters for a write-in candidate are denied representation by someone they chose. In the early battles over unionization and the conduct of organizing efforts it was recognized that protection must be accorded to the "formation" of unions, as it is a critical and necessary step in the process that might lead to a majority decision to bargain collectively. If government could interfere in formation then they might never have to bargain. The formation stage of elections that involve candidates such as Nader is illustrative of the potential for mischief by the folks in power.

The First Amendment was never intended to empower the government to stop opponents but rather it is designed to lend credibility to any resulting set of elected officials to a claim to represent all. Any increase in power that is given to (or taken by) the government itself, or government authorized artificial entities, comes at the direct expense of the credibility of the government and thus the consent of the governed.

You can judge for yourself, I suppose, the odds that I could make a successful facial challenge to the new common sense petition presented at the start of this thread. Ah, but this just a blog. Ha. Spend away, I suppose, all your capital in a futile effort, it is your choice.

There is a world of difference between placing a condition upon the grant of a privilege on some sort of incorporation and a potential civil or criminal action against an individual that used their time or money to seek redress of their perceived grievances. It is more fun to ponder whether public advocacy in the judicial arena, rather than via elective office, would also be covered by a monetary limit? And it is more fun to think about the advertising revenue for The Oregonian that is derived from entities that are partially owned by the Oregon Investment Council on behalf of the "independent" artificial entity known as PERS?

Target your wording to the Oregon Supreme Court and not to the masses.