by Julia Shumway, Oregon Capital Chronicle
September 9, 2026
Supporters of campaign contribution limits and transparency who have long been stymied at the Oregon Legislature will look to voters to block businesses, unions and other organizations from spending to influence elections.
The proposed 2028 constitutional amendment, which supporters filed Wednesday, is a near carbon copy of a Hawaii law that passed earlier this year and a ballot measure Montana voters will see in November. Each attempts to circumvent the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC, which cleared the way for corporations, labor unions and other groups to spend money on elections in the name of free speech.
The Hawaii law, 2026 Montana ballot measure and 2028 Oregon proposal all rest on the premise that state governments have the authority to ban political spending by corporations because they govern corporations within the state.
“The concept here is we are going to put into the Oregon Constitution a thing saying you, as a corporation, do not have the power to spend on politics,” said Jason Kafoury, a Portland-based attorney and chief petitioner.
The proposed amendment wouldn’t block businesses or unions from creating political action committees or their members from donating to candidates. It would, supporters hope, eliminate independent expenditures from powerful groups, commonly referred to as dark money because of the opacity of the source of those donations.
Dark money hasn’t been as much of an issue in Oregon as in other states because the state’s lack of contribution limits allow wealthy people or businesses to give large sums directly to campaigns. For instance, Nike co-founder Phil Knight has written multiple checks of $1 million or more to conservative candidates and causes in recent years.
But starting next year, individuals will be limited to giving $3,300 per election to a candidate. Membership organizations, such as labor unions, will be able to give up to $26,400 per two-year election cycle to statewide candidates and less to legislative candidates.
Even some legislators who voted for the new limits in 2024 expressed concerns that they would lead to less transparency in campaign spending by encouraging individuals and groups to make independent expenditures instead of donating directly to candidates.
The Hawaii law, which is scheduled to take effect in 2027, faces a legal challenge from a libertarian think tank that argues it’s an unconstitutional infringement of free speech rights. The outcome of that federal lawsuit could determine whether similar efforts in Oregon, Montana and more than a dozen other states can proceed.
A spokesperson for House Speaker Julie Fahey, D-Eugene, who spearheaded Oregon’s 2024 campaign finance limit law, said Fahey hadn’t had the time to review the amendment language.
“Speaker Fahey has long said that meaningful campaign finance reform is not possible while Citizens United is the law of the land,” her chief of staff wrote in an email. “She believes the similar concepts in Hawaii and Montana are intriguing, and she will be following the legal developments in the Hawaii case as they unfold.”
Kelsey Paden, executive director of the progressive organization Our Oregon, which worked on the 2024 law, said in a statement that the group was considering the petition.
“We’re still analyzing this initiative petition, and we understand and share the desire to get corporate influence out of politics, but it cannot come at the cost of silencing thousands of everyday Oregonians who use their collective voices through grassroots organizing to educate voters and protect our rights,” Paden said. “A corporation or wealthy donor that can write a million-dollar check to influence an election is very different than working people collecting small donations to organizations and unions.”
A spokesperson for the state’s largest business lobby group, Oregon Business and Industry, which also played a key role in the state’s recent campaign finance legislation, did not immediately respond to questions about the new efforts Wednesday.
Along with banning corporate spending, Kafoury and other petitioners plan to introduce two more constitutional amendments in the coming weeks.
One would rework the state’s 2024 campaign finance law, a compromise legislators brokered among supporters of strict limits, business groups and organized labor before contradictory campaign finance ballot measures could go before voters. The Legislature reworked parts of that law earlier this year, delaying some provisions and weakening others.
Another would create a system similar to Seattle’s “Democracy Vouchers,” which gives residents $100 in the form of four $25 vouchers they can distribute to candidates for local office. Candidates who receive vouchers trade them in with the city government for campaign cash.
Seattle funds its program through a special property tax. Current plans for an amendment in Oregon would draw the money directly from the state’s general fund, Kafoury said. With more than 3 million registered voters and 4 million residents, a similar program in Oregon could cost the state up to about $400 million per election, about 1% of the state’s current two-year general fund budget.
Oregon Capital Chronicle is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Oregon Capital Chronicle maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Julia Shumway for questions: [email protected].