Donors pumped an unprecedented amount of money into Oregon’s election last year. In , Republican donors including Nike co-founder poured millions into trying to wrest control from Democrats, who responded with huge spending from public employee unions and other political allies. The three-woman governor’s race broke the previous spending record, with Democratic Gov. Tina Kotek’s donors contributing directly into electing her and donors to Republican Christine Drazan and unaffiliated candidate Betsy Johnson shelling out $22. 6 million and $17. 5 million, respectively. Donors were able to send huge sums directly to candidates’ campaigns because Oregon is one of just five states that allows unlimited political donations. Bills introduced by House Speaker Dan Rayfield, D-Corvallis, one of which was requested by Kotek, could change that, although both proposals come with loopholes. Kotek’s proposal, , would allow individuals and a variety of entities including corporations and unions to give no more than $500 per primary or general election cycle to a state House or Senate candidate and $1,000 to candidates for statewide offices such as secretary of state or governor. Rayfield’s plan, , would allow individuals, corporations, unions and other entities to give up to $1,500 per primary or general election cycle to a House candidate, $2,000 to a Senate candidate and $3,000 to a candidate for statewide office. But both top Democrats’ proposals could protect the ability of membership organizations such as labor unions and business associations to continue pouring millions of dollars into candidates’ campaigns through so-called “small donor” political action committees. Their proposals could allow small donor committees to raise virtually unlimited amounts to spend on Oregon elections and neither Kotek nor Rayfield’s bills currently specify a limit on how much money a small donor committee could give to a candidate. Neither bill has yet had a hearing. The governor’s proposal “seems like a nonstarter for people pushing for what I call real reform,” said Gregory McKelvey, a political consultant and advocate for limits who is working for the good government group Common Cause. “You can make the limit $1. If there are ways for a bunch of people to get around it, it doesn’t matter. ” McKelvey, who has worked on legislative campaigns, said some legislators are uncomfortable with the current in which all lawmakers are assigned fundraising targets in order to reach an overall pooled money goal. For example, House Democrats’ 2022 fundraising goal for Rayfield when he was co-chair of the Legislature’s budget committee was . Rayfield said that goal was no problem for him, but McKelvey said the high spending and fundraising levels can seem difficult and arbitrary, especially if a lawmaker comes from a less affluent district and expects to win reelection fairly easily without an expensive campaign. Kotek and Rayfield’s bills would also allow corporations, limited liability companies and partnerships, unions, associations, clubs and other entities to continue donating directly to political candidates. That’s different than other proposals in recent years by good government groups including the League of Women Voters and Honest Elections, which would have only allowed people or political action committees to give money to campaigns. On the campaign trail last year, Kotek said she would work to pass contribution limits and put the issue “at the top of the list” if she won election as governor. However, in a meeting with reporters on Feb. 28, Kotek said she drafted her proposal without consulting with any groups that have expressed an interest in setting contribution limits and other campaign finance regulations. “We’ll be sitting down to figure out how to move forward,” Kotek said. “We haven’t had (those conversations) yet. ” Two years ago, lawmakers negotiated potential contribution limits in private meetings with and good government groups for months starting in February, only to late in the session. While those conversations haven’t resumed a third of the way through this year’s session, Dan Meek, an attorney who works to limit money in politics, said he still believes Democrats, who control both chambers of the Legislature along with the governor’s office, “have more impetus this year” to pass campaign contribution limits. That’s because good government groups have a good shot at getting initiatives to cap campaign contributions on the ballot in 2024. Advocates for limits filed proposed ballot measures two years ago that would have . They already faced a tight timeline to qualify any of the measures for the ballot, when Democratic Secretary of State Shemia Fagan all three because she said the proposals should have included the entire text of the laws that would be changed, not just the sections to be amended. The campaign finance proposal that Honest Elections and the League of Women Voters are now targeting for the 2024 ballot would cap direct donations to candidates at $2,000 for statewide offices and $1,000 for legislative seats in each primary or general election cycle. Small donor political action committees could only give $20,000 to a candidate for state office and $10,000 to a legislative candidate per election cycle, while membership organizations would face a $10,000 limit. Unlike Kotek and Rayfield’s proposals, Initiative Petition 9 would only allow people or political action committees to donate to candidates. It would also require political ads for or against a candidate or initiative to disclose the top four funders and the types of business from which the funders generate income. It would also require campaigns to disclose the original source of funding for political spending in an attempt to reduce the effectiveness of dark money groups. The proposed initiative, which was developed with the watchdog Campaign Legal Center, would also add teeth to Oregon campaign finance laws. Currently, anyone can file a complaint with the secretary of state or attorney general alleging a violation of election law. Then staff for the secretary of state or attorney general, both partisan elected positions, whether to investigate the complaint and there is no recourse if the elected officials decide to dismiss the complaint. The ballot proposal would add an option for the complainant to appeal the secretary of state’s decision to a court. The same groups behind the proposed 2024 campaign finance initiative have a companion proposal that would make it difficult for lawmakers to change campaign finance laws approved by voters by amending the Oregon Constitution to require three-fourths majority approval in the Legislature for any such changes. Kate Titus, executive director of Common Cause Oregon, wrote in an email to The Oregonian/OregonLive that lawmakers “face a tough challenge” in their attempt to tackle contribution limits. “I think there’s a real desire to tackle this problem, but it remains to be seen if they can get it done, Titus said. “They face a big risk of inciting public outrage and mistrust if they attempt to pass flawed reform. ” It’s not clear where Republican lawmakers stand on the issue. Senate Republican Leader Tim Knopp did not respond to a request for comment from The Oregonian/OregonLive. Jason Kafoury, a lawyer from Portland and campaign finance reform advocate who is a chief petitioner on the initiative proposed for 2024, said Knight’s large donations last year made it clear “we’ve entered an arms race. ” Yet he said change can be difficult, even for groups that tend to support Democrats and might be concerned about the level of Knight’s spending. “It is hard, when you have a place that has had no campaign finance reform for a generation, to come up with rules everyone likes,” Kafoury said. Oregon voters have repeatedly approved contribution limits in the past. But courts had consistently overturned them, until the state Supreme Court reversed previous precedent in April 2020 and found that contribution limits are constitutional. Still, Fagan, the secretary of state, and Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, both Democrats, concluded that the Supreme Court ruling did not revive contribution limits that voters approved in 2006. Both Fagan and Rosenblum have refused to explain their reasoning. Kafoury said campaign finance reform advocates are close to filing additional proposed initiatives for 2024 that would pair the contribution limits they already proposed with a state program to match small donations with public funds. Both Kotek and Rayfield’s proposals would also create publicly funded programs to match small donations. — Hillary Borrud;.