Elections Passed General Election
✗

PEAPAC Recommends: NO

Violates private property rights by forcing disclosure of donations; complicates the initiative process; protects payroll deduction for unions.

Summary

Imposes new regulations on campaign finance and signature gathering for initiatives.

Biblical Reasoning

This Measure is another example of why the initiative process is problematic when it comes to complicated matters such as campaign financing (see Psalm 131). Such matters can better be addressed through the Legislative process.

Finally, we question whether mandatory disclosure of those who give to political campaigns is a good idea in general. The Biblical principle of private property involves the ability to make use of that property in a way that seems fit to the steward of it, as long as the use is not prohibited by clear Scriptural teaching. But mandatory disclosure of campaign contributions can be dangerous.

Psalm 131 — “Lord, my heart is not haughty, nor mine eyes lofty: neither do I exercise myself in great matters, or in things too high for me. Surely I have behaved and quieted myself, as a child that is weaned of his mother: my soul is even as a weaned child. Let Israel hope in the Lord from henceforth and for ever.”

Election Results

69%
31%
YesNo

Voters approved the campaign finance regulations (69% Yes).

Full PEAPAC Analysis

PEAPAC Explanation: This Measure would put new limitations and governmental control on various aspects of political campaign finances. Among other things, it is intended to reduce the number of initiative petitions that successfully reach the ballot. We strongly oppose this Measure, and urge a No vote.

PEAPAC Commentary and Recommendation: F irst, we question whether some of the details in the Measure are practical, or, even worse, will have the effect of reducing private contributions to campaigns… This Measure is another example of why the initiative process is problematic when it comes to complicated matters such as campaign financing (see Psalm 131). Such matters can better be addressed through the Legislative process.

Second, there are individual items within this Measure which we strongly oppose. For instance… this Measure “would prohibit enactment of laws or regulations after November 1, 1998, restricting the right of individuals to make campaign contributions through methods such as payroll deduction by public [emphasis added] or private employers.” We would oppose this language, based on the l ine of reasoning we lay out in dealing with Ballot Measure 59.

Also this Measure would require organizers of signature-gathering campaigns to get a license from the State, adding another layer of bureaucracy. Finally, we question whether mandatory disclosure of those who give to political campaigns is a good idea in general. The Biblical principle of private property involves the ability to make use of that property in a way that seems fit to the steward of it, as long as the use is not prohibited by clear Scriptural teaching. But mandatory disclosure of campaign contributions can be dangerous. A person using his resources to, for instance, stand against abortion or homosexuality, can be vulnerable to negative consequences.

Related Measures

Measure 59 (1998) — Similar topic on payroll deductions View →

← PreviousMeasure 61 (1998)