Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Campaign Finance Implementation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Secretary of State warns $25M IT bill and rollout risk as committee debates HB 40 18 dash-8
Summary
Deputy Secretary Michael Kaplan told the House Rules Committee that implementing HB 40 24's campaign finance system will likely require a placeholder $25,000,000 and that rushed in-house development failed to meet timelines; HB 40 18 dash-8 proposes staging implementation (limits in 2027, other complex IT features moved to 2031) and prompted sharp public disagreement over whether the amendment undermines the 2024 stakeholder deal.
Deputy Secretary of State Michael Kaplan told the House Rules Committee that implementing the campaign-finance overhaul passed in 2024 (HB 40 24) poses significant technical and cost risks under the current timeline and that a vendor-driven solution could require substantial premium spending. "During January legislative days, our office presented a placeholder request to ways and means of $25,000,000 to implement 4024 in its current form," Kaplan testified, describing a failed in-house development effort and a small vendor marketplace for the specialized compliance software the law requires.
HB 40 18 with the Dash 8 amendment would delay some of HB 40 24's more technically complex components — moving certain disclosure, EFMC and other networked features to later operative dates (2031 in some cases) while keeping contribution limits on track for 2027. Ricardo Lujan Valerio (deputy chief of staff for Secretary Reid) said the dash-8 timeline "allows our organization to deliver this policy with a much higher degree of confidence in its success." The office cited the state’s legacy Orestar system, novel data and security requirements, and the compressed development window as drivers of cost and risk.
Advocates and campaign reform groups split sharply. Opponents — including Senator Jeff Golden, Norman Turrell of the League of Women Voters, and members of honest-elections coalitions — characterized the dash-8 changes as substantive policy rollbacks that would open loopholes and erode disclosure requirements negotiated in 2024. "Rather than merely improve implementation for House Bill 40 24, it seems to change important elements of the substance of this bill in ways that violate the stakeholder agreement that got the bill passed," Golden said. The League of Women Voters called the dash-8 amendments a "complete betrayal" of the agreement that traded legislative action for withdrawn ballot initiatives.
Supporters of staging and delay said the office needs time and resources to avoid a botched rollout. Delina Binyam of For All Families Oregon Action urged a measured approach: "House Bill 40 18 dash 8 represents the thoughtful approach we need," she said, arguing staged implementation preserves limits while reducing risk to the system. The Oregon Education Association also urged support, citing privacy protections for personally identifiable data and the technical demands of a statewide system.
Committee members asked detailed questions about cost comparisons to other states, procurement strategy, whether existing city-level open-source systems could be leveraged, and whether the 25 million placeholder was likely to grow. The Secretary of State's office said it had not completed a side-by-side set of full-state cost comparisons, that California and Georgia were some rough comparators, and that time pressures (and premium contracting) were likely to drive up costs.
The committee closed the public hearing on HB 40 18 after an extended panel of opposition and support testimony; no committee vote occurred on HB 40 18 during this meeting.
