Kyle Markley
for Oregon Secretary of State

I have been involved with campaign finance reform efforts for several years. I am passionate about protecting freedom of speech, and view Measure 107 as an attack on that essential right.

Media and forum appearances:

• Measure 107 interview with Willamette Week (25 minutes).
• KEZI (channel 9, Eugene) article and video (3 minutes).
• KOHI (AM 1600, St. Helens) interview (45 minutes).
• Salem City Club debate on Measure 107 (50 minutes).
• Portland Tribune opinion article against Measure 107, which also ran in other Pamplin Media Group outlets. This is behind a paywall, but it's also available locally here. Opening paragraph:

  Ballot Measure 107 is a Trojan horse. It won't limit the rich and powerful. Instead, it will disadvantage ordinary people against them. Measure 107 is based on false claims and unrealistic fears, and it will not do what its supporters claim. The data is clear that its purported benefits are an illusion, yet its costs are very real.

I published many statements in opposition to Measure 107 in the Voters' Pamphlet. Those statements are also available here:

1. Money doesn't "buy" elections
2. There isn't "too much money" in politics
3. Freedom of speech … except for politics?
4. A dangerous grant of power
5. Inviting political persecution
6. The myth of "undue influence"
7. Data and scholarship
8. What Citizens United was really about
9. Historical quotes about free speech
10. Arguments from Measure 46 (2006) #1
11. Arguments from Measure 46 (2006) #2
12. A real level playing field
13. The value of anonymous speech
14. Oregon's Bill of Rights should continue to defend political speech

Thank you very much for taking the time to consider these arguments. I expect that if Measure 107 passes, it will soon be impossible for anyone to publish such a lengthy argument in the Voters' Pamphlet.

You may also be interested in reading my amicus brief in Multnomah County v. Mehrwein, 355 Or 295 (2020). Although the court did not reach the merits of my arguments (making its unfortunate decision on other grounds), I believe I made a strong legal (rather than political) argument for why freedom of speech in politics should have prevailed.