"General election contributions to Oregon’s legislative races continue to be off the record setting pace of the 2000 election cycle," says Janice Thompson of the Money in Politics Research Action Project. "Variations in competition levels, the economic downturn, and the special legislative sessions are likely factors in this decline. There is still one more disclosure report due for the general election and last minute money is going towards the highly contested races, but if there is an increase in general election fundraising compared to previous years it will likely not be as dramatic as that seen in the 2000 elections."

Chart 1 - Comparison of 1st and 2nd Reporting Period Fundraising  2000 and 2002 General Elections
Senate Races 2000 and 2002		House Races 2000 and 2002		All Legislative Races 2000 and 2002
2000 1st and 2nd report contributions	2002 1st and 2nd report contributions	2000 1st and 2nd report contributions	2002 1st and 2nd report contributions	2000 1st and 2nd report contributions	2002 1st and 2nd report contributions
$2.9 million	$3.6 million	$6.7 million	$5.2 million	$9.6 million	$8.8 million

2002 data is from the Elections Division and could change due to auditing and amendments. 2000 data is from a database compiled by the National Institute for Money in State Politics based on Elections Division data.

More money is being raised in 2002 Senate races which is a reflection of more competitive elections as compared to 2000. There was only one "equal opportunity" Senate race in 2000 (chart 2) where the money underdog had contributions within 75 to 100% of the top fundraiser. In 2002 there are five Senate races in the "equal opportunity" competition category (chart 3). "Given the increased competition, though, the 2002 increase in general election contributions isn’t as high as you might expect and is likely a reflection of fundraising difficulties due to the economy and time taken by the fall special legislative session," says Janice Thompson.
 

Chart 2 - Competition Analysis of 2000 General Election Races
Competitiveness	# of Senate races	% of 15 Senate races		# of House races	% of 60 House races		# of Legislative races	% of 75 Legislative races
Unopposed	2	13%	66%	5	8%	60%	7	9%	61%
Drowned out	8	53%		31	52%		39	52%
Lopsided	2	13%		8	13%		10	13%
Struggle to keep up	2	13%		9	15%		11	15%
Equal opportunity	1	7%		7	12%		8	11%

Differences in competition is also a contributing factor in less money being raised in 2002 House general election races as compared to 2000. During the current election 67% of the House races are in the "drowned out" competition category while 60% of the races were in this category in 2000. In "drowned out" races the money underdog has 0 to 25% of the opponent’s campaign contributions. However, there are the same number of "equal opportunity" House races in 2000 and 2002. "Slightly less competition in 2002 House races as compared to 2000 House elections contribute to a decline in fundraising but again the economy and the time demands of the special session are likely factors in lower fundraising levels for these races this year," summarizes Thompson.
 

Chart 3 -Competition Analysis of 2002 General Election Races
Competitiveness	# of Senate races	% of 15 Senate races		# of House races	% of 60 House races		# of Legislative races	% of 75 Legislative races
Unopposed	1	7%	34%	6	10%	67%	7	9%	60%
Drowned out	4	27%		34	57%		38	51%
Lopsided	2	13%		8	13%		10	13%
Struggle to keep up	3	20%		5	8%		8	11%
Equal opportunity	5	33%		7	12%		12	16%

Based on 1^st and 2^nd general election reporting period contributions plus beginning cash balances that reflect money raised but not spent during the primary and available for general election expenditures. Based on Elections Division data. Data could change due to auditing and amendments.

Competition in 2002 legislative races is little changed from MiPRAP’s October 6^th analysis. "A few of the ‘drowned out’ opponents have inched out of that category as the 2002 election season has progressed, but there is also one less ‘equal opportunity’ race," says Janice Thompson. It looks like most of Oregon’s legislative elections are competitive since two or more candidates appear on the ballot in all but seven districts. But in over half of those races, the fundraising disparity is so great that the underdog opponent is likely to be "drowned out" and unable to get out a campaign message. So, combining unopposed and "drowned out" primary races is a better indication of overall lack of competitiveness. Based on this analysis, 60% of the upcoming legislative races may well already be over.

Ten races are "lopsided" in fundraising. In these races the underdog opponent has only 25 to 50% of the resources of the other candidate and voters are likely to hear much more from one candidate than the other. Eight general election contests are at the "struggle to keep up" level of competition with fundraising levels within 50 to 75% of each other. Voters are likely to hear more from the top fundraising candidate but the other candidate has resources to get some level of a message out to the public. Twelve, or 16% of all legislative races, are "equal opportunity" contests where opponents are fundraising at roughly equivalent levels.

The impacts of lower levels of contributions to the top House and Senate races are summarized below in the comparison of 2000 and 2002 fundraising levels for this point in the election cycle. Except for contributions to Charlie Ringo in the hotly contested Senate District 17 race with Bill Witt and the fundraising done by Jim Zupancic in HD 28, contributions levels in 2002 lag behind those seen in the most competitive races of the 2000 general election.
 

Chart 4 – Comparison of 2000 and 2002 Contributions in Top Fundraising Legislative Races
Top 5 Senate Contribution Levels Comparison of 2000 and 2002 fundraising thus far				Top 5 House Contribution Levels Comparison of 2000 and 2002 fundraising thus far
2000 1st and 2nd reports		2002 1st and 2nd reports		2000 1st and 2nd reports		2002 1st and 2nd reports
Roger McCorkle- SD 24	$437,207	Charlie Ringo –  SD 17	$493,072	Debra Ringold- HD 35	$202,072	Jim Zupancic – HD - 38	$214,598
Eileen Qutub – SD 4	$424,468	Bill Witt – SD 17	$382,308	Jeff Miller- HD 41	$199,149	Keith Parker – HD 28	$198,044
Ryan Deckert – SD 4	$388,533	Bob Tiernan – SD 19	$353,261	Alan Brown – HD 4	$189,659	Greg Macpherson - HD - 38	$193,430
Terry Thompson – SD 2	$387,511	Richard Devlin – SD 19	$344,762	Janet Carlson – HD 32	$185,877	Wayne Scott – HD 10	$178,968
Gary George – SD 2	$336,934	Bryan Johnston – SD 10	$283,909	Sharon Bransitter- HD 4	$180,581	Jan Lee – HD 39	$171,589

2002 data is from the Elections Division and could change due to auditing and amendments. 2000 data is from database from the National Institute for Money in State Politics based on Elections Division data.