It looks like most of Oregon’s legislative general 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. Using this measure, 62% of the upcoming legislative races may well already be over. "No wonder there is apathy about voting when only one candidate has the money to be heard by voters in 6 out of 10 races?" says Janice Thompson, executive director of the Money in Politics Research Action Project.
 

Competition Analysis of 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%	40%	6	10%	68%	7	9%	62%
Drowned out	5	33%		35	58%		40	53%
Lopsided	1	7%		5	8%		6	8%
Struggle to keep up	4	27%		5	8%		9	12%
Equal opportunity	4	27%		9	15%		13	17%

*Based on 1^st 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.

Six 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. Nine 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. Thirteen, or 17% of all legislative races, are "equal opportunity" contests where opponents are fundraising at roughly equivalent levels.

Legislative campaign fundraising during the first reporting period prior to the general election is lower than the levels seen in 2000. "The special sessions’ interruption of political activities and economic problems are likely factors in why the 2000 contribution records may not be surpassed," says Janice Thompson.
 
 

The impact of slower fundraising on top House and Senate races are summarized below.
 

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 reporting period		2002 1st reporting period		2000 1st reporting period		2002 1st reporting period
Roger McCorkle	$296,987	Bill Witt	$202,003	Alan Brown	$138,680	Greg Macpherson	$110,483
Eileen Qutub	$266,565	Charlie Ringo	$164,464	John Scruggs	$130,050	Wayne Scott	$106,756
Terry Thompson	$188,307	Randy Franke	$147,250	Debra Ringold	$114,203	Jim Zupancic	$100,860
Gary George	$179,173	Frank Morse	$136,465	Janet Carlson	$105,748	Jan Lee	$93,510
Ryan Deckert	$170,171	Bob Tiernan	$126,547	Charlie Ringo	$104,841	Keith Parker	$92,112

2002 data from 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.

However, fundraising had been slow during the first reporting period of the primary election but the final primary numbers indicate a slight increase in fundraising for that period as compared to 2000. "So the pace could pick up as the general election cycle continues but perhaps not at a record setting rate," summarizes Thompson.

Financial competition analysis is based on the following:
Drowned out = money underdog has 0 to 25% of opponent's campaign contributions.
Lopsided = money underdog has 25-50% of opponent's campaign contributions.
Struggle to keep up = money underdog has 50-75% of opponent's campaign contributions.
Equal opportunity = money underdog has 75-100% of opponent's campaign contributions.