Oregon Bill Forces Big Tech to Fund News

The Oregon Showdown: Can a $122 Million Tech Tax Save Local Journalism?
Picture this: a small-town newspaper office with yellowed “PRESS” signs, the last reporter chain-smoking over a typewriter while Google’s stock price ticks upward on his phone. That’s not noir fiction—it’s today’s journalism crisis. Oregon’s Senate Bill 686 is loading the revolver for a Wild West standoff between Silicon Valley and Main Street newsrooms, demanding tech giants pay up for the local reporting they’ve monetized for years. But will this $122 million lifeline be salvation or a legislative misfire?

The Digital Heist: How Tech Giants Gutted Local News

Let’s crack open the case file. Since 2005, over 2,500 U.S. newspapers have folded—that’s one in four—while Google and Meta vacuumed up 60% of digital ad revenue. Local outlets became unwitting accomplices in their own demise, handing over content for tech platforms to repackage with targeted ads. Oregon’s surviving newsrooms now operate on ramen budgets: the *Bend Bulletin* slashed staff by 75%, and the *Medford Mail Tribune* flatlined in 2023.
SB 686 mirrors Australia’s 2021 News Media Bargaining Code, which extracted $140 million annually from tech firms. But here’s the twist: Oregon’s version funnels payments through a third-party administrator to prevent “big chain” publishers like Gannett from hogging the pie. It’s a structural hedge against what critics call “the Reuters loophole”—where national outlets benefit disproportionately from similar laws.

First Amendment Firefight: Is the Bill Constitutional?

Opponents aren’t just whispering objections—they’re unloading both barrels. The TechNet trade group claims SB 686 violates the First Amendment by “compelling speech through financial coercion,” a argument that stalled California’s Journalism Preservation Act in 2023. But legal eagles point to *Branzburg v. Hayes* (1972), where SCOTUS ruled press protections don’t override “generally applicable” business laws.
The real flashpoint? The bill’s “link tax” mechanism. When Canada tried this in 2023, Meta responded by nuking news sharing entirely—a move that cratered traffic for outlets like *The Winnipeg Free Press* by 30%. Oregon’s drafters added a poison pill: platforms refusing payment face civil penalties up to 10% of in-state revenue. That’s not just a slap on the wrist—it’s a calculated suplex on tech’s playbook.

Democracy’s Last Line: Why Local News Matters

Forget partisan squabbles—the data tells a chilling story. Princeton researchers found “news deserts” see higher municipal borrowing costs (by 0.11% on average) due to lost oversight. In Oregon’s Josephine County, where the *Daily Courier* cut coverage, embezzlement cases rose 18% as watchdog capacity evaporated.
SB 686’s backers aren’t naive. They’ve baked in audit requirements to prevent funds from bankrolling clickbait farms. Eligible outlets must prove 50%+ original local reporting—a threshold that disqualified 20% of applicants under Australia’s system. It’s a surgical approach, targeting what the Knight Foundation calls “civic infrastructure repair.”

The Verdict: A Blueprint or a Blunder?

As Oregon’s Senate prepares to vote, the bill’s ripple effects are already spreading. Minnesota and New York have drafted clone legislation, while Meta’s lobbyists scramble to amend payment formulas. The stakes? More than money—it’s about recalibrating power in the digital age.
Will SB 686 be the penicillin for journalism’s decline, or another well-intentioned placebo? Either way, Oregon’s gamble proves local news isn’t dead yet. It’s just reloading. And for communities clinging to their last papers, that’s a headline worth fighting for.