Critics Say Placeholders Erode Transparency, Others Insist They Serve a Purpose
Placeholder bills in the legislative process are like putting money in a savings account. You don’t know if you need the money but it’s available if you do.
Relating clauses are the legislative currency of placeholder bills. A placeholder bill with a broad relating clause may be introduced with one subject, but also could be used for a very different bill under the same relating clause.
Placeholder bills have been around in the Oregon legislature for a long time. In recent legislative sessions, their use has exploded, as reported by OPB. Just 37 placeholder bills were introduced in the 2015 session contrasted to more than 600 so far in the 2025 session.
“From roughly 1 percent of bills introduced in the 2015 legislative session, placeholders this year accounted for nearly one-fifth of all bills lawmakers filed,” reports OPB’s Dirk VanderHart. Their increased used has raised concerns about legislative transparency and gumming up the committee review process.
Republicans Object
Minority Republicans condemn use of placeholders. House Minority Leader Christine Drazan, R-Canby, calls them “the ultimate exercise of absolute power” by Democrats. “You see these huge omnibus bills at the last minute, you’re always surprised by what’s in them, there’s no process.”
“Oh God, I hate them,” Senate Minority Leader Daniel Bonham, R-The Dalles, told OPB. He has directed his staffers to monitor Democrats’ placeholder bills. “It’s like I have to watch this Senate bill forever because the relating-to clause is something that could destroy our economy, could end private rights, whatever it might be.”
Senate President Rob Wagner, D-Lake Oswego, admits there could be a problem and is open to a conversation about the use of placeholder bills. Wagner and Speaker Julie Fahey, D-Eugene, have discussed remedies such as restricting how many bills each lawmaker can introduce.
Not Everyone Agrees
Not everyone agrees placeholders are bad for the system. “They’re supposed to just be there as an outlet in case we didn’t think of this thing or this really bad thing happened,’” said state Rep. Rob Nosse, D-Portland. “That really does serve a purpose.”
“It’s a convenience, that’s really what it is,” said former Senator Michael Dembrow, a Portland Democrat.
Use of Placeholder Bills
Placeholder bills are often filed to reserve a place for legislation that is still being developed or negotiated. A good example this session is the major transportation funding package.
Clever lawmakers have introduced bills with advantageous relating clauses to give themselves an opportunity during a session to replace the bill with a whole different subject that still fits under the relating clause. Some old-time lobbyists were notorious for proposing such ghost bills.
Long-time Rep. Greg Smith, R-Heppner, told OPB he routinely introduces 15 to 20 dummy bills every session “knowing I may never use them.” One way he has used them is as a courtesy to fellow lawmakers. “Quite often,” he said, “I will have colleagues who have not been in the process as long as I have who will come to me and ask me if they can use one of my bills.”
Introduction of more bills puts more pressure on House and Senate committees to deal with them, even briefly. But committees have been known to stockpile placeholders to deal with subjects that arise during a session or to salvage a legislative idea that got waylaid.
The House and Senate Rules committees are good places to stockpile placeholder bills with useful relating clauses because they are limited by the bill-passage deadlines for most other committees.
Chances are placeholder bills will never be banned or disappear. Sometimes bills fail to pass, but their relating clauses provide a lifeline for other bills.
Veteran lobbyist Tom Holt says placeholders serve a purpose. “Good committee chairs always have a handful [of placeholder bills] ready with broad relating-to clauses,” he told OPB.
You never know when you need to tap into your savings account.
