[CFR-Announce] Oregon Court of Appeals Ruling Does Not Stop the Circulation of Campaign Finance Reform Measures

[Dan Meek]

The Oregon Court of Appeals, in a decision received today, ruled that 
our one-sentence proposed amendment to the Oregon Constitution, to allow 
enactment of limits on political contributions and spending, somehow 
amends the Constitution in several "unrelated" ways.

This decision will be taken to the Oregon Supreme Court, where I am 
confident we will win.  Recently, the Oregon Supreme Court has not 
accepted the reasoning of the Court of Appeals in "one amendment" cases.

In the meantime, we will continue to collect the signatures needed to 
quality for the ballot.  We need essentially 101,000 valid signatures.  
We have collected almost 120,000 to date but need an additional 20,000 
an insurance.

Please continue with your dedicated efforts to get big money out of 
Oregon politics!

Thanks.

Fairelections Oregon

www.fairelections.net


	

Daniel Meek, attorney

(503) 293-9021

dan at fairelections.net

	

Harry Lonsdale

(541) 549-1556

harry at fairelections.net

 

April 26, 2006

OREGON CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM ADVOCATES WILL SEEK REVIEW OF COURT OF 
APPEALS RULING


Supporters of two campaign finance reform ballot measures will seek 
review in the Oregon Supreme Court of today's ruling by the Oregon Court 
of Appeals that Petition 8 proposes to enact more than one unrelated 
change to the Oregon Constitution.

 

"Among those who disagree with the conclusion adopted by the Court of 
Appeals are us, the Oregon Attorney General, and the Oregon Secretary of 
State," said attorney Dan Meek. "We all argued that Petition 8, a 
one-sentence amendment that would allow enactment of limits on campaign 
financing in Oregon, is a valid change to the Oregon Constitution. But 
the Court of Appeals agreed with the ACLU."

 

The decision does not halt the effort to qualify Petition 8 for the 
ballot. Supporters need to submit 100,840 valid Oregon voter signatures 
by July 7. They have already collected about 120,000 signatures and 
intend to submit over 140,000 in order to ensure qualification for the 
ballot.

 

Petition 8 is very simple. Here is the full text:

 

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution, the people 
through the initiative process, or the Legislative Assembly by a 
three-fourths vote of both Houses, may enact and amend laws to prohibit 
or limit contributions and expenditures, of any type or description, to 
influence the outcome of any election.

 

Petition 8 is a limited expansion of legislative power in Oregon. It 
modifies the Constitution to overcome the 1997 decision of the Oregon 
Supreme Court that the Oregon Constitution does not allow any mandatory 
limits on political contributions or expenditures.

 

The requirement that the Legislature can adopt such changes by 3/4 vote 
of both houses is to prevent the Legislature, elected under the current 
system of no limits, from repealing or eviscerating effective limits 
enacted through the initiative process. In 2003, the Massachusetts 
Legislature -- by voice vote -- repealed the “clean money” public 
funding system enacted by initiative. In December 2004, an emergency 
session of the Ohio Legislature voted to increase limits by factor of 4 
and open various campaign financing loopholes for corporations, by votes 
that were majorities but not 3/4 majorities.

 

"The Court of Appeals reasoning would also invalidate Oregon's income 
tax "kicker" constitutional amendment," said Meek. That amendment was 
enacted by voters in 2000. It put into Article IX, Section 14, of the 
Oregon Constitution the mechanism for a mandatory tax credit equal to 
all of the expected revenue in excess of that expected for the biennial 
at the end of the previous legislative session. The revenue forecasts 
are made by the Governor but can be changed by the Legislature "by a 
two-thirds majority vote of all members elected to each House." If 
changing the majority required for a legislative vote is a "separate and 
unrelated" amendment to the Oregon Constitution, then the kicker 
amendment was and is also invalid. "The validity of amendments can be 
challenged after they are enacted," noted Meek. One Oregon court has 
applied the 10-year "statute of ultimate repose" to such a challenge (to 
the amendment creating the lottery), but the kicker amendment is well 
within the 10-year period.

 

Petition 8 is endorsed by the Oregon Sierra Club, Alliance for 
Democracy, OSPIRG, and many others.

                                                                           -30-


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://oreg.org/pipermail/cfr-announce_oreg.org/attachments/20060426/129eaa7e/attachment.htm