[CFR-Announce] Oregon Supreme Court Upholds Limits on Lobbyist Gifts to Public Officials, Legislators
Dan Meek
dan at meek.net
Thu Dec 31 12:44:27 CST 2009
December 31, 2009
OREGON SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS LIMITS ON LOBBYIST GIFTS TO PUBLIC
OFFICIALS AND LEGISLATORS
BUT THE LIMITS HAVE NO PRACTICAL EFFECT IN OREGON'S REGIME OF UNLIMITED
CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND VIRTUALLY NO LIMITS ON HOW THEY ARE SPENT
The Oregon Supreme Court today issued its opinion in /Vannatta v.
Oregon Government Ethics Commission/, in which lobbyists challenged the
constitutionality of the limits on gifts, entertainment (meals, golf,
etc.), and honoraria that (1) lobbyists (or anyone with a particular
economic interest in government action, including legislation) can give
to public officeholders or candidates for public office or (2) public
officeholders or candidates can receive.
The opinion is at:
http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/supreme.htm#dec09
[This press release is the initial reaction of the attorneys for Amicus
Curiae in the case. The opinion is not a simple one, so there may be
another press release later.]
Under a statute enacted in 2007, the limit on gifts from any person to
any officeholder or candidate (or to their close relative) is $50 per
year. Providing "entertainment" is limited to $50 per year per
recipient. Honoraria (usually speaking fees) are limited to $50 per
recipient per occasion.
The Court upheld the limits on what public officeholders or candidates
can receive as gifts, entertainment, or honoraria. The Court struck down
those same limits as applied to what persons can offer to give to public
officeholders or candidates. The result is that, while anyone can now
offer unlimited gifts, entertainment, or honoraria, Oregon public
officials and candidates cannot accept such offers which exceed the
statutory limits. Thus, the offering becomes moot.
An extensive amicus brief was filed by seven individual Oregon voters,
several of whom were chief petitioners on the most recent statewide
campaign finance reform initiatives (in 2006). This brief is available
at http://fairelections.net/court/gifts
"These limits on gifts, speaking fees, gifts, and other benefits for
officeholders and candidates are clearly valid," said Dan Meek, an
attorney on the amicus brief. "Nearly all states and the federal
government either prohibit or have low limits on gifts to public
officeholders."
"While it is good that the Court upheld the limits, that will have
little or no effect in practice," said Meek. "As our brief in the case
demonstrated, the lobbyists can provide the same benefits to public
officials and candidates (gifts, entertainment, and even honoraria in
the form of consulting fees) in the form of "campaign contributions,"
which the Legislature has chosen not to restrict. Some of the
widely-publicized legislator luxury trips to Hawaii were actually paid
for with campaign contributions, and today's Court decision will not
prevent such trips in the future. "Until the Secretary of State or
Attorney General starts enforcing Measure 47, enacted by the voters of
Oregon in 2006, lobbyists can continue to use big money to buy influence
with government."
Oregon voters in 2006 enacted in Measure 47 the nation's most
comprehensive and strict system of limits on political campaign
contributions and expenditures, including a ban on using campaign
contributions for anything other than reaching voters during the
campaign. But the Secretary of State and Attorney General of Oregon are
refusing to enforce the limits. The Chief Petitioners on Measure 47 are
suing those government officials to require them to enforce the law.
That case is before the Oregon Court of Appeals. Until that law is
enforced, Oregon remains effectively one of only 4 states without limits
on campaign contributions, which in Oregon can be used for almost any
purpose, including:
1. for any campaign-related purpose, including taking
extended luxury trips to Hawaii or elsewhere to meet with potential
contributors;
2. to pay "any expenses incurred in connection with the
person's duties as a holder of public office," including unrestricted
payments to friends or relatives for office work; and
3. to repay to a candidate any loan the proceeds of which
were used in connection with the candidate's campaign.
This last category means that a campaign contributions can be deposited
directly into the personal bank account of the candidate or former
candidate.
In addition, campaign contributions have ended up in the pockets of
sitting legislators. For example:
The political action committee for the House Republicans' caucus
reported Friday that it paid Rep. Karen Minnis, a caucus member, $2,700
for campaign consulting services this month.
Minnis, R-Wood Village, donated $10,000 to the caucus' PAC, Promote
Oregon Leadership PAC, in December. She formed a consulting business,
Karen Minnis and Associates, that month and the caucus committee has now
paid her $15,500 for consulting services.
House Republicans Pay Minnis $2,700, Oregonian (August 23, 2008);
http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2008/08/house_republicans_pay_minnis_2.html.
For more information:
Daniel Meek, attorney
(503) 293-9021
dan at fairelections.net Linda Williams, attorney
(503) 293-0399
linda at fairelections.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oreg.org/pipermail/cfr-announce_oreg.org/attachments/20091231/3f2f8b9e/attachment.html>
More information about the CFR-Announce
mailing list