[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