<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<p style="text-align: center;"><img
src="cid:part1.06020109.03020507@meek.net" alt="" align="top"
height="90" width="750"></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"> <font
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><span
style="font-family: 'Arial',sans-serif;"><span
style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size: 16pt;">May 18, 2010</span></span></span><br>
</font></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><span
style="font-family: 'Univers',sans-serif;"><span
style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size: 16pt;">U.S. SUPREME
COURT DECLINES TO REVIEW OREGON DECISION UPHOLDING LIMITS ON LOBBYIST
GIFTS TO PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND LEGISLATORS</span></span></span> </font></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><span
style="font-family: 'Univers',sans-serif;"><span
style="font-size: 13pt;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">BUT THE
LIMITS HAVE NO PRACTICAL EFFECT IN OREGON’S REGIME</span></span></span>
<span style="font-family: 'Univers',sans-serif;"><span
style="font-size: 13pt;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">OF UNLIMITED
CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS</span></span></span><span
style="font-family: 'Univers',sans-serif;"><span
style="font-size: 13pt;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"> AND
VIRTUALLY NO LIMITS ON</span></span></span><span
style="font-family: 'Univers',sans-serif;"><span
style="font-size: 13pt;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"> HOW THEY
ARE SPENT</span></span></span></font></p>
<p><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><span
style="font-family: 'Arial',sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Yesterday,
the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the December 2009 decision of
the Oregon Supreme Court in <i><span style="font-weight: bold;">Vannatta
v. Oregon Government Ethics Commission</span></i>, 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 U.S.
Supreme Court's denial of review ("certiorari") has the effect of
upholding the decision of the Oregon Supreme Court.<br>
</span></span></font></p>
<p><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><span
style="font-family: 'Arial',sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">The
opinion of the Oregon Supreme Court is at:</span></span> <a
href="http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/supreme.htm#dec09"><span
style="font-family: 'Arial',sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span
style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);"><span
style="text-decoration: underline;">http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/supreme.htm#dec09</span></span></span></span></a><br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">The U.S. Supreme Court's
denial of review is at: <a
href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/051710zor.pdf">http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/051710zor.pdf</a>
(page 5)<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><span
style="font-family: 'Arial',sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span
style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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.</span></span></span></font></p>
<p><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><span
style="font-family: 'Arial',sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span
style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">The Oregon Supreme 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 <span style="text-decoration: underline;">offer</span>
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 <span
style="text-decoration: underline;">accept</span> such offers which
exceed the statutory limits. Thus, the offering becomes moot.</span></span></span> </font></p>
<p style="margin-left: 0.4in;"><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><span
style="font-family: 'Arial',sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span
style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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 </span></span></span><a
href="http://fairelections.net/court/gifts"><span
style="font-family: 'Arial',sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span
style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);"><span
style="text-decoration: underline;">http://fairelections.net/court/gifts</span></span></span></span></a></font></p>
<p><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><span
style="font-family: 'Arial',sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span
style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“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."</span></span></span></font></p>
<p><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><span
style="font-family: 'Arial',sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span
style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“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
yesterday's U.S. Supreme Court order 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.”</span></span></span> </font></p>
<p><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><span
style="font-family: 'Arial',sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span
style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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:</span></span></span> </font></p>
<p style="text-indent: -0.8in; margin-left: 0.8in;"><font
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><span
style="font-family: 'Arial',sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span
style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span> </span>1.<span> </span>for
any campaign-related purpose, including taking extended luxury trips to
Hawaii or elsewhere to meet with potential contributors;</span></span></span> </font></p>
<p style="text-indent: -0.8in; margin-left: 0.8in;"><font
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><span
style="font-family: 'Arial',sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span
style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span> </span>2.<span> </span>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</span></span></span> </font></p>
<p style="text-indent: -0.8in; margin-left: 0.8in;"><font
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><span
style="font-family: 'Arial',sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span
style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span> </span>3.<span> </span>to
repay to a candidate any loan the proceeds of which were used in
connection with the candidate’s campaign.</span></span></span></font></p>
<p><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"> <span
style="font-family: 'Arial',sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span
style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">This last category means that a campaign
contributions can be deposited directly</span></span></span> <span
style="font-family: 'Arial',sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span
style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">into the personal bank account of the
candidate or former candidate.</span></span></span></font></p>
<p><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"> <span
style="font-family: 'Arial',sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span
style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">In addition, campaign contributions have
ended up in the pockets of sitting legislators. For example:</span></span></span></font><font
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"> </font></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
<p style="margin-left: 0.4in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span
style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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.</span></span></p>
</span></p>
<p style="margin-left: 0.4in;"><span
style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> <span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span
style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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.</span></span></span></p>
<p><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><span
style="font-family: 'Arial',sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span
style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">House Republicans Pay Minnis $2,700,
Oregonian (August 23, 2008);</span></span></span> <a
href="http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2008/08/house_republicans_pay_minnis_2.html"><span
style="font-family: 'Arial',sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span
style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2008/08/house_republicans_pay_mi</span></span></span></a><span
style="font-family: 'Arial',sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span
style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><a
href="http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2008/08/house_republicans_pay_minnis_2.html">nnis_2.html</a>.</span></span></span></font></p>
<p><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"> </font></p>
<p><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><span
style="font-size: medium;">For more information:<br>
</span></font></p>
<table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1"
width="80%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><span
style="font-size: medium;"><span><span style="font-family: Arial;">Daniel
Meek, attorney<br>
(503) 293-9021<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:dan@fairelections.net">dan@fairelections.net</a></span></span></span></font></td>
<td><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><span
style="font-size: medium;"><span><span style="font-family: Arial;">Linda
Williams, attorney<br>
(503) 293-0399<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:linda@fairelections.net">linda@fairelections.net</a></span></span><span><span
style="font-family: Arial;"><br>
</span></span></span></font></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"> </font></p>
<br>
</body>
</html>