<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<!--
--><!-- Core js -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="/GEL/lib/core/core.js"></script>
<script>
GEL.thepage.pageinfo = {
key:"LEGISLATURE",
title:"2009 Legislature",
type:"article",
categorymain:"2009 Legislature",
categoryname:"2009 Legislature",
categoryid:"LEGISLATURE",
url: {
hostname: "<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.statesmanjournal.com">www.statesmanjournal.com</a>",
domainname: "statesmanjournal.com",
domainroot: "statesmanjournal"
},
ssts:{
adsiteid:"or-salem.statesmanjournal.com",
section:"news",
subsection:"politicselections",
topic:"",
subtopic:"",
adpagetype:"index.htm"
},
market: {
name: "Statesman Journal",
state: "OR",
city: "Salem"
}
};
</script>
<title><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.statesmanjournal.com">www.statesmanjournal.com</a> | Printer-friendly article page</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="600">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top"> <font face="arial, helvetica" size="2"><!--PRINTER FRIENDLY ARTICLE--><font
face="verdana,arial" size="1"><big><big>January 1, 2010</big></big></font><br>
</font>
<p><font face="arial, helvetica" size="2"><font
face="Times New Roman, serif" size="5">Oregon's high court upholds
intent of ethics law</font><font size="1"><br>
</font><font size="1"><br>
</font><font face="Times New Roman, Serif" size="4">Ruling
prohibits public officials from accepting gifts worth more than $50<br>
</font><font face="Times New Roman, serif" size="2">
<i><br>
By Peter Wong<br>
Statesman Journal</i>
</font></font></p>
<p><font face="arial, helvetica" size="2">Lobbyists can offer
gifts worth more than $50, but public officials cannot accept them,
under a decision issued Thursday by the Oregon Supreme Court.</font></p>
<p><font face="arial, helvetica" size="2">The justices upheld a
2007 law that restricts the value of gifts from one person to a public
official or close relative to $50 in a calendar year. They ruled that
an official's acceptance of a gift can be restricted because, as
"non-expressive conduct," it is not a violation of the state and
federal constitutional guarantees of free expression.</font></p>
<p><font face="arial, helvetica" size="2">The justices also
ruled, however, that the law's restrictions on lobbyists offering gifts
violated the state constitutional guarantee of free expression.</font></p>
<p><font face="arial, helvetica" size="2">"We accomplished what
we needed to accomplish — getting the gifts out of the legislative
process," said House Speaker Dave Hunt, D-Gladstone, who was majority
leader when the 2007 law was passed.</font></p>
<p><font face="arial, helvetica" size="2">The unanimous decision,
written by Chief Justice Paul De Muniz, upholds in part and overturns
in part an August 2008 ruling by Marion County Circuit Judge Joseph
Guimond that supported all the changes to Oregon's government-ethics
law. The case returns to circuit court for further proceedings.</font></p>
<p><font face="arial, helvetica" size="2">The 2007 Legislature
tightened restrictions on gifts — including meals, lodging and travel —
to public officials and their relatives after news accounts about some
lawmakers taking but not reporting lobbyist-paid trips to Hawaii and
other destinations.</font></p>
<p><font face="arial, helvetica" size="2">Some of the law's other
provisions, especially its reporting requirements, prompted some local
officials to resign volunteer positions, although most complied.
Lawmakers made additional changes in 2009 to deal with some of the
objections. Entertainment, which had been banned under the 2007 law,
was restored in 2009 with a $50 annual limit.</font></p>
<p><font face="arial, helvetica" size="2">The lawsuit was filed
by Fred VanNatta of Salem, a longtime lobbyist who also successfully
challenged a voter-imposed limit on campaign contributions in 1997,
when the court overturned the 1994 limit as a violation of the
free-expression guarantee.</font></p>
<p><font face="arial, helvetica" size="2">But the court drew a
distinction in this case between campaign contributions and gifts,
which it does not consider a form of speech.</font></p>
<p><font face="arial, helvetica" size="2">"Giving a gift to a
public official is not inextricably linked with a public official's
ability to carry out official functions," De Muniz wrote in his opinion.</font></p>
<p><font face="arial, helvetica" size="2">"Public officials can
speak whether or not lobbyists have given them gifts, which
distinguishes this case from VanNatta I (in 1997) and its focus on the
connection between the restriction on campaign contributions and the
candidate's or campaign's ability to communicate a political message.
We agree with the state that the restrictions on receiving gifts
withstand plaintiffs' constitutional challenge because the lobbying
activity on which plaintiffs based their challenge — giving gifts to
public officials — is non-expressive conduct."</font></p>
<p><font face="arial, helvetica" size="2">John DiLorenzo, a
Portland lawyer who represented VanNatta, said he thinks there is still
a case to be made because the ban on officials accepting gifts valued
at more than $50 nullifies the right of a lobbyist to offer them.</font></p>
<p><font face="arial, helvetica" size="2">"The scenario is
tantamount to allowing citizens to advertise on the radio but jamming
the airwaves to prohibit the audience from listening," DiLorenzo said.</font></p>
<p><font face="arial, helvetica" size="2">He said he may ask the
court to reconsider part of the case — a step the court rarely takes —
because the justices did not deal with a distinction between lobbyists
and others seeking to influence public officials' actions.</font></p>
<p><font face="arial, helvetica" size="2">Dan Meek, a Portland
lawyer who filed a friend-of-the court brief, said the decision "has no
practical consequences."</font></p>
<p><font face="arial, helvetica" size="2">Meek said most states
limit gifts to officeholders and candidates, and "it is good that the
court upheld the limits." But Oregon is one of a handful of states that
do not limit campaign contributions.</font></p>
<p><font face="arial, helvetica" size="2">"As our brief in the
case demonstrated, the lobbyists can provide the same benefits to
public officials and candidates ... in the form of 'campaign
contributions,' which the Legislature has chosen not to restrict," Meek
said. "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."</font></p>
<p><font face="arial, helvetica" size="2">Meek was one of the
chief supporters of a pair of 2006 ballot measures that would have
restricted campaign contributions. Voters approved legal limits under
one measure, but rejected a companion constitutional amendment that
would allow such regulation despite Oregon's free-expression guarantee,
under which the court has interpreted contributions as a form of
protected expression.</font></p>
<p><font face="arial, helvetica" size="2">State officials have
chosen not to implement the 2006 law passed by voters, and Meek is
suing the state.</font></p>
<p><font face="arial, helvetica" size="2">In his opinion, De
Muniz drew back from the assertion in the court's 1997 decision that
campaign contributions are protected as a form of free expression
regardless of the "ultimate use to which the contribution is put." He
said that statement was not necessary to support the 1997 ruling.</font></p>
<p><font face="arial, helvetica" size="2">"On further reflection,
we conclude that that observation was too broad and must be withdrawn,"
he wrote.</font></p>
<p><font face="arial, helvetica" size="2"><i><a
href="mailto:pwong@StatesmanJournal.com">pwong@StatesmanJournal.com</a>
or (503) 399-6745</i></font></p>
<font face="arial, helvetica" size="2"><font
face="Times New Roman, serif" size="5">Additional Facts</font></font>
<div class="sidebar-related"><font face="arial, helvetica"
size="2"> <font face="Times New Roman, serif" size="2">Link</font> </font>
<p></p>
<p><font face="arial, helvetica" size="2">OREGON SUPREME COURT</font></p>
<p><font face="arial, helvetica" size="2">(VanNatta v. Oregon
Government Ethics Commission)</font><br>
</p>
<p><font face="arial, helvetica" size="2"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/S057570.htm">http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/S057570.htm</a></font><br>
</p>
<div class="clear"></div>
</div>
<font face="arial, helvetica" size="2"> </font>
<hr noshade="noshade" size="1">
<script>
if (!window.print) {
document.write('<br>To print this article open the file menu and choose Print.<br>');
} else { window.print(); }
</script> </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<noscript> </noscript>
<script type="text/javascript">GEL.thepage.initializer.init();</script>
</body>
</html>