From dan at meek.net Fri Jan 1 20:21:25 2010 From: dan at meek.net (Dan Meek) Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2010 18:21:25 -0800 Subject: [CFR-Clips] Statesman-Journal: Oregon's high court upholds intent of ethics law Message-ID: <4B3EADA5.80702@meek.net> January 1, 2010 Oregon's high court upholds intent of ethics law Ruling prohibits public officials from accepting gifts worth more than $50 / By Peter Wong Statesman Journal/ Lobbyists can offer gifts worth more than $50, but public officials cannot accept them, under a decision issued Thursday by the Oregon Supreme Court. 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. The justices also ruled, however, that the law's restrictions on lobbyists offering gifts violated the state constitutional guarantee of free expression. "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. 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. 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. 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. 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. But the court drew a distinction in this case between campaign contributions and gifts, which it does not consider a form of speech. "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. "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." 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. "The scenario is tantamount to allowing citizens to advertise on the radio but jamming the airwaves to prohibit the audience from listening," DiLorenzo said. 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. Dan Meek, a Portland lawyer who filed a friend-of-the court brief, said the decision "has no practical consequences." 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. "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." 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. State officials have chosen not to implement the 2006 law passed by voters, and Meek is suing the state. 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. "On further reflection, we conclude that that observation was too broad and must be withdrawn," he wrote. /pwong at StatesmanJournal.com or (503) 399-6745/ Additional Facts Link OREGON SUPREME COURT (VanNatta v. Oregon Government Ethics Commission) http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/S057570.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: