- Messages
- 1,110
- Reactions
- 992
Besides telling Lars, Kevin Starrett @O.F.F. and
Senators Dennis Linthicum & Kim Thatcher should know too.
Senators Dennis Linthicum & Kim Thatcher should know too.
JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Oregon Oregon Constitution, Art 2, Sec 22 This could be Big!!
- Thread Starter alv7722
- Start date
-
- Tags
- constitution oregon
- Messages
- 13,100
- Reactions
- 46,648
How about Bill Post, could be a strong ally as well...
Nothing would make me happier than to see the lid blown off campaign financing in Oregon. Time to start making law makers live by the laws they have created...
- Messages
- 839
- Reactions
- 1,746
I would start with Senator Kim Thatcher. She's a sharp cookie and already has Ms. Brown in her crosshairs.
- Messages
- 13,100
- Reactions
- 46,648
Ron Brown...Watch your 6 boy, they may just send in the Gestapo after you if you start to stir this pot.
you may end up like that Clinton guy who seemed to have committed suicide by shooting himself in the back of the head.
- Messages
- 37,259
- Reactions
- 128,553
Watch your 6 boy, they may just send in the Gestapo after you if you start to stir this pot.
you may end up like that Clinton guy who seemed to have committed suicide by shooting himself in the back of the head.
Yeah... six shots, no less!
- Messages
- 1,110
- Reactions
- 992
Plus Vince Foster, Kathy Ferguson, her boyfriend Sherwood Police Officer Bill Shelton,
and Kevin Ives and Don Henry on the train track ala Mena/ Barry Seal.
BUT THIS BELONGS IN A SEPARATE THREAD...
Back on topic.
alv722
Any Updates?
- Messages
- 5,749
- Reactions
- 18,151
I went back and did good old Chuck Riley's 10.5%
Im back, a-hole
Im back, a-hole
- Messages
- 13,100
- Reactions
- 46,648
Yea, good ole Chuck is solidly Bloomberg's boy, bought and paid for. Dear God, please let there be clear evidence of out of state funding to his campaign, nothing would be sweeter than to see him removed from office for this reason... Talk about pure karma!!!
I asked my Representative (district 23) about Article II section 22 and he replied:
"This provision in the Constitution was declared in violation of the US Constitution."
Asked him if he had any cites on the case law declaring it unconstitutional and asked why, if it has been declared unconstitutional it is still in the constitution with no note or footnote to that effect.
Waiting for a reply.
If you go to votesmart.org you can check campaign finances on elected officials.
So far every one I've checked-- both the "bad" and the "good"--has exceeded
the 10% limit on out of state contributions.
"This provision in the Constitution was declared in violation of the US Constitution."
Asked him if he had any cites on the case law declaring it unconstitutional and asked why, if it has been declared unconstitutional it is still in the constitution with no note or footnote to that effect.
Waiting for a reply.
If you go to votesmart.org you can check campaign finances on elected officials.
So far every one I've checked-- both the "bad" and the "good"--has exceeded
the 10% limit on out of state contributions.
- Messages
- 5,152
- Reactions
- 11,450
re: "declared in violation of the US Constitution"
Hope further evidence accumulates rapidly that such is not the case.
- Messages
- 13,100
- Reactions
- 46,648
From Ballotopia:
Section 22
Text of Section 22:
Political Campaign Contribution Limitations
(1) For purposes of campaigning for an elected public office, a candidate may use or direct only contributions which originate from individuals who at the time of their donation were residents of the electoral district of the public office sought by the candidate, unless the contribution consists of volunteer time, information provided to the candidate, or funding provided by federal, state, or local government for purposes of campaigning for an elected public office.
(2) Where more than ten percent (10%) of a candidate's total campaign funding is in violation of Section (1), and the candidate is subsequently elected, the elected official shall forfeit the office and shall not hold a subsequent elected public office for a period equal to twice the tenure of the office sought. Where more than ten percent (10%) of a candidate's total campaign funding is in violation of Section (1) and the candidate is not elected, the unelected candidate shall not hold a subsequent elected public office for a period equal to twice the tenure of the office sought.
(3) A qualified donor (an individual who is a resident within the electoral district of the office sought by the candidate) shall not contribute to a candidate's campaign any restricted contributions of Section (1) received from an unqualified donor for the purpose of contributing to a candidate's campaign for elected public office. An unqualified donor (an entity which is not an individual and who is not a resident of the electoral district of the office sought by the candidate) shall not give any restricted contributions of Section (1) to a qualified donor for the purpose of contributing to a candidate's campaign for elected public office.
(4) A violation of Section (3) shall be an unclassified felony.[1]
Amendments
So, it looks like it's truly a real and currently active part of the Oregon Constitution... Searching the web turned up nothing indicating it to be unconstitutional in regards to the United States Constitution. Having said that, I'm just a schmuck with a keyboard and mediocre searching skills, so take it for what it's worth...
Section 22
Text of Section 22:
Political Campaign Contribution Limitations
(1) For purposes of campaigning for an elected public office, a candidate may use or direct only contributions which originate from individuals who at the time of their donation were residents of the electoral district of the public office sought by the candidate, unless the contribution consists of volunteer time, information provided to the candidate, or funding provided by federal, state, or local government for purposes of campaigning for an elected public office.
(2) Where more than ten percent (10%) of a candidate's total campaign funding is in violation of Section (1), and the candidate is subsequently elected, the elected official shall forfeit the office and shall not hold a subsequent elected public office for a period equal to twice the tenure of the office sought. Where more than ten percent (10%) of a candidate's total campaign funding is in violation of Section (1) and the candidate is not elected, the unelected candidate shall not hold a subsequent elected public office for a period equal to twice the tenure of the office sought.
(3) A qualified donor (an individual who is a resident within the electoral district of the office sought by the candidate) shall not contribute to a candidate's campaign any restricted contributions of Section (1) received from an unqualified donor for the purpose of contributing to a candidate's campaign for elected public office. An unqualified donor (an entity which is not an individual and who is not a resident of the electoral district of the office sought by the candidate) shall not give any restricted contributions of Section (1) to a qualified donor for the purpose of contributing to a candidate's campaign for elected public office.
(4) A violation of Section (3) shall be an unclassified felony.[1]
Amendments
- Created through initiative petition filed Jan. 25, 1993, and adopted by the people Nov. 8, 1994.
So, it looks like it's truly a real and currently active part of the Oregon Constitution... Searching the web turned up nothing indicating it to be unconstitutional in regards to the United States Constitution. Having said that, I'm just a schmuck with a keyboard and mediocre searching skills, so take it for what it's worth...
Where have I seen that argument before..................Oh ya, the whole 2A "Shall not be infringed" thing. But why do we still have to keep fighting for our right to bear arms then? The original source of "Shall not be infringed" seems much more clear than his argument, and I trust the written Constitution more than his statement/opinion.
- Messages
- 2,158
- Reactions
- 5,883
- Messages
- 24,571
- Reactions
- 37,285
Rep. Nearnman will give you a straight scoop on whether this is actionable or not?
- Messages
- 24,571
- Reactions
- 37,285
http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/campaign-finance-and-the-supreme-court.aspx
"Though states must foot the bill and institute provisions for elections and any campaign finance regulations, the federal government retains judicial review over these in the form of U.S. Supreme Court rulings. Binding for all 50 states, these decisions oftentimes force states to amend or completely change their election protocols. Each state is also subject to decisions from both local and federal courts."
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976)
Significance: Contribution limits are constitutional, expenditure limits are not.
Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U.S. 377 (2000)
Significance: States can also limit the amount of money that any one individual or group can contribute to a state campaign.
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, 134 S.Ct. 1434 (2014)
Significance: States can place a limit on how much any individual or group contributes to any one campaign, but cannot impose aggregate limits on how much and individual or group contributes to all campaigns during an election cycle.
"Though states must foot the bill and institute provisions for elections and any campaign finance regulations, the federal government retains judicial review over these in the form of U.S. Supreme Court rulings. Binding for all 50 states, these decisions oftentimes force states to amend or completely change their election protocols. Each state is also subject to decisions from both local and federal courts."
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976)
Significance: Contribution limits are constitutional, expenditure limits are not.
Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U.S. 377 (2000)
Significance: States can also limit the amount of money that any one individual or group can contribute to a state campaign.
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, 134 S.Ct. 1434 (2014)
Significance: States can place a limit on how much any individual or group contributes to any one campaign, but cannot impose aggregate limits on how much and individual or group contributes to all campaigns during an election cycle.
Last Edited:
- Messages
- 24,571
- Reactions
- 37,285
Would Gov. Brown be excluded from this since she doesn't have a specific "district" other than the State? It just seems to good to be true, but if it is legit it would be a great reason for a recall effort if there is no other mode of enforcement?
- Messages
- 24,571
- Reactions
- 37,285
This news is bad for my idea of people from other districts helping out candidates in close race districts. Fortunately it would still allow us to volunteer for campaigns in other districts but will eliminate options for donating $ to other campaigns
Upcoming Events
New Classified Ads
-
-
Mossberg 590 12GA Persuader 8+1 20" never fired $300
- Started by IndyPrepper
- Replies: 0
-
Hornady 45 Caliber 200 gr. FTX Bullets
- Started by KIRK ROENFELDT
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-