Oregon Oregon Constitution, Art 2, Sec 22 This could be Big!!

[alv7722]

Alv7722 - I would be interested in where you found the $$ numbers.

Bj Soper

 

[BradR]

I haven't found anywhere that this has been rescinded. It states that if an elected official receives more than 10% of their campaign contributions from out of their district, (I would also assume state) their office is forfeit. Sec 3 states that entities that pass money through from out of district are committing a felony!! (Everytown??) Our Governess received approx. 22M in donations, 7M of which were from out of state. Anybody got any ideas???? (To Mods: this relates to criminal behavior, and should be non-partisan)

Section 22[edit]
Political campaign contribution limitations.

Section (1)[edit]
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.
Section (2)[edit]
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.
Section (3)[edit]
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.
Section (4)[edit]
A violation of Section (3) shall be an unclassified felony.[annotations 8][notes 4]

You should send this info to infowars.com or prisonplanet.tv they have a lot of connection and millions of viewers and followers.

 

[ob1]

No recall necessary, if more than 10% comes from outside their district and is proven to be true, they forfeit their office, period. And are banned from holding office for a period of 2X the term they sought or were elected to. It's a great provision and might just be a way to get some of these legislators out of office. What a way to shake Oregon up!!!!

And all bogus legislative emergencies, evil spells and incantations disappear.​

 

[pdxwarren]

Before going too far down this path you may want to find out how much money, and to whom, that gun rights groups have donated to Oregon politicians. We don't want to lose anyone on OUR side while attempting to cause trouble for others. Unintended consequences can be brutal.

 

[MAJMOX]

This is a great thread. Let's keep up the pressure on this administration as long as they attempt to infringe on our 2nd Amendment Rights!
Here are some stats from a Forbes article from October 31, 2018 by Adam Andrzejewski on Governor Brown's Corporate Donors (defined as companies, key executives or their affiliated employees). At the time of this article, she had $2.6M on-hand. So we'd need to prove ~$260,000 (10%) came from outside Oregon to show she violated the constitution:

Nike, Inc. (Local) $134,365

Bloomberg LP (New York, NY) $250,000

AT&T (Dallas, Texas) $10,000)

Pacific Source Health (Local) $6,224

CH2M Hill (Englewood, CO) $4,700

Alaska Air (Seattle, Washington) $3,500

Hewlett Packard (Palo Alto, CA) $2,000

Pitney Bowes (Stamford, CT) $2,000

That's $272,200 total.

We need the data for the time period after this article was written to be fully sure, but directionally, it looks like there's more than 10% from outside sources. This also doesn't include individual donors (non-corporate) from outside Oregon. We need more data.

 

[jayR]

I was only able to get the first 5k records from Kate Brown on Welcome to ORESTAR

Here's a screen shot of a pivot table with cash contributions by State of contributor.. Seems like a slam dunk.

 

[ob1]

Before going too far down this path you may want to find out how much money, and to whom, that gun rights groups have donated to Oregon politicians. We don't want to lose anyone on OUR side while attempting to cause trouble for others. Unintended consequences can be brutal.

You have a point there.

However I would think that the amounts contributed to "Pro-Gun" politicians in this state would pale in comparison to those sent to anti's. If we were seeing real close "squeakers" in elections between pro's and anti's, that would be more of an issue. The anti's have an overwhelming majority, and the numerical majority of votes win. Those numbers are not about to change in the foreseeable future

Personally, I feel that when you look at the relative effectiveness of those pro-gun politicians, our energy would be best spent on taking out some of the queen bee's. The chance of a knock out blow at the top of the power base should not be squandered, it would send an unmistakable message trickling down to the House and Senate. That is where all the big money is going and the damage is being done, as Michael Bloomberg's accountant could tell you.

We are in this for our rights and the time left to us is short.... not to protect a minority of politicians who may take our side at some given point. Keep thinking outside of the box.

 

[torpedoman]

Seems to me that all you need is a good sheriff or any state trooper to arrest he and charge her with the crime then let the courts take over

 

[nammac]

Seems to me that all you need is a good sheriff or any state trooper to arrest he and charge her with the crime then let the courts take over

Which sheriff or state trooper would step up and begin taking the vermin into custody.

Think about it for a moment, imagine Bloomberg's and Soros millions wasted in Oregon because we have a Constitution that forbids their interference....

I'd love to see video of them being walked out of the marble nuthouse in chrome bracelets, destined for a cell and trial for their misdeeds...

Talk about justice!

 

[pdxwarren]

Which sheriff or state trooper would step up and begin taking the vermin into custody.

Think about it for a moment, imagine Bloomberg's and Soros millions wasted in Oregon because we have a Constitution that forbids their interference....

I'd love to see video of them being walked out of the marble nuthouse in chrome bracelets, destined for a cell and trial for their misdeeds...

Talk about justice!

Probably not illegal to GIVE the money, just illegal to receive it.

 

[torpedoman]

you live there and were harmed by their actions so you have standing to request that charges be filed and action taken so get on your phone and get it done

 

[nammac]

you live there and were harmed by their actions so you have standing to request that charges be filed and action taken so get on your phone and get it done

Good point indeed...

Talk about disruptin' The Progressives...

 

[1Asterisk]

You may want to go back and read the links provided by BillM and Arakboss -

Fred Vannatta George Boehnke Center to Protect Free Speech, Inc. v. Phil Keisling, in His..., 151 F.3d 1215 – CourtListener.com
This was measure 6 in 1994. It was overturned by the Oregon Supreme Court. The OSC ruling was upheld by the 9th Circuit.
Measure 9 was also on the ballot in 1994. It also was overturned by the OSC, and on appeal, Sections 3, 4, 11, 14, 15, 16, and 17 of Measure 9 were voided by the 9th Circuit.

Measure 6 was the measure containing the sections relating to the '10% of total contributions' limit.

There is an [PDF] Oregon Law Review Spring 1999 – Volume 78, Number 1 titled 'OBSTACLES TO OREGON CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM: VANNATTA V. KEISLING' which discusses the results. In a nutshell, "However, campaign finance reform efforts in Oregon, specifically Measure 6 and Measure 9, faced challenges at both the state and federal levels. In the federal court litigation, proponents of reform were defeated when Measure 6 was declared unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. Then, in February 1997, the Oregon Supreme Court, in Vannatta v. Keisling, declared Measure 9 unconstitutional in part for violating Article I, Section 8 of the Oregon Constitution. These decisions return the state campaign financing system to the way it was before the measures passed in 1994; the result is one step backward for those seeking reform".

My questions is [still] why is this in the Oregon Constitution if the specific sections were overturned?

 

[gjwill46]

I haven't found anywhere that this has been rescinded. It states that if an elected official receives more than 10% of their campaign contributions from out of their district, (I would also assume state) their office is forfeit. Sec 3 states that entities that pass money through from out of district are committing a felony!! (Everytown??) Our Governess received approx. 22M in donations, 7M of which were from out of state. Anybody got any ideas???? (To Mods: this relates to criminal behavior, and should be non-partisan)

Section 22[edit]
Political campaign contribution limitations.

Section (1)[edit]
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.
Section (2)[edit]
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.
Section (3)[edit]
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.
Section (4)[edit
A violation of Section (3) shall be an unclassified felony.[annotations 8][notes 4]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I questioned my Republican Representative on this issue. This is his reply.
GJW
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Gary,

I'm no law expert but I understand that the ballot measure in 1994 that gave us that part of the Oregon Constitution was found "unconstitutional" by the 9th Circuit Court in 1997 and reversed.

Regardless, it's not going to matter because the Democrats are all over the judicial system. Who's going to win in court against Brown? Who's got the money to run the lawsuit?

Need to beat her the old fashioned way, at the ballot box.

Thank you,

Representative Bill Post

House District 25
503-986-1425

 

[bentoncity]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I questioned my Republican Representative on this issue. This is his reply.
GJW
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Gary, Who's got the money to run the lawsuit?
Need to beat her the old fashioned way, at the ballot box.
Representative Bill Post

Start in lower courts to force the State AG to prosecute with mandatory state funds? Wouldn't that be a hoot?
Ballot box after much super bad publicity & revelations of illegal activity are a huge help to drive the last nail in the coffin.

Dan

 

[stogeymike]

If you are serious about it, first get some legal advice to make sure your interpretation is correct. You might reach out to groups like Oregon Catalysts or Taxpayer Association of Oregon to bridge the gap between finding people to interpret the language, and what to do next.

If you just send it to the AG, that will be the end of the story. If there is actual teeth in it, she won't act unless there is outside pressure to do so. i.e. media starts reporting on it and asking questions. Especially the ones running stories on Oregon campaign financing.

I echo the Lars Larson reply. Also, a link for all NW Firearms members to respond to would be great. Makes it easier for a greater number to comment.

 

[olyroller]

Go get 'em guys. I wonder if there is such a law in Washington?

 

[MarshalChillN]

It would be so sweet to see Gov. Inslee ousted from office just as he's thinking of a Presidential bid !!! What a blow to his ego !!!! LOL

 

[Rodrob]

I finally got hold of a 'Michelle' at the elections division. 503-986-1518. She said they are getting a 'LOT' of calls about this issue. And, essentially, they haven't formulated a response yet!!! They will call back, tomorrow or Monday!!

Don't sit too long waiting for the phone to ring. Politicians are all alike, crooked. Look at the state below Oregon and above (WA). We've got king county that' rules the roost here and we have a left wing AG to boot. At least our commie governor is up against term limits that's why he wants to run for President.

 

[alv7722]

Fred Vannatta George Boehnke Center to Protect Free Speech, Inc. v. Phil Keisling, in His..., 151 F.3d 1215 – CourtListener.com
This was measure 6 in 1994. It was overturned by the Oregon Supreme Court. The OSC ruling was upheld by the 9th Circuit.
Measure 9 was also on the ballot in 1994. It also was overturned by the OSC, and on appeal, Sections 3, 4, 11, 14, 15, 16, and 17 of Measure 9 were voided by the 9th Circuit.

Measure 6 was the measure containing the sections relating to the '10% of total contributions' limit.

There is an [PDF] Oregon Law Review Spring 1999 – Volume 78, Number 1 titled 'OBSTACLES TO OREGON CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM: VANNATTA V. KEISLING' which discusses the results. In a nutshell, "However, campaign finance reform efforts in Oregon, specifically Measure 6 and Measure 9, faced challenges at both the state and federal levels. In the federal court litigation, proponents of reform were defeated when Measure 6 was declared unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. Then, in February 1997, the Oregon Supreme Court, in Vannatta v. Keisling, declared Measure 9 unconstitutional in part for violating Article I, Section 8 of the Oregon Constitution. These decisions return the state campaign financing system to the way it was before the measures passed in 1994; the result is one step backward for those seeking reform".

My questions is [still] why is this in the Oregon Constitution if the specific sections were overturned?

The decision does not appear to include Sec 22. The measure also had a severability clause. Parts not explicitly struck down, should remain in effect???