Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You should send this info to infowars.com or prisonplanet.tv they have a lot of connection and millions of viewers and followers.I haven't found anywhere that this has been rescinded.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]
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!!!!
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.
Which sheriff or state trooper would step up and begin taking the vermin into custody.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!
Good point indeed...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
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]
Start in lower courts to force the State AG to prosecute with mandatory state funds? Wouldn't that be a hoot?------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
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.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.
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.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!!
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?