County will defend voter-approved contribution limits after all, instead of standing on sidelines.
In
an abrupt about-face, the Multnomah County Board of Commissioners on
April 13 decided to defend the constitutionality of a campaign finance
reform measure overwhelmingly approved by voters.
The
change of stance was announced hours after dozens of reform supporters
packed the board's Thursday morning meeting, protesting an earlier board
decision to not defend the reform measure. Speakers noted repeatedly
that 89 percent of the voters approved the change in November.
The
voters "spoke loud and clear," said Juan Carlos Ordonez, who sat on the
county committee that recommended the charter change. "If you respect
the will of the people you should instruct the lawyers to go defend the
measure."
The
display of mass support for the measure was the culmination of a rapid
organizing effort by lawyers Dan Meek and Jason Kafoury, as well as
other volunteers with the campaign behind it.
"We
thought that through a show of public pressure they would realize they
were making a terrible mistake," said Kafoury, who is a cousin of board
chair Deborah Kafoury.
Initially,
even as reform supporters testified on Thursday morning, the county
released a statement that sought to justify the county's decision the
previous week, while confirming it still would not defend the measure
during the validation proceeding.
By
the end of the day, however, that changed. County lawyers "are going to
defend the measure," said Multnomah County Communication Director Julie
Sullivan-Springhetti on Thursday afternoon.
The
April 13 change of stance did not entail a vote, but rather apparently
was the product of an informal board consensus that was reinforced by
the reformers' passionate testimony.
County
Commissioner Sharon Meieran said she was happy that the board had
"clarified" that it "will definitely be defending the measure in the
validation proceedings before the court."
The
reformers' ire stemmed from a board vote on April 6 to refer Measure
26-184, which amended contribution limits into the county charter, to
Multnomah County Circuit Court to have it constitutionally validated.
The ballot measure had been intended to spark a court challenge,
allowing it to be appealed to the Oregon and U.S. Supreme Courts. There,
it was hoped, the courts would reverse previous decisions that
prohibited limitations on campaign contributions.
The
complaints came because the board approved the county's attorneys' plan
to not defend the measure, but instead stand on the sidelines. While
those who wanted to fight about the measure's constitutionality could
retain a lawyer and do so, the legal team for the county that approved
the measure planned to sit things out.
"We
don't advocate for or against it, we ask a court to tell us what we can
implement, and then we will carry that forward," said Katherine Thomas,
a deputy county attorney, at the April 6 hearing.
Four board members, while affirming their support for campaign finance reform, approved the plan.
Now,
with the board's change of heart, the board still intends to send the
measure for court validation. But it will submit a brief during that
proceeding to support the measure's constitutionality.
"The
Board of County Commissioners is committed to following the will of the
voters by defending the measure in court," says the county's most
recent statement posted online.
The
previous version of the statement issued late Thursday morning only
called for filing a brief defending the board's "support" of the
measure. It did not say it would defend the legality.
The
previous statement issued while critics testified was even weaker,
saying the county would not defend the measure until after the
validation proceeding was over.
On
Thursday afternoon, the county spokeswoman, Sullivan-Springhetti, said
that that earlier wording had been 'incomplete" and "unclear."
The
earlier plan was intended to save the county staff time and funds. It
was based on the calculation that trying to defend the measure as the
reform advocates had sought would require first writing rules to
implement the measure, implementing rules and then enforcing them to
bring on an appeal — which would then would consume legal fees.
After
the April 13 hearing, county staff informed activists that the county
would defend the measure after all, only within the validation
proceeding.
Meek,
the lawyer and campaign finance reform advocate, said he will be
watching to make sure the county's brief is a genuine legal argument and
not a "puff piece."
Supporters
of Measure 26-184 had designed it to give activists a path to revive
campaign contribution limits in Oregon as well as independent
expenditure regulations throughout the entire country.
The
measure limited contributions to $500 in county elections, and also
placed limits on independent expenditures — funds spent on influencing
voters and elections but not directly contributed to a campaign.
The
measure was designed to trigger an appeals fight that could overturn
two precedents that have protected campaign contributions as free
speech. In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United that
the government can't restrict independent expenditures, opening the door
to massive spending by nonprofits that conceal their donors.
And
in 1997, the Oregon Supreme Court struck down contribution limits in
Vannatta v. Keisling. As a result, Oregon is one of only six states to
allow unlimited contributions.
Central
to proponents' hopes on the federal level was the calculation that the
U.S. Supreme Court would have a new justice chosen by a Democratic
president, tipping the balance in favor of contribution limits.
Things
didn't work out that way on the federal level, but the measure could
still give activists another shot at the Oregon Supreme Court.
The county's support means "a much better chance of having it upheld in the courts," Jason Kafoury said.
