Despite advocates' request, commissioners won't follow voter-approved rules while they are on appeal
Multnomah
County will join supporters of campaign contribution limits in
appealing a local judge's ruling against 2016 campaign finance reforms
that were approved by 89 percent of voters.
And
if anything, the activists behind passage of the measure plan to step
up their efforts despite an 11-page ruling that was issued by Multnomah
Circuit Judge Eric Bloch calling the limits a violation of the
free-speech clause of Oregon's Constitution.
The
advocates say they intend to keep pressing for a similar set of reforms
at Portland City Hall and are prepared to pursue a statewide measure if
necessary. Currently, Oregon is one of only a handful of states that
does not limit campaign contributions.
One
thing the reformers don't have to worry about? Backup. County
Communications Director Julie Sullivan-Springhetti said that in light of
the voters' clear preference, county Chair Deborah Kafoury already has
informed the county's lawyers that the county will appeal as well.
The
new round of litigation should not be a shock to anyone. Supporters of
the Multnomah charter reform measure, 26-184, had expected their rules
to be appealed to a higher court all along — despite being hopeful that
they'd win on the local level.
The
rules contained in the measure were specifically crafted by advocates
to be appealed all the way up to the Oregon Supreme Court and even the
U.S. Supreme Court, to overturn rulings at both locations that have
frustrated reformers.
"We
view Judge Bloch's decision as just a preliminary ruling," said
Portland lawyer Jason Kafoury, one of the lead organizers of the county
campaign limits. Though he is a cousin to the county chair, he says the
two have never discussed the limits.
"It's
not a final ruling because he's not the final say," the lawyer added.
"The Supreme Court's the final say. ... We are not going to retreat in
the face of his opinion."
Bloch's
March 6 decision was even worse than the activists had feared, however.
It not only shot down the measure's $500 contribution limits but panned
a clause requiring independent expenditure campaigns to disclose who
was funding them.
"I was very surprised at that part of it," Jason Kafoury said.
But
the activists are finding cause to celebrate. For one thing, in the
seven months it took Bloch to issue a ruling, the county has implanted
the rules called for by the reform measure.
That
makes it easier for advocates to try to keep them going, and they
intend to go directly to candidates to ask them to consider the lopsided
outcome of the charter reform vote.
"We're going to ask candidates to continue to follow the law," Jason Kafoury said.
It's
unclear how that will go over. Three of the county's five commissioners
did not respond to emails asking their thoughts on Kafoury's push.
District 3 Commissioner Jessica Vega Pederson said that while she
supports the county's appeal, she's only 15 months into her term and is
not ready to commit to limiting her contributions. "There are benefits
and drawbacks to voluntarily capping contributions," she said in an
email. "My potential opponents wouldn't have to adhere to any limits
given the ruling."
Chair
Deborah Kafoury said in an email that while she supports campaign
finance reform and has directed County Attorney Jenny Madkour to appeal,
she won't follow the limits unless they are upheld.
"As
it stands today, much of the amendment has been found unlawful," said
Chair Kafoury, who is running for reelection. "As a candidate, I'll
follow what is legal and Constitutional at the time."
Commissioner
Lori Stegmann also said in an email she does not plan to honor the
limits, saying that while she plans to seek broad-based grassroots
support in any future campaign, "the reality is that it takes a certain
amount of money to be a viable candidate."
Jason
Kafoury says there is some good news: Bloch ruled that an outside group
funded by well-known conservative activists in the Koch family, the
Virginia-based Center for Competitive Politics, did not file to join the
suit in time.
That
means that the anti-reform group's efforts to throw out several
testimonials by Oregon politicians about the insidious influence of
large campaign contributions won't be honored, and the politicos'
affidavit can be considered during the appeals process. Those include
current and former state lawmakers Mitch Greenlick, Jo Ann Hardesty and
Chip Shields, and former Multnomah County Chair Diane Linn.
Some
donors "made it clear that if I took a position on an issue in which
they had an interest, they would base future support on my adherence to
their position," Linn wrote in her affidavit. "As public officials, we
clearly spent more time with large donors and potential major givers,
attempting to meet their expectations and provide deference. ... You
felt you had no choice but to play the game, or lose to someone who
would play it."
Calling for a replay
The big hurdle the reformers and the county face is the 1997 Oregon Supreme Court ruling, Vannatta v. Keisling.
The
ruling relied on a previous precedent saying that the Oregon
Constitution's free-speech clause could only be restricted if there was
ample precedent before the Constitution was adopted in 1859.
Lawyer
Dan Meek, a longtime campaign finance activist, says it's "very
realistic" to think the group could persuade the current Supreme Court
to redo its thinking. In part that's because historical research has
advanced greatly. Not only that, but he says there are about three dozen
states with either identical or nearly identical free-speech clauses —
and yet those states have contribution limits.
The 1997 ruling is "a massive outlier," Meek said. "So yes, reversing that is entirely realistic."
Former
Oregon Secretary of State Phil Keisling, who defended contribution
limits in the case, said "I do think this is a chance for the OR Supreme
Court to revisit what I did think was an unfortunate decision." He said
the Vannatta ruling was the local version of the U.S. Supreme Court
ruling against limits called "Citizens United," which is also targeted
by the reformers.
The
Oregon ruling, Keisling added, spawned similar "gushers of campaign
money into Oregon races, long before the U.S. Supreme Court did the same
for the rest of the country."
