Following a request by the state ethics commission, Oregon lawmakers are debating whether to repeal a statute that forbids lobbyists and special interests from giving public officials gifts over $50.
After The Oregonian/OregonLive revealed that beer and wine wholesalers funded senators’ trips to Hawaii in 2002 and 2004 that they neglected to record as required, lawmakers established a legislation in 2007 prohibiting the giving of costly gifts. Public officials, political candidates, and members of their families and households are prohibited by the same statute from taking gifts of more than $50 per year from anybody with an interest in influencing government policy and administration.
According to Susan V. Myers, executive director of the Oregon Government Ethics Commission, state legislation must be changed to eliminate the ban on giving costly gifts to candidates, public officials, and members of one’s family and household. She gave the 2009 Oregon Supreme Court decision, which determined that the restriction infringed against the state Constitution’s guarantees of free expression.
This year, lawmakers responded to her plea by introducing House Bill 2928.
Myers emailed The Oregonian/OregonLive, saying, “This and some of the other bills we brought forward are simply efforts to clean up inconsistencies and eliminate confusion with respect to the application of the statutes.”
When asked why the ethics panel is recommending the adjustment now, over 15 years after the relevant Supreme Court decision, Myers remained silent.
Some good governance advocates oppose reforms from lawmakers.
Portland-based elections attorney Dan Meek, who works for the Oregon Progressive Party, questioned the ethics commission’s motivation for lifting the gift-giving cap. He said that the Oregon Supreme Court, which is most recognized for declaring that campaign donation limitations are lawful, overturned the 2009 court’s verdict in 2020.
In his testimony to the Legislature, Meek stated that, at the very least, the status of Oregon constitutional law in this area is changing. Therefore, it is both significant and based on a misinterpretation of current Oregon constitutional law to eliminate the $50 gift offering limit.
Common Cause Oregon’s executive director, Kate Titus, also expressed doubts about the move.
She stated in an email that now is not the time to erode government ethics norms. It should be illegal to purchase influence over elected officials. On this issue, constitutional law is continually evolving. To give up on something is only to eliminate the chance to contest it further.
An investigative reporter is Hillary Borrud. You can contact her at [email protected] or 503-294-4034.
