Legislative Republicans have long claimed that by commenting on political discussions, the Oregon Food Bank deviated from its goal of ending hunger. The leading Republican in the Oregon Senate argued on Tuesday for more legislative examination of the food bank and other state-funded nonprofits.
The Senate Human Services Committee viewed Senate Bill 644, introduced by Senate Republican Leader Daniel Bonham, with skepticism. The bill would establish a parliamentary committee to conduct an audit of the food bank. Since the food bank currently publishes yearly financial audits and the state would have to pay to do the audit, Democrats, who hold the majority on that committee and in the Legislature, questioned the necessity of the bill.
Growing tensions between the food bank and Republicans are reflected in Bonham’s proposal. In 2023, when the federal government terminated its temporary increase in food benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, due to the pandemic, the majority of Republicans voted against sending $7.5 million to the food bank.
A food bank declaration that opposed the war in Gaza and supported controversial laws on climate change and agricultural overtime was met with opposition from Republicans. For Bonham specifically, the food bank was adamantly against recent legislative walkouts, such as the one in 2023 that prevented Bonham and other Republicans from seeking reelection.
In 2019, 2020, and 2023, the food bank detailed how the walkouts either slowed down or completely stopped the Legislature from approving expenditures or passing legislation. Republicans, however, contend that the food bank overreached.
“Seeing my face on the back of a full-page Sunday Oregonian ad, which I know cost $17,000 and was sponsored by the Oregon Food Bank, is probably what caught my attention,” Bonham said. And I thought, “Wow, our tax dollars are working hard to tell Republicans to stop working on a bill that, to be honest, would have increased the cost of living by $1,200 for every Oregonian.” In what way does that fit into their stated fundamental mission?
Different positions
The Food Bank’s stated goal is to eradicate hunger and its underlying causes. When it considers laws that might not seem directly related to feeding people, it refers to the underlying reasons. For example, in 2023, it backed the abortion and transgender care measure that Senate Republicans, including Bonham, demonstrated against by walking out, arguing that poverty and hunger are exacerbated when access to reproductive health care is limited.
The Oregon Food Bank, which distributed over 91 million meals in 2024, is aware that hunger cannot be eradicated by food distribution alone, according to its president, Andrea Williams.
The food bank’s yearly financial audits, which are also available online, were printed and supplied by Williams. For example, the Oregon Food Bank reported spending $3 million on advocacy and over $90 million on food programs in 2023, out of a budget of around $112 million. The Oregon Hunger Response Fund and the federal Emergency Food Assistance Program were among the more than $20 million in government funding that it received. “There was no use of that government funding for advocacy,” Williams stated.
She stated that although she thought it was just and proper to follow the law’s requirements for audits, Bonham’s plan would result in a pointless and redundant audit that would divert funds from the food bank’s goal at a time when hunger is on the rise.
Additionally, Williams stated, “We think it would create a regrettable and harmful precedent that if an organization legitimately supports laws and policies on behalf of the people they serve, they run the risk of a burdensome and retaliatory audit by the legislature.”
If Bonham’s questionable and undemocratic plan was approved, the state may face legal action, according to Sandy Chung, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon. For example, she added, the American Civil Liberties Union recently defended the National Rifle Association in a winning battle before the U.S. Supreme Court against a New York state regulator who attempted to force banks and insurance firms to refuse financial services to the pro-gun organization.
“We believe that targeting a nonprofit organization with an audit due to its political speech is fundamentally undemocratic, a dangerous abuse of power, and probably unconstitutional,” Chung added.
Extending the measure
Bonham said he will propose an amendment to expand the bill’s reach to include more charity organizations after Chung outlined some of the ACLU’s concerns in a written statement on Monday. However, that would probably cost the state millions of dollars, according to Jim White, executive director of the Nonprofit Association of Oregon.
This is due to the fact that each audit typically costs between $15,000 and $20,000, while hundreds of nonprofit organizations receive state assistance. It would be more expensive to hire outside certified public accountants to perform audits.
White went on to say that Oregon nonprofits might be discouraged by the legislation.
According to White, it would give nonprofit organizations the very wrong impression that they should not exercise their legal right to participate in the democratic process because they could be audited by a parliamentary committee. If nonprofits disagree with a legislative committee’s proposed policy, they shouldn’t be afraid of being audited.
It is unlikely that the bill will pass the legislature. Eugene senator Floyd Prozanski, a lawyer and Democrat, stated that he couldn’t see himself endorsing it.
In my opinion, this is an attempt to incite retaliation against nonprofit organizations because someone might not agree with their philosophies or methods, he added. According to the testimony I heard today, this organization has made it quite evident that they are abiding by all laws, rules, and specifications set forth by the state of Oregon.
Additionally, Sara Gelser Blouin, D-Corvallis, the chair of the committee, stated that she did not believe an audit was the best method to have a conversation and debate. Rather, she added, when lawmakers are determining what to include in the budget, they should discuss how NGOs use state funds.
She said, “I believe that we need to welcome that conversation, have the opportunity to get clarification, and point out where people can find information.” And as the session progresses, I hope we can allow each other the room to have these discussions, to disagree with one another, and then, using that debating voice, choose what we do in terms of policy.
— Oregon Capital Chronicle’s Julia Shumway
The largest state-focused nonprofit news agency in the country, States Newsroom, includes Oregon Capital Chronicle.
