Chapter 260
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Application to
committee collecting contributions to establish fund to defray elected official’s
expenses incurred in performing political functions of office, (1980) Vol 40, p 11; preemption by federal law of campaign financing
with respect to federal candidates, (1981) Vol 41, p
420
LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 50 OLR 299-321
(1971); 55 OLR 253-266 (1976)
260.005 to 260.255
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Disclosure
requirements, specifically with respect to third parties, do not infringe on
right to associate for political purposes and are constitutional. Oregon
Socialist Workers v. Paulus, 432 F Supp 1255 (1977)
260.005
See
also annotations under ORS 260.305 in permanent edition.
NOTES OF DECISIONS
For
purposes of defining contribution, “any other thing of value” means any item
that has fair market value, regardless of whether contributor used item for
purposes related to that fair market value. Jim Bernard for Clackamas County
Commissioner v. Elections Division, 229 Or App 419, 211 P3d 321 (2009)
For
purposes of defining contribution, to furnish means to give something needed or
desirable. Jim Bernard for Clackamas County Commissioner v. Elections Division,
229 Or App 419, 211 P3d 321 (2009)
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Compensation for
political activity, (1974) Vol 36, p 903;
expenditures by independent nonpartisan group, (1974) Vol
36, p 915; political contributions as credit against Oregon tax return, (1974) Vol 37, p 159
260.044
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Person
must file report of expenditures for publication in support of or opposition to
candidate if: 1) message, in context, clearly and unambiguously urges election
or defeat of candidate; 2) message, as whole, seeks action as opposed to giving
information; and 3) action advocated by message is clear. State ex rel Crumpton v. Keisling, 160 Or App 406, 982 P2d 3 (1999), Sup Ct review
denied
260.083
See
annotations under ORS 260.162 in permanent edition.
260.118
See
also annotations under ORS 254.600 in permanent edition.
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Under former similar statute
Where
local petition signatures were submitted for verification in batches, filing of
statement by deadline for submitting signatures was sufficient. Jewett v. Yerkovich, 27 Or App 127, 555 P2d 950 (1976)
In general
Secretary
of State did not err in assessing civil penalty under this section for failure
to timely file contributions and expenditure statement for initiative campaign
that failed to meet local ordinance deadline. Salem Committee v. Secretary of
State, 109 Or App 364, 819 P2d 752 (1991)
260.174
NOTE:
Repealed as of January 1, 2006
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Partial preemption
of statute by Federal Election Campaign Act, (1996) Vol
48, p 53; statute as violation of free speech right under section 8, Article I,
Oregon Constitution, (2001) Vol 49, p 267
260.215
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Three-month
period in this section for beginning examination of contribution and
expenditure reports does not limit power of Secretary of State to investigate
contribution and expenditure report violations under ORS 260.345. Gold v.
Secretary of State, 106 Or App 573, 809 P2d 1334 (1991)
260.232
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Discretion
to impose fine for filing violations is not limited to cases of willful or
intentional violation. United Telephone Employees PAC v. Secretary of State,
138 Or App 135, 906 P2d 306 (1995)
260.345
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Although
ORS 260.200 et seq. deal specifically with contribution and expenditure
reporting requirements, ORS 260.345 also covers violations of those
requirements. Gold v. Secretary of State, 106 Or App 573, 809 P2d 1334 (1991)
260.351
LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 51 OLR 574 (1972)
260.365
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Person
was not qualified to be candidate for office of State Treasurer in general
election because, if elected, she could not qualify at the beginning of her
term as result of disability imposed upon her under this section. McAlmond v. Myers, 262 Or 521, 500 P2d 457 (1972)
260.402
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Prohibition
in 2003 version of this section against falsely identifying political
contributor did not violate constitutional free speech rights and was not
unconstitutionally vague. State v. Moyer, 225 Or App 81, 200 P3d 619 (2009), aff’d 348 Or 220, 230 P3d 7 (2010)
260.432
NOTES OF DECISIONS
City
charter and ordinance provisions which subjected municipal political activities
of city employes during nonworking hours to virtually
complete restrictions were preempted by this section, which is general law
establishing permissible degree of regulation of public employe’s
political freedom. Williams v. City of Astoria, 43 Or App 745, 604 P2d 411
(1979), Sup Ct review denied
Prohibition
against requiring public employee to support political cause does not supersede
right of exclusive representative of employees to collect
payment-in-lieu-of-dues to support political position affecting rights of
represented employees. Carlson v. AFSCME, 73 Or App 755, 700 P2d 260 (1985),
Sup Ct review denied
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Application of
federal Hatch Political Activities Act to employes
who run for partisan elective office, (1978) Vol 38,
p 1826
260.522
NOTE:
Repealed as of January 1, 2002
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Disclaimers on
political advertising, (1974) Vol 36, p 903;
anonymity as component of free speech rights, (1999) Vol
49, p 179
260.532
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Statements
are not false as that word is used in the Corrupt Practices Act if any
reasonable inference that can be drawn from the statement is either a correct
inference of fact or a matter of opinion. Eustace v. Speckhart,
14 Or App 485, 514 P2d 25 (1973)
Ambiguous
statement that allows erroneous inference to be drawn is not violation of
Corrupt Practices Act. Committee to Retain Judge Tanzer
v. Lee, 270 Or 215, 527 P2d 247 (1974)
If
reasonable inference of opinion or correct fact can be drawn, statement is not
false even though erroneous inference could also be drawn from it. Sumner v.
Bennett, 45 Or App 275, 608 P2d 566 (1980)
Challenges
to primary elections brought under this section must be dismissed unless trial
and appellate courts have rendered final determination at least 30 days prior
to general election. Koch v. Makinson, 52 Or App 155,
628 P2d 397 (1981)
Since
this section provides unitary remedy, where no judgment was rendered depriving
defendant of nomination, no severable cause of action for damages existed. Koch
v. Makinson, 52 Or App 155, 628 P2d 397 (1981)
Under
this section, even assuming false statement of material fact did not supply
ground to set aside election. Stork v. Columbia River PUD, 58 Or App 51, 646
P2d 1372 (1982), Sup Ct review denied
Where
political committee’s purpose is essentially identical to candidate’s purpose,
committee is aggrieved party under this section and may bring action for false
statement about candidate. Committee of 1000 v. Eivers,
296 Or 195, 674 P2d 1159 (1983)
Statements
are not “false” within meaning of this section if any reasonable inference can
be drawn from the evidence that statement is factually correct or that
statement is merely an expression of opinion; statement that state senator “introduced
legislation to add a new statewide property tax” is true in one sense and false
in another where senator sponsored resolution that would have been initial step
in establishing statewide property tax had certain sequence of events occurred.
Committee of 1000 v. Eivers, 296 Or 195, 674 P2d 1159
(1983)
Trial
court did not err when it imposed joint and several individual liability on
officers and directors of unincorporated association organized pursuant to ORS
chapter 260 as a political committee. Leslie v. Bendl,
92 Or App 519, 759 P2d 301 (1988), Sup Ct review denied
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Court authority to
determine that candidate for legislature shall be deprived of election, (1979) Vol 39, p 567
260.585
See
annotations under ORS 260.118.
260.605
NOTE:
Repealed as of January 1, 2006
See
also annotations under ORS 260.512 in permanent edition.
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Expenditures by
independent nonpartisan group, (1974) Vol 36, p 915
260.650
See
annotations under ORS 260.695.
260.665
See
also annotations under ORS 260.412 in permanent edition.
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Prohibitions
against inducing a “diversionary” candidacy, (1976) Vol
37, p 1026
260.695
NOTES OF DECISIONS
In general
Prohibition
against wearing of political buttons, badges or insignia within polling place
is unconstitutional infringement of elector’s right to free speech. Picray v. Secretary of State, 140 Or App 592, 916 P2d 324
(1996), aff’d 325 Or 279, 936 P2d 974 (1997)
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS
Under former similar statute (ORS
260.650)
Application
of prohibition against electioneering to circulation of initiative petitions,
(1972) Vol 35, p 1233; poll book or public record
relating to election as subject to public inspection, (1977) Vol 38, p 1318
260.715
NOTES OF DECISIONS
When
defendant chose to file candidate’s statement for Voter’s Pamphlet pursuant to
ORS 251.085, its substance was circumscribed by law and statements regarding
his educational background were “required under the election laws” within the
meaning of this section. State v. Huntley, 82 Or App 350, 728 P2d 868 (1986),
Sup Ct review denied
When
statement is certified as true, statutory prohibition against making false
statement is contemporary variant of perjury and is not unconstitutional under
Article I, section 8 of the Oregon Constitution. State v. Huntley, 82 Or App
350, 728 P2d 868 (1986), Sup Ct review denied
It
is not grant of unequal privileges or immunities under Article I, section 20 of
the Oregon Constitution that prosecutor may choose between charging unsworn
falsification (ORS 162.085) and making false statements under this section.
State v. Huntley, 82 Or App 350, 728 P2d 868 (1986), Sup Ct review denied