Wednesday, October 01, 2014
http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/09/democratic_party_of_oregon_fil.html
The Democratic group's election complaint cites a state election law forbidding persons from accepting employment with a campaign with the understanding -- express or implied – that they'll in turn contribute to the campaign.
Is the statute constitutional? What is the state interest here? Is there some backstory to how this statute was passed?
This question is distinct from whether the statute was violated here, where the contribution came first.
It seems like such a statute could be avoided simply by making an in-kind contribution or giving a discount on the work.
This page, http://sos.oregon.gov/elections/Pages/violations.aspx, appears to be 7 years out of date.
The ohio firm seems an interesting bunch,
http://www.wweek.com/portland/blog-31873-gop_candidate_for_governor_dennis_richardson_picks.html
On more than once occasion, [sic] they were accused of leaving dead cats on the lawns and porches of political opponents.
The source for that is buzzfeed, which may not always be reliable.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/inside-the-meltdown-at-americas-most-conservative-most-chris#4ht0w6q
Oh, now that i've read the statute, it would be unreasonable to apply it to employment with the campaign itself. http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/260.422
The intent is pretty clearly the "we get you a job and you kick back 10% to our guy" kind of patronage system. So if Oregon attempts to proceed, D has an as-applied defense, not an unshakable one. The statute wouldn't be facially invalid, see Wash State Grange. However, there may have been a technical violation, enough to justify a probable cause finding, if that is how Oregon does it.
More likely, this is just a political complaint not expected to go anywhere, just to sway voters.
The Democratic group's election complaint cites a state election law forbidding persons from accepting employment with a campaign with the understanding -- express or implied – that they'll in turn contribute to the campaign.
Is the statute constitutional? What is the state interest here? Is there some backstory to how this statute was passed?
This question is distinct from whether the statute was violated here, where the contribution came first.
It seems like such a statute could be avoided simply by making an in-kind contribution or giving a discount on the work.
This page, http://sos.oregon.gov/elections/Pages/violations.aspx, appears to be 7 years out of date.
The ohio firm seems an interesting bunch,
http://www.wweek.com/portland/blog-31873-gop_candidate_for_governor_dennis_richardson_picks.html
On more than once occasion, [sic] they were accused of leaving dead cats on the lawns and porches of political opponents.
The source for that is buzzfeed, which may not always be reliable.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/inside-the-meltdown-at-americas-most-conservative-most-chris#4ht0w6q
Oh, now that i've read the statute, it would be unreasonable to apply it to employment with the campaign itself. http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/260.422
The intent is pretty clearly the "we get you a job and you kick back 10% to our guy" kind of patronage system. So if Oregon attempts to proceed, D has an as-applied defense, not an unshakable one. The statute wouldn't be facially invalid, see Wash State Grange. However, there may have been a technical violation, enough to justify a probable cause finding, if that is how Oregon does it.
More likely, this is just a political complaint not expected to go anywhere, just to sway voters.
Comments:
Post a Comment
