462 P.3d 706
Or.2020Background
- In Nov. 2016 Multnomah County voters approved Measure 26‑184; the County enacted MCC §§ 5.200–5.203 to implement it (contribution limits, independent‑expenditure limits, and disclosure requirements).
- MCC § 5.201 caps individual contributions to county candidate campaigns at $500 per election cycle (with small‑donor committee exceptions); MCC § 5.202 caps/limits independent expenditures by individuals, political committees, and bans certain entity spending; MCC § 5.203 imposed disclosure/disclaimer rules.
- The County filed a validation action in Multnomah County Circuit Court seeking a declaration of validity; respondents challenged the ordinances under Article I, § 8 of the Oregon Constitution and the First Amendment.
- The trial court held all three provisions facially invalid under Article I, § 8 (relying on Vannatta v. Keisling). The Court of Appeals certified the case to the Oregon Supreme Court.
- The Oregon Supreme Court: (1) overruled the portion of Vannatta that treated contribution limits as per se facial speech restrictions under Robertson; (2) held the county’s contribution limits are not facially invalid under Article I, § 8 but remanded for First Amendment factfinding; (3) held the independent‑expenditure limits invalid under both Oregon and federal free‑speech law; (4) found the disclosure challenge moot after the County amended the rules.
Issues
| Issue | County (plaintiff/appellant) argument | Respondents (opposing) argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are MCC contribution limits facially invalid under Article I, § 8? | Limits regulate conduct (financial transfers), not speech; not written to proscribe opinion or subject matter. | Vannatta I says contributions are protected expression; limits are an express speech restriction and facially invalid. | Contribution limits are not facially invalid under Article I, § 8 (Court rejects Vannatta’s category‑1 treatment); as‑applied challenges remain possible. |
| Do the contribution limits violate the First Amendment? | Limits are justified to prevent corruption/appearance of corruption; County presented evidence supporting tailoring and inflation adjustment. | Limits are too low ("danger signs") and unduly impair candidates’ ability to campaign. | Not decided on the merits—case remanded to trial court for factual findings and First Amendment analysis. |
| Are the independent‑expenditure limits constitutional? | County argues expenditure limits are permissible or seeks reconsideration of federal precedent. | Respondents argue limits unconstitutionally restrict core political speech. | Expenditure limits violate Article I, § 8 and the First Amendment; those provisions are invalid. |
| Are the disclosure provisions valid? | County defended the original rules but subsequently amended them. | Respondents challenged the originals under Article I, § 8. | Challenge to the original disclosure provisions is moot because the County amended them; court declined to decide validity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vannatta v. Keisling, 324 Or 514 (1997) (Oregon case that treated campaign contribution limits as speech and struck them down; Court here disavows that portion)
- Vannatta v. Oregon Government Ethics Comm., 347 Or 449 (2009) (distinguished and limited aspects of Vannatta I; used in Court’s reconsideration)
- State v. Robertson, 293 Or 402 (1982) (framework classifying laws that restrict speech into three categories; governing test for facial vs. as‑applied challenges)
- State v. Plowman, 314 Or 157 (1992) (held statute punished conduct not speech; supports narrow scope for facial challenges)
- State v. Babson, 355 Or 383 (2014) (applied Robertson; restricted overnight use of capitol steps was not an express speech proscription)
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) (federal baseline: contribution limits treated differently than expenditure limits; justificatory framework)
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) (federal precedent protecting independent expenditures by corporations/unions)
- Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Gov’t PAC, 528 U.S. 377 (2000) (upheld lower contribution limits than Buckley; Buckley does not set a permanent floor)
- Randall v. Sorrell, 548 U.S. 230 (2006) (plurality/controlling analysis identifying "danger signs" for very low contribution limits and requiring close scrutiny)