Opinion ID: 835101
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Solicitation restrictions

Text: ORS 244.025(1) is a restriction on what a public official may do. It prohibits a public official from solicit[ing] a gift or gifts in excess of $50 in value from a lobbyist. ORS 244.025(4)(a) further prohibits a public official from soliciting from a lobbyist any gift in any amount for payment of expenses for entertainment. ORS 244.042(1) and (2) prohibit a public official, including a candidate for public office or a member of their household, from soliciting honoraria with a value in excess of $50. [14] The state concedes that soliciting a gift or honorarium from a lobbyist is protected expression. It nonetheless argues, however, that, for other reasons, the statutory restraint on speech represented by the solicitation restrictions is a permissible one. In our view, however, we need not consider the state's concession unless we first determine whether plaintiffs are statutorily qualified to seek declaratory relief regarding the solicitation restrictions described above. ORS 28.020 provides that a person whose rights, status or other legal relations are affected by a constitution [or] statute    may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under any such    constitution [or] statute    and obtain a declaration of rights, status or other legal relations thereunder. (Emphasis added.) In Gruber v. Lincoln Hospital District, 285 Or. 3, 7, 588 P.2d 1281 (1979), this court stated that plaintiffs seeking declaratory relief under ORS chapter 28 and ORS 28.020 must show how their `rights, status, or other legal relations are affected' by an instrument or enactment, the construction or validity of which [the plaintiff] seeks to have determined. Standing under this section has been denied when the showing of the required effect has been too speculative or entirely missing. (Citations omitted.) Determining whether plaintiffs have standing to seek declaratory relief in this proceeding is a question of legislative intent: When it is ruling on a standing issue, a reviewing court must focus on the wording of the particular statute at issue, because standing is not a matter of common law but is, instead, conferred by the legislature. Local No. 290 v. Dept. of Environ. Quality, 323 Or. 559, 566, 919 P.2d 1168 (1996) (citations omitted). Accordingly, to determine whether plaintiffs satisfy the statutory requirements in ORS 28.020, we must examine the factual record to determine how the challenged solicitation restrictions affect plaintiffs' legal interests. Here, plaintiffs assert that they desire to bestow gifts on public officials, candidates for public office, and relatives and members of their households in connection with lobbying activities. However, plaintiffs have made no showing on the record in this case that the solicitation restrictions affect them at all. Plaintiffs are not among the persons to whom the solicitation restrictions apply, viz., a public official, a candidate for public office, or a relative or member of the household of a public official or candidate. [15] Moreover, nothing that plaintiffs allege permits the implication that the solicitation restrictions have had or will have a practical effect on plaintiffs' lobbying and business activities. Plaintiffs do not explain how the statutory restrictions on the ability of public officials to solicit from lobbyists gifts, entertainment expenses, or honoraria creates or imposes any limitation on plaintiffs' ability to communicate freely with public officials, either in plaintiffs' individual capacities or as representatives of their clients. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that plaintiffs do not qualify under ORS 20.080 as parties affected by the solicitation restrictions. They therefore are not entitled to seek declaratory relief from those restrictions. Plaintiffs are not entitled to an adjudication of the constitutionality of the solicitation restrictions in ORS 244.025(1) and (4)(a) and ORS 244.042(1) and (2). The trial court should have dismissed plaintiffs' complaint with respect to that claim.