Opinion ID: 836315
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: amends constitution: changes campaign finance requirements affecting various contributors, disclosures, payroll deductions

Text: Petitioner next challenges the Attorney General's yes and no vote result statements. The yes result statement must contain a simple and understandable statement of not more than 15 words that describes the result if the    measure is approved, ORS 250.035(2)(b) (1997), and the no result statement must contain a simple and understandable statement of not more than 15 words that describes the result if the    measure is rejected, ORS 250.035(2)(c) (1997). To the extent practicable, the result statements must be written so that they are parallel. ORS 250.035(3). Petitioner's challenge to the result statements is similar to his challenge to the caption, that is, that the result statements do not convey that the proposed measure would establish different campaign contribution requirements for different entities. As with the caption, the Attorney General responds that his result statements encompass all three major aspects of the proposed measure, to the extent possible, within the 15 word statutory limits set out in ORS 250.035(2)(b) and (c) (1997). For the reasons set out above in relation to the certified caption, we modify the result statements for Initiative Petition 157 as follows: RESULT OF YES VOTE: Yes vote changes campaign finance requirements, varying by contributor; limits contributor disclosures; restricts payroll deductions. RESULT OF NO VOTE: No vote rejects: campaign finance requirements, varying by contributor; limiting contributor disclosures; restricting payroll deductions. Finally, petitioner challenges the Attorney General's certified summary, which must contain [a] concise and impartial statement of not more than 85 words summarizing the measure and its major effect. ORS 250.035(2)(d) (1997). In petitioner's view, the certified summary is deficient, because it does not explain clearly the different campaign finance requirements for the different entities involvedfor example, that a $1,000 limit applies to most entities, but that businesses (but not unions) could spend unlimited funds to educate the public on particular ballot measure campaigns. Petitioner also objects to the failure of the certified summary to mention that the proposed measure establishes an affirmative right for individuals to make unlimited contributions to ballot measure campaigns. Finally, petitioner contends that the summary should point out that the proposed measure contains no restrictions on contributions by not-for-profit corporations, partnerships, or other entities that do not fall within the definition of for-profit corporations, businesses, or unions, as those terms are used in the measure. The Attorney General responds that the certified summary accurately informs the voters that the Oregon Constitution currently provides an unlimited right to make campaign contributions, that the proposed measure would affect that right, and how it would do so. He continues that the certified summary also sufficiently describes the proposed, different limitations upon contributions and expenditures by different entities, while also describing the proposed changes concerning contributor disclosure and payroll deduction contributions. In the Attorney General's view, including the specific monetary limits in the 85-word summary would sacrifice necessary words that describe other important parts of the proposed measure. We conclude that petitioner has not demonstrated that the certified summary fails to substantially comply with ORS 250.035(2)(d) (1997). The certified summary sufficiently explains that the proposed measure would impose different contribution and expenditure limitations upon different entities, while also conveying, at least by implication, that the proposed measure would not limit individual contributions to ballot measure campaigns. The certified summary further clarifies that, in respect of spending to educate the public, unions would be treated differently than businesses. Finally, the certified summary also adequately summarizes other important provisions of the proposed measure relating to contributor disclosure and employee payroll deductions. We certify the following ballot title to the Secretary of State for Initiative Petition 157: AMENDS CONSTITUTION: CHANGES CAMPAIGN FINANCE REQUIREMENTS AFFECTING VARIOUS CONTRIBUTORS, DISCLOSURES, PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS RESULT OF YES VOTE: Yes vote changes campaign finance requirements, varying by contributor; limits contributor disclosures; restricts payroll deductions. RESULT OF NO VOTE: No vote rejects: campaign finance requirements, varying by contributor; limiting contributor disclosures; restricting payroll deductions. SUMMARY: Amends constitution. Constitution now guarantees right to make unlimited campaign contributions, expenditures; requires certain campaign disclosures; guarantees contribution methods. Measure limits corporate, union, political committee campaign contributions, expenditures in any election; limits individual contributions, expenditures in candidate elections. Under certain conditions, businesses, but not unions, may expend unlimited amounts to educate voters about ballot measure's impact. Prohibits payroll deductions for political purpose without employee's annual, written authorization specifying purpose. Changes, limits campaign finance disclosure requirements for elections communications, recipients of certain individual contributions. Other provisions. Ballot title certified as modified. This decision shall become effective in accordance with ORAP 11.30(10). VAN HOOMISSEN, J., dissenting. I respectfully dissent. In my view, the Attorney General's certified ballot title substantially complies with the requirements of ORS 250.035 (1997). ORS 250.085(5).