SB 10 strengthened an existing $100 gift limit in two ways. The dollar threshold was lowered to $50. Also the definition of gift was broadened. Before SB 10 "food and beverage in the presence of" and certain entertainment (called the Blazer's exemption by Patrick Hearn, previous head of the ethics commission)needed to be reported (if they hit a certain threshold) but weren't subject to the gift limit. Now the gift limit is comprehensive and applies to those items.

Legislative counsel has long advised that the existing $100 gift limit was constitutionally questionable. But nobody every challenged that. So one question is what about the lower and more comprehensive SB 1o limits triggered the challenge now?

Hmmmm. This is not great news. DiLorenzo rarely loses when he is focussing on constitutional issues. We better be paying attention. Eliminating all limts would be a disaster.

As if the legislature could go back to accepting gifts after making a big to do about having higher ethical standards. Even if lobbyists think it is their constitutional right to bribe elected officials, the elected officials are no longer in a position to accept this particular type of bribe.

This just seems silly. They way I see it is a lobbyist can still offer all the gifts (bribes) that they want but the legislature has made a rule that they are not allowed to accept them. If someone offers me something and I do not take it or am not allowed to take it (my company has rules about accepting gifts from our vendors) then if anything my right to "free speech" is being violated. Not the gift giver. It seems like a simple concept to me. But as always big money can complicate anything when it wants to.

DiLorenzo and Chaimov are making essentially the same argument as opponents of last year's Measure 46 - that limiting political bribery infringes on free speech. As much as I value speech rights, I believe allowing sale of government to the highest bidder to be as great a threat to the public good as yelling fire in a crowded theater.

The professional political class will always oppose reform that removes money from campaign coffers. It's too bad that progressives are not able to see that they sometimes get bad advice from the leaders of organizations they generally support.

Someone with more intelligence and integrity than the people opposing limits on gifts once said that if one party gives a gift to another party and that gift changes their relationship, then that gift is a bribe.

"The professional political class will always oppose reform that removes money from campaign coffers. It's too bad that progressives are not able to see that they sometimes get bad advice from the leaders of organizations they generally support."

Tom, I have never earned a paycheck in politics. I was an advocate of Measure 9 campaign finance reform. Are you saying that anyone who asks questions about the details of Measure 46 "opposes reform" and got "bad advice from the leaders of organizations"? Whatever happened to indiv. freedom to think independently and ask questions?

I'll never understand why spending money falls under the heading of free speech. Can someone with more experience throw out a bit of an explanation?

Freedom of speech is about speech, not money. Why is it that this country doesn't seem to understand the constitution anymore? It seems the more "learned" we are, the stupider we become.

Bribery is not a right given to us in our constitution. At least not the one "I" read. The people of Oregon have to either stop these lobbyists or stop bothering to vote, one.

After all if the government can just be bought why would they need voters?

I'll never understand why spending money falls under the heading of free speech. Can someone with more experience throw out a bit of an explanation?

Proponents of the ability to bribe and buy political representatives will use any argument they think will work. There are also some First Amendment advocates who seem to believe that people have the right to say anything they want and will make that argument on practically any case that is presented for discussion. In so doing, they ignore the restrictions on speech that are wisely in place and almost all in the United States agree to - prohibitions against shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, parliamentary rules of order in Congress and state capitols, laws against slander and libel, laws against revealing classified information, proscriptions against jurors discussing cases they are involved in, etc. There are, of course, cases where First Amendment rights should be fought for but, obviously, there are exceptions.

"I'll never understand why spending money falls under the heading of free speech. Can someone with more experience throw out a bit of an explanation?"

Well.....the easy answer is that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled three separate times on that issue. The first time it was the Clinton court in the mid-90's. Since then, with a gradually more conservative court, the answer has comeback even stronger.

We're wsting hot air, key strokes, and energy worrying about limits. We need to just work hard enough to denyany legislator re-election if they accept gifts. Period.

"I'll never understand why spending money falls under the heading of free speech. Can someone with more experience throw out a bit of an explanation?"

Well.....the easy answer is that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled three separate times on that issue. The first time it was the Clinton court in the mid-90's.

Actually, it goes back farther than that, to Buckley vs. Valeo in 1976.

Well.....the easy answer is that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled three separate times on that issue. The first time it was the Clinton court in the mid-90's.

Just because the Supremes say it is so doesn't make it right. They have a long history of getting it wrong and their many 5-to-4 decisions suggest going before this court is something of a crap shoot.

Other subject: Does someone want to start a new thread on the letter signed by 70 House members to no longer fund the Iraq war? It looks like Blumenauer is the only Oregon member to sign.

Just because the Supremes say it is so doesn't make it right. They have a long history of getting it wrong and their many 5-to-4 decisions suggest going before this court is something of a crap shoot.

Actually Billy my boy....when the "Supremes" say it is so, that becomes the law of the land until the make up of the court changes signifcantly that makes a change of heart by the court possible.

No such change in the makeup of "The Bush Court" is coming in the next decade or so without some unscheduled deaths or retirements. We lost a lot with Bush being in a posiiton to fill Supreme Court vacancies. We didn't work hard enough for Gore or Kerry and those two made a bad situation worse by campaigning like wimps.

So here we are, stuck with the long term baggage.

Actually Billy my boy....when the "Supremes" say it is so, that becomes the law of the land until the make up of the court changes signifcantly that makes a change of heart by the court possible.

What I said was that the Supremes may say it is so (and the law) but that doesn't make it right. During a discussion on a point of law the venerable Dr. Samuel Johnson said, "If that is the law, then the law is an ass." In this case, "ass" referred to the animal considered by many to be the dumbest if people aren't included. I believe Dr. Johnson's observation applies to many of the Supreme Court decisions.

Just because the Supremes say it is so doesn't make it right.

It does however make it the law.

I think if you consider the question that it is obvious there is a connection between expressing an opinion and having the resources to spread that opinion beyond those who can hear your voice.

It seems to me the approach to campaign finance has always skirted the real issue. Elected officials who accept gifts from someone, whether in the form of campaign conributions or free junkets, have a conflict of interest when that person attempts to influence their vote. They ought to refrain from voting at all on those issues.

While at first blush, that would mean never voting. The truth is it would really mean not receiving gifts. Because not matter how hard politicians try to avoid the description. Campaign contributions are bribes, given with the expectation that they will result in special consideration if the candidate is elected. That expectations is largely met even if it is only the opportunity to plead the case when someone who had failed to contribute would not have that opportunity.

I think you will find the fundraising message to the lobby from most candidates is "I am going to win." And, if believed, that message is enough for most of them to contribute.

Guys just because we may or may not agree with the speech does not mean that we get to ban it. Heck, I think the Oregon Court got it wrong when they said live sex shows were covered under free speech protections. Whether it is strip clubs or political giving, I am not a fan of ANY limits on free speech.

I too often see and hear people with differing views shouted down and ridiculed by those who are supposedly "tolerant." Yes, BlueOregonians, we are not immune from this either.

In the end we don't have to agree with it but if we value any of our freedoms we better fight to protect them.

LT,

When I make a generalization about folks' political thinking, I am speaking in the statistical sense. It is clear that a large portion of the NO votes on M46 were influenced by the large campaign and heavy spending by the unions, NARAL, and other progressive organizations. Remember that a higher percentage of Ds than Rs voted NO, which is the reverse of almost all polling results on attitudes toward campaign finance reform. So, I do not claim that you did not come up with your position through independent higher reasoning, but I doubt that deep thinking was the basis of most NO votes.

Steven Maurer,

Here's the commonality between the lobbyist suit and most opposition to M46: Lobbyists claim that limiting gifts to elected officials abridges free speech. Opponents of M46 claimed limiting campaign contributions to candidates for elected office would have abridged free speech. You can have different positions on the merits of each issue, but it's clear that the arguments are essentially the same, as I wrote. My position on each issue is that protection of democratic process warrants money limits, just as protection of public safety warrants laws against crying "fire" in a crowded theater.

LT,

The Supreme Court has also made several rulings allowing limits on campaign contributions. The court may get more conservative [and therefore agree with Oregon progressive organizations!?], but I don't see that as a reason to give up on limits any more than it is a reason to give up on abortion rights in anticipation of the overrule of Roe v. Wade.

If it is indeed determined that free speech rights mean that legislation limiting campaign contributions are unconstitutional, there is perhaps a better way to approach the challenge of big money in politics.

I see two areas of import, both having to do with an informed electorate: campaign ads and influence peddling.

If we reinstated the requirement for "equal" air time (and I beleive it should be free) on all public airwaves (radio, television, internet, etc.) we could hear/see much more information and perhaps even debate in the lead up to elections and during the legislative sessions. We might also want to pass legislation relating to outright lies and even serious distortion in campaign ads.

The other area, influence peddling (campaign contributions, "gifts" to legislators in office, etc.) - we could require they all be disclosed/published regularly and archived in public media for future retrieval. Penalties for failure to post gifts, etc., accurately and in a timely manner could be substantial, including removal from office.

Of course, none of this will matter unless we have a body politic that believes they can have influence on who actually serves in office and what they do when there.

<h2>The classic chicken and egg challenge.</h2>