On appeal, the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s decision that the expenditure limits violated the state constitution. The Oregon Supreme Court also reversed two decades of precedent and held that the limits were permissible under the state constitution. Responding to First Amendment concerns raised by the Taxpayers Association, however, it held that the contribution limits did not apply to ballot measure campaigns or independent expenditures. It then remanded to the circuit court to determine whether the contribution limits are unconstitutionally low under the First Amendment.

On remand, the parties opposing the measure dropped out of the case, leaving the Taxpayers Association and its PAC as amici to point to the contribution limits’ infirmities under the First Amendment. First, the limits restrict a candidate’s contributions to his or her own campaign, contradicting Supreme Court precedent. Second, the limits are also unconstitutionally low under the Supreme Court’s 2019 ruling in Thompson v. Hebdon and its 2006 decision in Randall v. Sorrell. Not only are the limits far lower than any ever upheld by the Supreme Court, they undermine the County’s asserted interest in combating corruption by limiting some donors to $500 per election cycle while allowing others to make unlimited contributions.

After the Oregon Supreme Court decision, The Taxpayers Association of Oregon filed an amicus brief urging a state circuit court to strike down Multnomah County’s limits on campaign contributions for these reasons. Attorneys from the Institute for Free Speech are representing the Taxpayers Association in the case.

Share via
Copy link
Powered by Social Snap