Oregonians In Action and campaign finance regulations
October 26th, 2007
Remember when I told you that Oregonians In Action had spent $250,000+ more than they had in the bank?
Well, $250,000 more has suddenly been contributed. (From timber companies, of course.)
Does it skirt campaign finance regulations if you effectively “hide” your donors and contribution amounts by simply spending money freely and noting it as “Accounts Payable”… and then, in the final days of the campaign, all the contributions rush in… too late for accurate forecasting or scrutiny by the public… is this legitimate? Are there campaign finance regulations that are at play here?
There are reasons we have campaign finance reporting requirements. And, at the very least, this type of activity appears to go against the spirit of those requirements.
Related posts: Lewis & Clark smacks down Oregonians in Action: "Fraud against the voters"!, Measure 49: OIA is $250,000+ in the hole!, Oregonians In Action PAC campaign finance summary
14 Comments Add your own
1. Buster Smith | October 27th, 2007 at 1:38 am
Having accounts receivable is perfectly legal. Reporting contributions when they are received is perfectly legal. So OIA is complying with the law.
Now let us look at the supporters of Measure 49. A prominent supporter, which is spending tens or maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars for it, is “Our Oregon,” a nonprofit corporation. Unlike OIA, Our Oregon has never registered as a political committee and has not disclosed the names of any of its contributors.
So who is the scofflaw here?
2. Buster Smith | October 27th, 2007 at 1:40 am
Correction: Having accounts payable is perfectly legal.
3. RinoWatch | October 27th, 2007 at 6:21 am
You continue to amaze with your crybaby antics. OIA has forgotten more about campaign finance than you’ll ever know.
BTW, when are you gonna do something about what IS illegal — the defacing of the STOP 49 signs. Oh I know, you don’t know anything about that…
4. jaybeat | October 27th, 2007 at 8:23 am
Rino,
Nice how attempting to HIDE the source of funding for a campaign (using a loophole or otherwise) is only objected to by “crybabies,” but if you’ve been sitting around, ASSUMING that you could turn your property into a subdivision any time you wanted to, and that this could suffice as your RETIREMENT, and then whining about your “stolen property rights”–well, that’s just, er… CRYBABY?
And, of course, you want all of us to bail you out when things turned out worse for you than you planned, but if they turned out better, will you cut us a check? Right. That’s what I thought.
Oh, and lawn sign defacing is as old as elections, and cuts both ways. (We’ve had lots of signs removed, and a neighbors Yes on 49 sign has been defaced over and over.)
Puh-leez.
5. Dave Adams | October 27th, 2007 at 10:36 am
So the whino witch wants to talk about signs being defaced? Yes a few stop 49 signs got defaced on Scholls Ferry road. It’s not clear by whom. Most of these signs are hung on utility poles or are in the public right of way. Rumor has it the no camp did it them selves to look pitiful. Many yes on 49 signs have also been defaced or destroyed. But what about stolen signs. During the last month the so called “Property Rights” gang has been stealing the YES on 49 signs as fast as we can put them up. From Petes Mountain to Shutt road all the way up HWY 26 to Mt Hood. Trespassing on to private property and stealing others peoples property, as well as their right to freedom of speech I might add. Thousands of signs have gone missing in the night right out of peoples front yards. And not just the yard signs, the Big 4′x8′ field signs are disappearing as well. I am not talking about signs left in the right of way, both camps have signs all over the place in the right of way, but signs stolen right out of folks front yard or farm fields.
I’ve done many sign campaigns in the past and never seen organized thievery at this level before. Whino, this is not an invitation for you to blather on (again) about the big bad gobernment steeling your property, but proof that you have a bunch of hypocrites in your camp. Lets see… misleading advertising, the Huff-man episode the deceptive campaign finance reporting… sign thievery… what’s next? It appears that OIA’s strategy for their entire campaign is….. if we can’t beat them lets cheat them.
Dave Adams
6. Peter Bray | October 27th, 2007 at 11:51 am
I know nothing about defacing of Stop 49 signs. I have seen exactly 2 Stop 49 signs, and probably 300 Yes on 49 signs. I thought the Stop 49 signs were so amateurish that it actually helped M49: you can’t kill a measure by such perpetual negativism and idiot, bland iconography. Shoot, the “wolf in sheep’s clothing” argument could be Templated to the opposition of just about ANY Measure.
7. Peter Bray | October 27th, 2007 at 11:53 am
By the way… Dave: your signs are a huge hit! They’ve been such a great success… both in the media and all over the state. Congratulations… great work!
8. Buster Smith | October 28th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
I thought this thread was about campaign finance regulations. After I pointed out that OIA is complying with the law but that supporters of 49 are not, there descended a deafening silence on this subject. If you are so concerned with compliance with campaign finance reporting law, where is your call for Our Oregon to start complying with the law?
9. Peter Bray | October 28th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
How is Our Oregon specifically not complying with the law?
10. Evan | October 28th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
It’s completely WRONG to say that Our Oregon has to file as a political committee or detail its sources of money. 501(c)(3)(h) Nonprofits (which I presume Our Oregon is) can give to ballot measure campaigns (though not candidate campaigns) as an organization, although the total amount they can give is limited to 15-20% of their budget depending on their total budget. And just like businesses who give money don’t have to reveal their customer lists or sources of income, neither do nonprofits.
I believe OIA is breaking the law if they get an account payable and have a strong pledge to receive the money to cover it. If you believe that you have a firm pledge, you are required to report it, whether or not the money has arrived. This hiding the ball is, however, typical of OIA.
11. Buster Smith | October 29th, 2007 at 12:21 am
Our Oregon is not a 501c3 organization. Also, Evan, your statements about 15-20% pertain to federal tax law, not to Oregon campaign finance reporting requirements, which apply to everyone and every entity that accepts contributions to be used to support or oppose candidates or measures.
You claim that OIA had firm pledges they did not report. Do you have any proof of that whatsoever? Of course you do not.
But let’s apply your double standard. If it is OK for Our Oregon never to report its contributions at all, then that must also be OK for OIA, right? But OIA is reporting its contributions and its expenditures. You cannot possibly have a complaint about that, since you contend that organizations, such as Our Oregon and OIA, do not have to report anything at all.
12. Evan | October 29th, 2007 at 8:23 am
As noted, I was talking as if Our Oregon was a 501c3h. What are they? Regardless, your comment presumes that Our Oregon is receiving contributions to be used for specific candidates and measures, instead of general support funds. You have evidence of that? If so, please file your complaint with the Secretary of State instead of on a blog.
And no, I don’t see OIA telling us who their contributions are to the OIA-Ed Fund or to OIA c4 or to OIA Legal Fund, only to OIA PAC and their various front groups like Oregon Family Farm Association.
The way we have it set up creates legal ways to hide money that’s given for general support. Perhaps that law should be changed.
But yes, we’re not all that naive that OIA would go several hundred thousand dollars in debt without knowing the money was coming.
13. Buster Smith | October 30th, 2007 at 3:22 am
You again offer a double standard. OIA is fully reporting how much is being received from each of its contributors to the campaign against Measure 49. But Our Oregon is not. It is admittedly spending money in favor of Measure 49 and is not reporting its contributors at all. Then you claim that OIA is not reporting enough, when Our Oregon is not reporting at all. What an absurd hypocrite you are.
It has nothing to do with “general support.” That is not a term that is used in Oregon campaign finance reporting law at all. Groups that accept any contributions to be spend for or against any candidate or measure in Oregon are required to register as political committees and report their sources and amounts of contributions. It matters not whether any donor is giving specifically for one or another candidate or measure.
Consult a lawyer.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed