Oregon Advisory Opinions July 07, 1970: OAG 70-52 (July 7, 1970)

OAG 70-52.

ORS 471.420 provides in part that:

"No licensee under the Liquor Control Act . . . shall make any monetary contribution to any candidate for political office . . . ."

So far as we are aware, the Oregon court has not defined the word "political." "Political" offices were distinguished from "judicial" offices in Waldo v. Wallace , 12 Ind. 569 (1859), but we can see no reason why the legislature would have intended such a distinction here.

In Akio Kuwahara v. Acheson , 96 F. Supp. 38 (S.D. Cal., 1951), the court held that in the absence of evidence of legislative intent to the contrary, the word "political" should be given its ordinary and usual meaning, and accepted the following dictionary definition:

". . . 'Of or pertaining to Polity, or politics, or the conduct of government, referring in the widest application to the judicial, executive, and legislative branches; of or pertaining to, or incidental to, the exercise of the functions vested in those charged with the conduct of government; relating to the management of affairs of state; . . .'" 96 F. Supp. at 41.

See also Norton v. Letton , 271 Ky. 353, 111 S.W.2d 1053 (1938).

It would appear that the purpose of ORS 471.420 is to prevent licensees from influencing those who would be determining the course of government, whether they be legislators, city councilmen, district attorneys or judges.

ORS 471.030 provides that the Liquor Control Act shall be liberally construed so as to "prevent the recurrence of abuses associated with saloons or resorts for the consumption of alcoholic beverages." So construed, ORS 471.420 would certainly apply to any candidate for an office closely connected with law enforcement, such as district judge.

Accordingly, it is concluded that a licensee under the Liquor Control Act may not contribute to the campaign of a candidate for district judge.