Oregon Advisory Opinions April 28, 1977: OAG 77-48 (April 28, 1977)

Oregon Attorney General Opinions

1977.

OAG 77-48.

---

753

DISCUSSION

Unquestionably, the state has power to regulate election activity to the extent necessary to prevent fraud. Or Const art II, § 8. However, the right to engage in political activity is a part of the constitutionally protected rights

---

754

of free expression and free speech. Or Const art I, § 8, § 26; Deras v. Meyers , 272 Or 47, 535 P2d 541 (1975). We state the obvious in saying that a person does not forfeit these rights upon being elected to political office. Statutory restrictions on these rights are strictly construed. See, for example, Deras , supra .

With this background we turn to examine ORS 171.756, which provides in part:

"(2) No lobbyist shall attempt to influence the vote of any member of the Legislative Assembly by the promise of financial support of his candidacy , or by threat of financing opposition to his candidacy , at any future election.

". . . .

"(6) No legislative official shall receive or solicit any monetary payment or other contribution for the purpose of meeting election campaign expenditures or deficits from a lobbyist during a session of the Legislative Assembly.

"(7) No lobbyist during a session of the Legislative Assembly shall make or promise to make any monetary payment or other contribution for the purpose of meeting campaign expenditures or deficits to a legislative official." (Emphasis added).

It is clear that during a session a lobbyist may not make or promise to make contributions toward a legislator's campaign expenses. ORS 171.756(7). It is equally clear that during a session a legislative official may neither receive nor solicit such contributions from a lobbyist. ORS 171.756(6). The question is raised whether the legislature intended these prohibitions to extend to contributions and solicitation of contributions for ballot measures. We think not.

---

755

We do not here say that legislation forbidding solicitation of ballot measure campaign funds by public officials from lobbyists could not be adopted. Or Const art II, § 8. The legislature might well find such a prohibition necessary to insure integrity of the election process. However, whether the legislature intended the phrase "campaign expenditures" as used in ORS 171.756(6) and (7) to extend beyond expenses associated with a legislator's personal campaign is unclear from a reading of those subsections alone. If this phrase refers only to expenditures related to a legislator's bid for office, then this statute would not restrict legislators from soliciting or lobbyists from making contributions to support or oppose ballot measures.

When a statute is ambiguous we may look for guidance to other sections of the statute or to other parts of the same legislative act. Wimer v. Miller , 235 Or 25, 383 P2d 1005 (1963). To aid in interpreting the scope of the phrase "campaign expenditures" we turn first to subsection (2) of ORS 171.756. Subsection (2) forbids promises of financial support of or opposition to a legislator's candidacy by a lobbyist in an effort to influence the legislator's vote. This subsection is restricted to contributions affecting a legislator's campaign and provides evidence that the legislature was also referring to such contributions in subsections (6) and (7).

Restrictions on fund raising contained in ORS 171.756(6) and (7) are confined to activities occurring "during a

---

756

session." Such language suggests that in adopting this statute the legislature was primarily concerned with regulation of lobbying directly affecting the legislative process and that it did not intend to restrict lobbying of issues not before the Legislative Assembly.

There are no cases interpreting ORS 171.756, but an examination of the lobbying regulation statutes as a whole (ORS 171.722 to 171.785) provides a further guide to the meaning of "campaign expenditures."

ORS 171.730, Lobbying Regulation Purpose , suggests the intended scope of these regulations. The statute provides:

"The Legislative Assembly finds that to preserve and maintain the integrity of the legislative process , it is necessary that the identity, expenditures and activities of certain persons who engage in efforts to persuade members of the Legislative Assembly or the executive branch to take specific actions , either by direct communication to such officials or by solicitation of others to engage in such efforts, be publicly and regularly disclosed." (Emphasis added).

This statute indicates that the lobbying regulation is meant to cover lobbying intended ". . . to persuade members of the Legislative Assembly or the executive branch. . . ." The express purpose of such regulation is ". . . to preserve and maintain the integrity of the legislative process. . . ." Such regulation would not extend to efforts, such as those involved in ballot measure elections, to influence the public at large.

This interpretation is strengthened by the definitions for lobbying regulations set forth in ORS 171.725.

---

757

ORS 171.725(6) provides:

"Lobbying means influencing, or attempting to influence, legislative action ." (Emphasis added).

ORS 171.725(4) defines "legislative action" as:

". . . introduction, sponsorship, testimony, debate, voting or any other official action on any measure, resolution, amendment, nomination, appointment, or report, or any matter which may be the subject of action by either house of the Legislative Assembly, or any committee thereof or the approval or veto thereof by the Governor ." (Emphasis added).

Thus the lobbying regulations in ORS 171.725 to 171.785 appear to be confined to efforts to influence elected officials or other members of the state government, and do not appear to include efforts to influence the general public.

The 1977-78 Rules of the House of Representatives further support the position that ORS 171.725 to 171.785 were intended to apply only to lobbying directed at members of the Legislative Assembly or other members of state government. House Rule 19.01(1), Regulation of Lobbyist , states:

"It is the intention of the House to provide opportunity for any and all citizens who comply with the requirements of ORS 171.725 to 171.785 and subsection (2) of this rule to appear before members of the House and committees of the House on behalf of or in opposition to any measures before the Legislative Assembly ." (Emphasis added)

This subsection confines application of the rule to persons lobbying for or against issues before the legislature. The rule would not cover efforts to influence the public.

Statutes directly or indirectly infringing on constitutional rights must be strictly construed. State v. Hennessey ,

---

758

195 Or 355, 245 P2d 875 (1952). We find no legislative intent to include ballot measure contributions within the meaning of "campaign expenditures" and conclude that, under current statutes and rules, a legislative official may solicit and a lobbyist may contribute funds during a session to support or oppose a ballot measure.