[EL] Use of tax dollars to find one side of a referendum campaign

[Dan Meek]

Doing that is unlawful in Oregon.

    The election finance law limits the political activities of public
    employes while on the job during working hours. ORS 260.432(2)
    provides in relevant part that “[n]o public employe shall * * *
    oppose * * * the adoption of a measure * * * while on the job during
    working hours.” Restrictions also prohibit the solicitation of
    public employes for political activity. ORS 250.432(1) provides in
    relevant part that “[n]o *75 person shall attempt to, or actually, *
    * * require a public employe to * * * give * * * service * * * to *
    * * oppose * * * the adoption of a measure * * *.”

_Burt v. Blumenauer_, 299 Or 55, 74–75, 699 P2d 168, 180, 51 ALR4th 679 
(1985).  Oregon public officials are personally liable for repayment to 
the government of expenditures made "for a different purpose . . . than 
authorized by law."  ORS 294.100.

Dan Meek

	503-293-9021 	dan at meek.net <mailto:dan at meek.net>	855-280-0488 fax


The election finance law limits the political activities of public 
employes while on the job during working hours.ORS 260.432(2) provides 
in relevant part that “[n]o public employe shall * * * oppose * * * the 
adoption of a measure * * * while on the job during working hours.”
Restrictions also prohibit the solicitation of public employes for 
political activity.ORS 250.432(1) provides in relevant part that “[n]o 
*75 person shall attempt to, or actually, * * * require a public employe 
to * * * give * * * service * * * to * * * oppose * * * the adoption of 
a measure * * *.”

/_Burt v. Blumenauer_/, 299 Or 55, 74–75, 699 P2d 168, 180, 51 ALR4th 
679 (1985)

On 10/24/2018 4:27 PM, Fredric Woocher wrote:
>
> Steven,
>
> In California, it is unlawful for a governmental entity to spend funds 
> advocating for one side or the other of a ballot measure.  The 
> government can provide impartial information, but not engage in 
> advocacy.  Of course, many issues have arisen over the years in 
> attempting to draw the line between those two points on the continuum, 
> and it is a repeated issue for litigation.
>
> The leading case supporting the prohibition is /Stanson v. Mott/ 
> (1976) 17 Cal.3d 206 from the California Supreme Court, which makes 
> public officials personally liable for unlawful expenditures.  There 
> are a variety of statutes that have now also incorporated the 
> prohibition into a number of different contexts (e.g., school bond 
> elections, etc.).  The decision in Stanson relied upon Justice 
> Brennan’s opinion in /Citizens to Protect Pub. Funds v. Board of 
> Education/ (1953) 13 N.J. 172, 98 A.2d 673, from when he was on the 
> New Jersey Supreme Court.
>
> Fredric D. Woocher
>
> Strumwasser & Woocher LLP
>
> 10940 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2000
>
> Los Angeles, CA 90024
>
> fwoocher at strumwooch.com <mailto:fwoocher at strumwooch.com>
>
> (310) 576-1233
>
> *From:*Law-election 
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of 
> *Steven John Mulroy (smulroy)
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 23, 2018 8:38 PM
> *To:* law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> *Subject:* [EL] Use of tax dollars to find one side of a referendum 
> campaign
>
>      Does anyone know of authority regarding whether  a  governmental
>     entity can appropriate funds to do one-sided public advocacy to
>     support one side of a referendum measure?
>
> A city Council voted to place referenda  on the ballot. All three are 
> highly controversial. On the last city Council meeting before the 
> election, the Council did an "add-on" item to the agenda, without 
> public notice, and then approved it in the "same night minutes" 
> departure from the normal two week approval process. The funds will be 
> used to advocate for one side of the referendum.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20181024/51e0010d/attachment.html>