Connect with us

Oregon

Oregon’s ‘30 Years War’ over campaign finance reform approaches its final battle – Oregon Capital Chronicle

Published

on

Oregon’s ‘30 Years War’ over campaign finance reform approaches its final battle – Oregon Capital Chronicle


How did we get to the point in Oregon’s current legislative session that leaders of both parties and representatives of major business and labor groups are uniting in an effort to enact long-overdue limits on big money donations to candidate campaigns?

One reason: Voters clearly want something done. A 2023 poll by the Oregon Values and Beliefs Center found 75% of Oregonians agree that “laws should be passed to regulate unlimited money in political campaigns.”

Another reason: Reformers have used the initiative process to keep this issue in front of voters and the courts for 30 years now.

But the real reason: With voter approval of a constitutional amendment to authorize campaign funding and spending limits in 2020, sponsors of the latest campaign finance reform initiative (Initiative Petition 9) have the political winds at their back as they work to qualify their measure for this year’s general election ballot. 

Advertisement

In short, the good government reformers appear to be holding a winning hand, and institutional insiders want to reshuffle the deck. But it has taken too long, with too many election wins overturned in unfriendly courtrooms and promises made but never delivered by cagey lawmakers for the reformers to fold their hand now.

For three decades, Oregon voters have been supporting ballot initiatives to limit the role of big money in candidate elections. In 1994, they approved Measure 9 by 72% in favor and 28% against to limit contributions to candidates and campaign spending. But, just three years later, the Oregon Supreme Court gutted the measure and left candidates free to pursue unlimited contributions from wealthy donors and well-funded political action committees. 

I remember sitting in a legislative hearing room on the February morning in 1997 when the Supreme Court released its decision (in Vannatta v. Keisling) invalidating the contribution limits in Measure 9. A staff person whispered the news to the chair of the committee, who immediately recessed the hearing, took a few steps from the dais and, gesturing like a gambler pulling the lever of a slot machine, quipped to those nearby: “Ka-ching, ka-ching.” I thought at the time: That says it all.

But the good government groups behind Measure 9 never gave up. They took a two-pronged approach to the ballot in 2006, with proposals to amend the state constitution to authorize campaign contribution and spending limits (Measure 46) and another to place specific limits in statute (Measure 47). The former failed, but voters approved the contribution limits in the latter, only to have the secretary of state declare them unenforceable and the courts to affirm them as inoperative without a constitutional amendment or a reversal of the Vannatta decision.

Then, in 2020, the reformers got both. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed its decision in the Vannatta case in response to yet another campaign finance measure approved by the voters in Multnomah County. And, later that year, voters statewide approved a constitutional amendment (Measure 107) to allow the enactment of campaign contribution and spending limits at the state and local level. The vote for Measure 107 was 78% in favor, even stronger than the vote for Measure 9 in 1994.

Advertisement

In the wake of these victories, the drafters of IP 9 are well on their way to delivering a viable campaign finance proposal to Oregon voters. According to the summary of IP 9’s provisions approved by the Oregon Supreme Court, the initiative would limit contributions to candidates and political committees, limit the carry forward of unspent campaign funds after elections and require political advertisements to identify their top four funders, among other provisions. 

If ever there was a more determined and singularly focused use of the initiative process to advance the will of the voters over the entrenched and dogged resistance of institutional interests, I can’t think of one. And, whatever one thinks of the mind-numbing details of campaign contribution limits and the risk of driving big money into the dark corners of independent expenditure campaigns, the reformers who brought us to this point deserve our respect. 

Perhaps it is a kind of respect that they’re now getting from the Legislature. Lawmakers are not only paying attention, they’re trying to enact legislation that will give themselves a first mover advantage on an issue they’ve been resisting for decades.

In these election year legislative sessions, it’s not unusual for the governor and lawmakers to engage with the sponsors of competing ballot measures, broker compromises and enact legislation to avoid what are always called “costly ballot measure fights.” In other instances, they’ve joined those fights, by referring their own alternatives to the ballot. 

But what’s happening this time is different. Backers of IP 9 don’t want to negotiate any changes; they’re confident that they’ll have the support of the voters in November. Meanwhile, lawmakers and their major donors aren’t interested in going head-to-head with IP 9 by sending their own measure to the ballot. Instead, by enacting their own proposal, legislators hope to convince voters that there’s nothing to see here anymore and it’s time to move on to other issues.

Advertisement

I’m not taking sides at this point on the merits of the Legislature’s plan (House Bill 4024-3) versus IP 9. But I do think voters deserve to consider any alternative proposal from the Legislature on equal ground with IP 9. 

For now, it’s worth recognizing what has created this moment of legislative urgency and business-labor cooperation. As a spokesperson for Oregon Business and Industry, the state’s largest business group, told Oregon Public Broadcasting, “We think the current system, frankly, works just fine. But we’re responding to a reality where campaign finance reform is coming. The days of the current system are over.”

Give credit to the backers of IP 9 for creating that reality. And stay tuned for what’s likely to be the final battle in Oregon’s “30 Years War” over campaign finance reform in which the good government reformers once again take on the institutional insiders. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

Advertisement



Source link

Advertisement

Oregon

‘Very grave situation’: Oregon court slaps attorney with $2,000 fine for AI errors

Published

on

‘Very grave situation’: Oregon court slaps attorney with ,000 fine for AI errors


An Oregon attorney accused of relying’ on the totally plausible — and often totally erroneous — output of so-called artificial intelligence was slapped with a fine by the Oregon Court of Appeals on Wednesday.

The appellate court determined that Portland civil attorney Gabriel A. Watson filed briefs citing two made-up cases and used a fabricated quote that was attributed to a real piece of case law.

In a first for Oregon, the Courts of Appeals ordered Watson to pay $2,000 to the state judicial department, charging him $500 for each baloney citation and $1,000 for the bogus quote.

“Although artificial intelligence programs may seem to offer a shortcut for a busy attorney in an individual case, at present, they may create a long cut to justice,” Chief Judge Erin Lagesen wrote, calling it a “very grave situation.”

Advertisement

The errors were discovered by Watson’s legal opponent, former state lawmaker and retired attorney Charles Ringo.

Former Oregon Gov. Kate Brown, who once served as state senate majority leader, talks with Sen. Charles Ringo, D-Beaverton, in an undated file photo.Bruce Ely/The Oregonian

Ringo, representing himself, sued architectural designer Jennifer Cohoon in 2023, claiming her firm had created faulty plans for remodeling a duplex he owns in Bend.

An arbitrator sided with Cohoon in January and ordered Ringo to pay $1,200 plus $15,000 in fees to Watson, her attorney.

Ringo appealed and the case went haywire in May, when Watson filed the bunk-filled brief with the appellate court.

Ringo said he spent several hours chewing over Watson’s document, eventually making a trip to the Bend library to check legal databases and confirm his suspicions that Watson’s arguments were bolstered by fake decisions in prior cases that never happened.

Advertisement

“I had to consider whether maybe there was just an innocent mistake in terms of the name of the case or the case citation numbers,” he said. “You have to check all sorts of variations to make sure that, no, this just doesn’t exist.”

Watson, for his part, tried to explain the error by saying that his assistant had mistakenly filed a “draft/placeholder” brief.

He later acknowledged and apologized for the apparently AI-generated errors, asking the court not to sanction him.

“As a solo practitioner, with a heavy case load, and a desire to fight for justice for all clients, there is an inherent risk of becoming overwhelmed,” he wrote. “The temptation of relying on technology to support these well-intentioned goals is strong.”

But the court had none of it.

Advertisement

Lagesen, the judge, said Watson hadn’t provided a “clear explanation” of how the error occurred and that each false brief created by AI costs the judicial system time and money untangling the mix-up.

Legal precedent is the backbone of the law, Lagesen said, but artificial intelligence is a machine built on the probable order of words, not the truth itself.

AI mistakes are sometimes dubbed “hallucinations.” But Lagesen rejected that term.

“Artificfial intelligence is not perceiving nonexistent law as the result of a disorder,” she wrote. “Rather, it is generating nonexistent law in accordance with its design.”

Watson didn’t respond to requests for comment. Cohoon learned about the matter from a reporter and declined to comment.

Advertisement

Oregon federal judges have encountered AI errors in at least two cases so far, The Oregonian/OregonLive previously reported. U.S. District Judge Michael Simon declined to impose sanctions against attorneys for Green Building Initiative on Nov. 12, ruling that he was “satisfied with the remedial actions already taken.”

U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke has not yet ruled on a similar matter in Medford.



Source link

Continue Reading

Oregon

OPINION: JaMarcus Shephard was Oregon State’s First Choice, and the Right Choice

Published

on

OPINION: JaMarcus Shephard was Oregon State’s First Choice, and the Right Choice


Advertisement

A week ago – after former Wisconsin coach Paul Chryst backed out, North Dakota State head coach Tim Polasek signed a lucrative extension, Jim L. Mora agreed to take the reins at Colorado State, and Montana State head coach Brent Vigen elected to stay in Bozeman – fans across Beaver Nation wondered who would lead their program. I wondered too.

Now that the dust has settled – JaMarcus Shephard is the head coach of the Oregon State Beavers’ football program – I owe an apology to Scott Barnes and his search committee.

They got their guy. I now believe he was their first choice all along, and I’ll offer three reasons why.

Advertisement

Shephard satisfied Oregon State’s top priority: a strong character

I have previously written about the off-field failings of the Trent Bray era: student-athletes were arrested following domestic violence allegations, or caught driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Both the Oregon State campus & Corvallis community lost trust in its football team. Enter JaMarcus Shephard. “As we moved forward through the process and narrowed down to JaMarcus,” explained Oregon State athletic director Scott Barnes in yesterday’s press conference, “I made several calls to friends and colleagues in the industry…and as I talked to them about JaMarcus, they leaned in hard on the person he was rather than the accomplishments he had.”

Barnes later shared a letter he received from Shephard’s middle school PE teacher, Joan Augenbaugh: “I want to reach out and congratulate you on the hiring of one of the most amazing students I’ve ever had in my thirty-three years of teaching. I had JaMarcus when I first started my teaching career. He has that joy about him, always the smile. I am happy, so happy for him, he has always worked so hard for everything he has and everything he has achieved. ”

For her part, Oregon State president Jayathi Murthy appeared similarly spirited by the hire. Only months removed from Oregon State’s associated student body prodding her about Trent Bray’s no-comment comment on troubled cornerback Exodus Ayers, she told the assembled crowd how excited she was for next September’s home opener. She’s not even a football fan!

I believe Shephard – who used his time yesterday to emphasize the importance of academic excellence & embracing Oregon State’s campus culture – has the bona fides to clean up a wayward program.

Advertisement


MORE: State of the Beavs: JaMarcus Shephard’s First Days At Oregon State

Advertisement

Shephard satisfied Oregon State’s second-highest priority: a skilled recruiter

Fired Oregon State head coach Trent Bray had a glaring weakness: recruiting. Back in May, Lake Oswego running back LaMarcus Bell – arguably the best prep in the Beaver State – wanted to visit other schools. Instead of acquiescing, Oregon State forced his hand, scrubbing a scholarship offer and previously scheduled official visit. Bell signed with Utah earlier today.

A similar story played out with California corner Donovan Dunmore, an Oregon State commit who crossed Bray’s invisible line after an official visit to Wisconsin earlier this season. Today, Dunmore marked his commitment to Camp Randall in ink.

Advertisement

Bell, Dunmore, and Fresno four-star quarterback Deagan Rose highlight a hit parade of 7 different de-commitments from Oregon State’s signing class. Now, consider JaMarcus Shephard. At blue-chip Alabama the past two seasons, and a Washington program that reached the College Football Playoff national championship game two years ago, he worked tirelessly to build relationships with players. His head coach Kalen DeBoer explained this week that “He’s a guy that pours everything into this program, and he’s poured everything into me. It’s something that our players know and feel, known Shep since really 2014, and you can’t help but be excited for someone who gets to run their own program.”

Shephard played a part in building two of the sport’s best teams. Now he’ll pitch talented student-athletes on spending their Saturdays at Reser Stadium.

For added measure, Shephard flashes incredible charisma

Advertisement

Trent Bray struggled in front of the microphones. I’m reminded of a difficult exchange with OregonLive.com columnist Bill Oram, who – in a moment of frustration – asked the head coach point blank “Do you still believe you’re the right coach to lead this program?”

Advertisement

Oram, for his part, borrowed the microphone during the question/answer session that capped yesterday’s presser. When he spoke, Oregon State athletic director Scott Barnes scowled. Flanked beside Barnes’ left shoulder, JaMarcus Shephard quite literally turned his other cheek, then smiled, and eagerly listened to what the once-confrontational columnist had to say. Oregon State’s new head coach has a way with people: his portion of the press conference ran for nearly an hour, and included heartfelt thanks addressed by name to his daughters, wife, and son, plus a platoon of Oregon State alumni, boosters, and decision-makers in attendance. After addressing so many questions that Oregon State assistant athletic director Hank Hager cut him off – Shephard walked off to the side and huddled up a private media scrum for even more questions.

Years ago, I remember interviewing the recently fired Jonathan Smith before a fundraising event at the Rogue Valley Country Club in Medford. As soon as the mic stopped recording, Jonathan sprinted away to go play some holes. I don’t blame him – the view of the Siskiyou Mountains helps shape one of the prettiest courses in America – but the contrast between Shephard and his predeccesors is stark. After media members were finally finished with their questions yesterday, JaMarcus Shephard stayed behind for hugs & handshakes.

Like I said on BlueSky yesterday: Beaver Nation, you got your guy. Sorry it took me so long to figure out.

Advertisement


More Reading Material From Oregon State Beavers On SI



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Oregon

Oregon Football 2026 Signing Day Tracker: Who is joining the Ducks?

Published

on

Oregon Football 2026 Signing Day Tracker: Who is joining the Ducks?


Dan Lanning and the Oregon Ducks have made a habit of stealing headlines during the Early Signing Period, whether for top-ranked signing classes or big-time commitment flips.

Oregon is expecting to make more headlines this week as well, looking to sign a fourth straight top-10 ranked class, and potentially the third top-five ranked class in a row.

Going into the early signing period, the Ducks have 19 verbal commitments who they are looking to turn into official signings and a couple of prospects who they are trying to flip to come to Oregon on top of that.

So what is the latest news, and who has signed for the Ducks so far? Here’s an updated look at the latest happenings in Eugene:

Advertisement

This article will be updated throughout the day as more players announce their signing.

Xavier Lherisse— Eau Gallie (Florida)

247Sports Rating: 4-star (90)

National Ranking: No. 384

Position Ranking: No. 33

Tradarian Ball — Texas High (Texas)

247Sports Rating: 4-star (96)

Advertisement

National Ranking: No. 54

Position Ranking: No. 9

Gatlin Bair — Burley High (Idaho)

247Sports Rating: 5-star (98)

National Ranking: No. 27

Position Ranking: No. 6

Advertisement

(Bair was originally a member of the 2024 class, but after taking a two-year LDS mission, is re-signing with the Ducks)

Braylon Hodge — Cherry Creek (Colorado)

247Sports Rating: 4-star (92)

National Ranking: No. 212

Position Ranking: No. 12

Hudson Lewis — Timberline (Idaho)

247Sports Rating: 3-star (86)

Advertisement

National Ranking: No. 1310

Position Ranking: No. 190

Azel Banag — A.C. Flora (South Carolina)

247Sports Rating: 3-star (87)

National Ranking: No. 852

Position Ranking: No. 69

Advertisement

Tristan Phillips — Ventura (Calif.)

247Sports Rating: 4-star (91)

National Ranking: No. 362

Position Ranking: No. 24

Immanuel Iheanacho — Georgetown Prep (North Bethesda, MD)

247Sports Rating: 5-star (98)

National Ranking: No. 25

Advertisement

Position Ranking: No. 2

Tony Cumberland — Willamette (Eugene, OR)

247Sports Rating: 4-star (95)

National Ranking: No. 88

Position Ranking: No. 11

Trevon Watson — College of San Mateo (California)

247Sports Rating: 3-star (84)

Advertisement

National Ranking: No. 107 (JUCO)

Position Ranking: No. 13 (JUCO)

Prince Tavizon — Lincoln (San Diego)

247Sports Rating: 4-star (90)

National Ranking: No. 315

Position Ranking: No. 31

Advertisement

Contact/Follow @Ducks_Wire on X (formerly Twitter) and like our page on Facebook to follow ongoing coverage of Oregon Ducks news, notes, and opinions.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending