ORS Chapter 259
Chapter 259 — CampaignFinance
2009 EDITION
CAMPAIGNFINANCE
ELECTIONS
(Chapter3, Oregon Laws 2007 (Ballot Measure 47 (2006)), is compiled as a note)
Note: The Act thatcomprises chapter 3, Oregon Laws 2007 (Ballot Measure 47 (2006)), was proposedby initiative petition and was approved by the people at the regular generalelection on November 7, 2006. By proclamation of the Governor dated December 7,2006, the Act was declared to have received an affirmative majority of thetotal number of votes cast thereon and to be in full force and effect asprovided in section 1, Article IV, Oregon Constitution. However, on November17, 2006, the Secretary of State interpreted section (9)(f) of the Act to meanthat the Act was not currently enforceable. On September 25, 2007, the MarionCounty Circuit Court in Hazell, et al. v. Bradbury, et al., affirmed theSecretary of State’s interpretation, holding that “...Measure 47, in itsentirety, presently is not operative.” The decision of the circuit court wasappealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals.
Atthe time volume 6 of the 2009 Edition of the Oregon Revised Statutes was sentto the printer, Hazell v. Brown (formerly Bradbury) was pending before theOregon Court of Appeals. Chapter 3, Oregon Laws 2007, is set forth below forthe user’s convenience.
LegislativeCounsel has added line spacing but has not otherwise adjusted the format of thetext that was proposed by initiative petition and approved by the people.
BeIt Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon, Chapter 259 of Oregon RevisedStatutes is hereby amended by the addition of the following sections (referredto therein as “this Act”):
Thepurpose of this Act is to restore democracy in Oregon and reduce corruption andthe appearance of corruption by limiting political campaign contributions andindependent expenditures on candidate races and by increasing timely publicdisclosure of the sources of those contributions and expenditures. These limitsand disclosure requirements are needed so that corporations, unions, andwealthy individuals do not exercise undue and disproportionate influence overthe results of elections and upon the policies and decisions of candidates andpublic officeholders. Consistent with the U.S. Constitution, this Act applies tocampaigns for all public offices in Oregon, except federal offices.
Oregoncan make consistent progress in education, health care, economic development,living wage jobs, and natural resource issues, only by curtailing the power ofprivate economic interests to unduly dominate our political process. We mustrestore fairness in political campaigns and achieve a government thatrepresents the views and needs of all Oregonians instead of allowing only apowerful few to call the tune by providing funds to enable some candidates tooverwhelm others.
(1)Findings.
Thepeople, acting in their legislative capacity, find these facts:
(a)The democratic process has not functioned properly in Oregon, due to the lackof reasonable limits on political campaign contributions and expenditures,including expenditures made independently of candidates, on races for state andlocal public office. Oregon is one of only five states in the United Stateswith no limits on political campaign contributions. All of the prohibitions,limits, and reporting and disclosure requirements of this Act are reasonableand necessary to curb the undue influence of large contributions andexpenditures.
(b)Because Oregon candidates are now forced to treat campaign fundraising as an “armsrace” to be won at all costs, they have become unduly beholden to largecontributors and the special interests able to contribute large amounts fortheir campaigns. Contributions to candidates in contests for statewide publicoffice and for the Oregon Legislature have increased from $4.2 million in 1996to $27.9 million in 2002. Less than 4% of the contributions were in amounts of$50 or less, and 75% of the money came from only 1% of the contributors.
(c)Large contributions distort the political process and impair democracy, withthese adverse effects:
(1)Corrupting public officials and causing them to take actions that benefit largecontributors at the expense of the public interest;
(2)Causing public officials to grant special access and accord undue influence tolarge contributors;
(3)Significantly impairing the opportunity for voters to hear from candidates whodo not accept large contributions and for those candidates to communicate withvoters; and
(4)Fostering the appearance of corruption and undermining the public’s faith inthe integrity of elected officials and the political process.
(d)Candidates engage in the money “arms race” due to their accurate perceptionthat expenditures influence the outcome of elections. In contests for theOregon Senate, the candidate spending the most money won 87% of the races in2002 and 94% of the races in 2004. The two exceptions in 2002 and the onlyexception in 2004 were former legislators who still spent an average of$195,000 each. In contests for the Oregon House of Representatives, thecandidate spending the most money won 92% of the races in 2002 and 90% of theraces in 2004. The five exceptions in 2002, including two incumbents, spent anaverage of $167,000 each.
(e)Oregon candidates have become overly dependent upon large contributions from avery few donors. In the 2002 legislative races, over 98.5% of Oregon registeredvoters made no contributions at all. In the primaries, 49% of the contributedmoney came from 3% of the donors in contributions averaging over $4,100 each.In the general election, 69% of the contributed money came from 6% of thedonors in contributions averaging just under $6,700 each. For the primary andgeneral election campaigns combined, only 3.6% of the funds came fromthose contributing $50 or less.
(f)Candidate campaigns spent almost $15 million in the 2002 contest for Governoralone, easily surpassing the $2.4 million spent in 1998, the $6.9 million spentin 1994, and the $3.2 million spent in 1990. In 2002, each major party candidatespent over $4 million, and the average spent in the primaries by the fourlosing candidates taken seriously by the press was $1.5 million.
(g)Contributions are given also to obtain access to and the favor of whichevercandidate is elected. In 2002, almost 40% of money contributed to thelegislative leadership political committees came from donors who contributed toboth the Republican leadership committees and to the Democratic leadershipcommittees. Nearly one-third of contributions to winning Oregon candidatesafter the close of the last reporting period in 2000 were first-timecontributions from donors who had financially supported the losing candidate inthe same race.
(h)Contributions to and expenditures for candidate campaigns in excess of thoseallowed by this Act are considered to be large contributions and expendituresin Oregon.
(i)Corporations have been granted state-conferred advantages for the purpose ofeconomic gain and the amassing of wealth, including perpetual life, limited liability,and the issuance of securities. The use of corporate treasury funds forpolitical purposes distorts the democratic process, threatens the integrity ofthe elections process, and overwhelms the voices of ordinary citizens.Corporate spending on politics does not necessarily reflect public support forthe political agenda of the corporation. Therefore, corporate use of treasuryfunds for political purposes should be restricted to the maximum extent allowedby the United States Constitution and the Oregon Constitution.
(j)Examples of the undue influence exercised due to large campaign contributionsinclude:
(1)In 2004, the Oregon Lottery Commission disregarded its own study (showing thatCanadian provinces pay video poker outlets commissions of 15% of the moneytaken in, instead of the 32% paid in Oregon) and continued to allow video pokerparlors in Oregon to keep an extra $85 million per year that should be going toschools. The Commission answers to the Governor and the Legislature, and theOregon Restaurant Association, whose clients were on the receiving end of theextra $85 million, contributed over $1.2 million to their candidacies in thelast 3 elections.
(2)Enron Corporation took over PGE in 1997 and in 2001 got from the Oregon PublicUtility Commission (OPUC) the largest electricity rate increase in Oregonhistory - over $400 million per year. The OPUC also refuses to make PGE payback any of the more than $700 million PGE has charged Oregon ratepayers since1997 for “federal and state income taxes” that in fact neither Enron nor PGEhas ever paid. The OPUC answers to the Governor and the Legislature, andPGE/Enron has contributed almost $400,000 to candidates for the OregonLegislature and both major political parties.
(k)Even if corporate contributions and expenditures were prohibited, corporationscould channel political spending through individuals (in the form of largesalaries, bonuses, or other compensation or gifts) and thereby continue toexercise undue influence over candidates and public officeholders, who would beaware of the sources of the funds.
(l)Allowing unlimited individual contributions accords undue influence to wealthyindividuals, regardless of their sources of wealth, who can use that influenceto obtain access to public officeholders and benefits from government notavailable to others. In the 2002 contest for Governor, one individualcontributed $415,000 to the Republican candidate and another $125,000 to theOregon Republican Party. The same candidate received another $200,000 from anindividual and another $150,000 from another individual, with $100,000 morefrom that contributor’s son. Each of these individual contributors wereexecutive officers of corporations.
(m)Even if all other contributions were prohibited or limited, large contributionsby candidates to their own campaigns would also have the adverse effects notedabove, because it would allow candidates with personal wealth to overwhelm theefforts of other candidates and compel those candidates to become beholden tolarge contributors and special interests in order to compete. Statewidecampaigns in Oregon governed by the federal contribution limits have beendominated by candidate personal wealth. In 1996, for example, the winningcandidate for an Oregon seat in the U.S. Senate, Gordon Smith, spent over $2million of his personal wealth, defeating Tom Bruggere, who spent $1 million ofhis personal wealth.
(1)Regardless of the source of wealth, allowing unlimited use of personal fundsundermines the goal of robust public debate by discouraging non-wealthycandidates from competing for office, thereby depriving voters of theopportunity to support candidates reflecting a full range of views andexperiences.
(2)Candidates should be banned from loaning money to their own campaigns, becausesolicitations of campaign funds to repay the loans would result in directfinancial gain for the candidates.
(n)Contribution limits can also be circumvented when adults use minors to makeadditional contributions. It is thus necessary to further limit campaigncontributions and expenditures by persons under 16 years of age and to prohibitthem by persons under 12 years of age, as such contributions and expendituresare very likely to be dictated by adults as a means of circumventing thelimits.
(o)Candidates should not be allowed to carry over campaign funds from one electioncycle to another, because the accumulation of such “war chests” distorts andcorrupts the election process by deterring other candidates from competing forpublic office and thereby unfairly entrenching incumbents in future elections.One example: In 2002, incumbent members of the Oregon Legislature entered theirraces with over $785,000 in funds carried over from previous campaigns. Everyincumbent Senator running for re-election won, as did every incumbent member ofthe House of Representatives, except one who switched parties in 2001. Further,the carried over funds do not necessarily reflect the current views of thecontributors on the merits of the candidates in the later race.
(p)Reasonable limits on contributions to political committees and to politicalparties are also necessary to avoid the adverse effects of large contributionsnoted above and to ensure that contributors cannot evade the limits oncontributions to candidate committees by making unlimited contributions topolitical committees and political parties that support or oppose theircandidates.
(q)Contributions from individuals of fifty dollars ($50) or less to small donor committeespose little or no risk of corruption, because contributions to these committeeswill reflect public support for the committee’s political positions and willnot enable the contributors to exercise undue influence over elected officialsor over the results of elections.
(r)In 1994, voters in Oregon approved a statutory ballot measure, Measure 9,establishing contribution limits similar to those in this Act, by anaffirmative vote of 72 percent. The Oregon Supreme Court in 1997 found thatthose limits were not permitted under the Oregon Constitution. This Act shalltake effect at a time when the Oregon Constitution does allow the limitationscontained in this Act.
(s)When the Measure 9 limits were in effect during the 1996 election cycle,candidates were able to amass sufficient funds to campaign effectively and havetheir voices rise to the level of public notice, using the contributionsallowed by Measure 9. A more recent example shows that the contribution limitsin this Act will allow effective campaigns. In 2004, Tom Potter won theelection for Mayor of Portland, in a race involving over 350,000 registeredvoters, while limiting his campaign to contributions from individuals notexceeding $25 per individual in the primary and $100 per individual in thegeneral election campaign. The reasonable limits in this Act will increasecompetition for public office, foster a greater robustness of political debatein Oregon, and alleviate the adverse effects noted above.
(t)Limiting contributions will encourage candidates to spend more time in directcontact with voters in their districts and less time raising funds from largecontributors, thus improving their understanding of public needs and policysolutions.
(u)So-called “independent expenditures” supporting or opposing one or morecandidates must also be regulated and disclosed, in order to avoidcircumvention of the limits on political contributions. In 2004, for example,these “independent expenditures” supporting or opposing federal candidates amountedto more than $500 million and provided conduits for corporations, unions, andwealthy individuals to circumvent limits on contributions to candidates forfederal office.
(v)When campaign contribution limits were in place in Oregon’s 1996 election cycle,“independent expenditures” increased from a negligible level to over $1.85million, as large donors evaded the contribution limits by fundingnon-candidate organizations that conducted express advocacy and electioneeringcampaigns to support or oppose candidates. These large expenditures corrupt thepolitical process in the same manner as large contributions, with the sameadverse effects noted above, because (1) candidates and elected officials areaware of the sources of the “independent expenditures” supporting or opposingtheir candidacies and (2) such expenditures allow the sources to exercise undueinfluence over the outcome of elections. These influences are even more severethan in the case of direct, publicly-reported contributions to a candidatecampaign, because the connections between the candidate and those funding “independentexpenditure” campaigns are known to the candidate but far less apparent to thepublic. Further, the candidate can publicly disavow the independentexpenditures, which nevertheless remain effective in influencing voters and inhelping the candidate.
(w)The effective exercise of the right to vote requires timely access tounderstandable information about contributions and expenditures to influencethe outcome of elections. Therefore, this Act requires:
(1)More effective reporting of campaign contributions and expenditures, includingso-called “independent expenditure” campaigns, which is particularly necessaryin light of Oregon’s distribution of vote-by-mail ballots weeks prior toelection day; and
(2)Effective and prompt disclosure of the identities of large donors incommunications to voters by independent expenditure campaigns (including thebusinesses of those donors).
(x)As all levels of government in the United States are adopting more controls onpolitical campaign contributions and expenditures, the courts are issuing manynew decisions on whether the variety of new controls are consistent with theUnited States Constitution. Drafting and enacting a ballot measure, andcompleting judicial review of its provisions through all levels of the courts,takes a minimum of several years. If any specific limitation or threshold ortime period or age limit in this Act is ultimately found to conflict with theUnited States Constitution or with the Oregon Constitution, the public interestwill best be served by (1) swiftly adjusting the conflicting provision so thatthe conflict is removed or, if that is not possible, then (2) severing theconflicting provision so that the remainder of this Act remains fully ineffect.
(y)Under the limits in this Act, the people of Oregon will have ampleopportunities to express their opinions and level of support for or oppositionto candidates; to form and fund effective organizations to express politicalviews; and to enjoy the freedoms of speech and association.
(2)Definitions.
Exceptfor the definitions provided in this section, the definitions in Chapter 260 ofOregon Revised Statutes shall apply to this Act.
(a)“Business entity” means any corporation, partnership, limited liabilitycompany, proprietorship, or other form of business organization which createsan entity which is legally separate from individuals.
(b)“Campaign” means any communication to voters for the purpose of influencing theoutcome of any contest.
(c)“Candidate” shall have the meaning provided in Chapter 260, except that itincludes a public office holder against whom a prospective recall petition hasbeen filed and has not expired pursuant to ORS 249.875.
(d)“Candidate committee” means any entity or any combination of individuals and/orentities, that receives a contribution or makes an expenditure under theauthority of a candidate. Every candidate committee shall register with theSecretary of State prior to receiving a contribution or making an expenditure.A candidate shall control only one candidate committee.
(e)“Candidate contribution” means any contribution made to support or oppose thenomination or election of any candidate or candidates.
(f)“Candidate survey” means a publication showing the positions of all candidatesfor a public office on selected bills, proposals, or issues; provided, that:
(1)The sponsor timely provides the survey questionnaire and a reasonable time forresponding to all candidates for the office; and
(2)The publication consists of the questions posed and the responses of allresponding candidates and may include descriptions of the bills or proposalsand the positions thereon of the organization publishing the survey.
(g)“Cash” means currency and any other means of payment that does not identify thepayor on the written or electronic instrument of payment.
(h)“Contest” means any electoral contest among one or more candidates for anon-federal public office.
(i)Contributions and Expenditures.
(1)“Contribution” or “contribute” includes:
(A)The payment, loan, gift, forgiving of indebtedness, or furnishing withoutequivalent compensation or consideration, of money, services, supplies,equipment or any other thing of value to or on behalf of, or for reducing thedebt of, a candidate, candidate committee, political committee, or politicalparty; and
(B)Any unfulfilled pledge, subscription, agreement or promise, whether or notlegally enforceable, to make a contribution.
(2)“Expenditure” or “expend” includes:
(A)The payment or furnishing to anyone of money or any thing of value inconsideration for any services, supplies, equipment or other thing of valueperformed or furnished for any reason, or the incurring or repayment ofindebtedness or obligation, including the creation of an account payable:
1)For the purpose of influencing the outcome of any contest; or
2)By or on behalf of, or for reducing the debt of, a candidate, candidatecommittee, political committee, political party, or independent expenditurecampaign; and
(B)Any unfulfilled pledge, subscription, agreement or promise, whether or notlegally enforceable, to make an expenditure.
(3)Any expenditure of personal funds by a candidate to influence the outcome ofthe candidate’s contest constitutes both a contribution to the candidatecommittee and an expenditure by the candidate committee.
(4)“Contribution” and “Expenditure” do not include:
(A)Volunteer personal services (including those of the candidate) for which nocompensation is asked or given, including unreimbursed travel expensesincidental thereto;
(B)Any bona fide news story, commentary or editorial distributed through thefacilities of any media organization, including any television or radiostation, newspaper, magazine or other regularly published periodical; provided,that the media organization:
1)Is not paid by any individual or entity for distributing the news story,commentary or editorial, apart from normal advertisers;
2)Is not owned or controlled by one or more candidates, political committees, orpolitical parties; and
3)Does not distribute the news story, commentary, or editorial to voters byunsolicited mailings or other means of distribution not sought by the recipient,including any paid advertisement in any other medium.
(C)Nonpartisan activity solely to encourage individuals to vote or to register tovote, without expressing a preference regarding the outcome of any election;
(D)Communication to its members, and not to the public, by a membershiporganization not organized primarily for the purpose of influencing the outcomeof contests, including communication of an officeholder scorecard or candidatesurvey; or
(E)Production of an officeholder scorecard or candidate survey and itsdistribution by paper or electronic copies (but not by paid advertising ontelevision or radio) at a cost of less than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000)for distribution to the public.
(F)Funds provided to candidate committees by entities of government pursuant to asystem of public funding.
(j)“Coordinated Expenditure” means an expenditure coordinated with a candidate,candidate committee, political committee, or political party (hereinafter “coordinatedentity”), including:
(1)An expenditure made with the cooperation or with the prior consent of, or inconsultation with, or at the request or suggestion of, the coordinated entityor its agent;
(2)An expenditure for the production, dissemination, distribution, or publicationof any broadcast or any written, graphic, or other form of politicaladvertising or campaign communication prepared by or for the coordinated entityor its agent;
(3)An expenditure based on information, provided to the expender by thecoordinated entity or its agent, about the coordinated entity’s plans,projects, or needs; or
(4)An expenditure by a person who, in the election cycle during which theexpenditure is made:
(A)Has served as a member, employee, fundraiser, agent, or advisor to the coordinatedentity; or
(B)Has received any form of compensation or reimbursement from the coordinatedentity or its agent;
(C)Has retained the professional services of any person who has providedcampaign-related services to the coordinated entity.
(k)“Dominant contributor” means any individual or entity which contributes morethan five hundred dollars ($500) during an election period to any candidatecommittee, political committee, political party, or independent expenditurecampaign.
(l)“Election cycle” means the period of time between one biennial general electionand the next biennial general election, including any primary or otherpreliminary elections to select candidates. For any contest which does notoccur at a biennial general election, “election cycle” means the period of timebetween an election at which a candidate is elected and the next election forthat same office, disregarding any intervening primary or nominating election,any recall election, and any special election called to fill vacancies.
(m)“Election period” means:
(1)The period beginning the day after a biennial general election and ending onthe day of the next biennial primary election; and
(2)The period beginning the day after a biennial primary election and ending on theday of the next biennial general election; and
(3)For any recall election:
(A)The period beginning the day that the prospective recall petition is approvedfor circulation and ending on the day that the completed recall petition isfiled; and
(B)The period beginning the day that the recall election is called or declared andending on the day of the recall election.
(4)For any special election called to fill a vacancy, the period beginning the daythat the election is called or declared and ending on the day of the election.
(n)“Electioneering communication” means any communication (other than a tax-exemptinformational communication) which:
(1)Is distributed within thirty (30) days before regular ballots are distributedto voters in a primary election or sixty (60) days before regular ballots aredistributed to voters in a general election or any other election at which apublic office is filled;
(2)Unambiguously refers to a candidate running in that election or to a politicalparty with at least one candidate running in that election;
(3)Is distributed so as to include voters who are eligible to vote for thecandidate or for one or more of the candidates of the political partyreferenced in subsection (2) above;
(4)Is distributed by means of payment to any communication medium, includingtelevision, radio, magazine, newspaper, outdoor advertising, direct mail,door-to-door delivery, or any other medium that receives actual or promisedpayment from the sponsor in excess of one thousand dollars ($1,000) fordistributing one or more such communications; and
(5)Either:
(A)Includes the candidate’s image; or
(B)Refers to the candidate’s prior or current position on a public policy issue(including votes, statements, or actions), or the position of the politicalparty of the candidate, when such position has been raised in any publiccommunication as distinguishing the candidate from others in the campaign; or
(C)Refers to the candidate’s personal history or activities, when such subjects havebeen raised in any public communication distinguishing the candidate fromothers in the campaign; or
(D)Promotes or supports a candidate or political party or attacks or opposes acandidate or political party.
(o)“Entity” means a corporation, limited liability company, labor organization,association, firm, partnership, joint stock company, club, organization orother combination of individuals and/or organization which has collectivecapacity.
(p)“Express advocacy communication” means any communication to voters expresslyadvocating the election or defeat of one or more clearly identified candidates,including but not limited to expressions such as “vote for,” “vote against,” “elect,”“re-elect,” “retain,” “return,” “choose,” “defeat,” “reject,” “send home,” “support,”“oppose,” “should be in office,” “should not be in office,” or “deserves yourvote.”
(q)“Independent expenditure” means an expenditure, by an individual or entityother than a candidate committee, on express advocacy communication orelectioneering communication that is not a “coordinated expenditure” as definedin this Section (2).
(r)“Independent expenditure campaign” means the use of independent expenditures toengage in express advocacy communication or electioneering communication.
(s)“Individual” means a citizen or resident alien of the United States entitled tovote in federal elections; however, when this Act expresses a limitation orprohibition, “individual” means any human being.
(t)“Measure committee” means any entity, or any combination of individuals and/orentities, that receives a contribution or makes an expenditure in excess of twohundred dollars ($200) in any calendar year to support or oppose a ballotmeasure. A measure committee shall make no contributions or expendituressupporting or opposing any candidate for public office.
(u)“Membership organization” means a nonprofit organization having individualmembers who have paid dues to join or maintain membership in the organization.
(1)It can be incorporated or unincorporated but cannot be formed or operated forthe purpose of commercial enterprise.
(2)It can transfer to one and only one small donor committee not more than fortypercent of the dues paid by each individual member of the organization, with alimit of fifty dollars ($50) transferred per individual member per calendaryear, with such transfers treated as having been contributed by each individualdues-paying member
(3)It shall within thirty (30) days of such transfer notify each dues-paying memberof the amount or percentage of dues transferred. Such notice may be provided byregular mail or electronic mail to each affected member or by posting theinformation on an Internet site. If the amount or percentage of duestransferred is the same for each member or category of members, the posting maystate that amount or percentage and need not identify any member.
(v)“Officeholder scorecard” means a publication showing the votes on selectedbills or proposals of all of the members of a government body that takesrecorded votes. It can include descriptions of the bills or proposals and thepositions thereon of the organization publishing the scorecard. It must includethe votes of all of the members of the government body on these bills or proposals.
(w)“Political committee” means any entity or any combination of individuals and/orentities, that in any calendar year receives a contribution in excess of twohundred dollars ($200) or makes an expenditure in excess of one thousanddollars ($1,000) to support or oppose one or more candidates and/or politicalparties.
(1)It does not include a candidate committee or any committee which does notsupport or oppose one or more candidates or political parties, such as ameasure committee or committee seeking to place a measure on the ballot (otherthan a recall measure).
(2)The following shall be treated as a single political committee: All politicalcommittees (except small donor committees) established, financed, maintained,or controlled by:
(A)For corporations: the same corporation (including all corporate affiliates andsubsidiaries) or substantially the same group of corporations;
(B)For unions: the same labor organization unit, at any level, if the unit hasauthority to make an independent decision as to which candidates to support oroppose; or
(C)For others, substantially the same group of individuals or entities orcombinations thereof.
(x)“Political nonprofit organization” means a nonprofit corporation or associationwhich:
(1)Was formed for the express purpose of promoting political ideas;
(2)Was not formed by one or more business entities or labor unions;
(3)Cannot engage in business activities except those incidental to its politicalpurpose, such as the sale of campaign buttons;
(4)Has no shareholders or other individuals or entities affiliated so as to have aclaim on its assets or income;
(5)Cannot serve as a conduit for contributions or expenditures by corporations,other business entities or labor unions.
(6)Has not, directly or indirectly, accepted any donation of money or any thing ofvalue (including discounts on products or services) from any corporation, otherbusiness entity, or labor union.
(7)Has not received any payment for providing products or services to corporations,other business entities, or labor unions.
(y)“Political party” means an assembly of electors qualified by law to nominatecandidates for election to public office in Oregon. A political party orsubdivision thereof shall make its contributions and expenditures by means of apolitical party finance committee.
(z)“Political par