Committee of One Thousand to Re-Elect State Senator Walt Brown v. Eivers
Docket: No. 78-12-236, CA A21758
Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon; December 21, 1982; Oregon; State Appellate Court
Plaintiff, a political committee, sought damages under the Oregon Corrupt Practices Act (ORS 260.532), claiming compensatory and punitive damages after the jury's ruling. The defendant appealed, raising multiple errors. The court determined that the defendant was entitled to a directed verdict on certain grounds, leading to a reversal of the jury's decision. The statute prohibits disseminating false statements related to candidates or political committees and allows aggrieved parties to file actions in circuit court. Notably, a political committee can sue if it shows injury due to the violation and has complied with the law, but it cannot be sued as a defendant in such actions. The false statements at issue involved claims made about W. Brown in brochures during the campaign. The defendant contended that the allegedly false statements pertained to Brown, not to the plaintiff committee, thus arguing that the committee lacked standing as an aggrieved party. The court concurred, noting that the injury must relate to the false statement made about an individual rather than financial damages suffered by the committee. A supportive reference from a prior Supreme Court case suggested further ambiguity regarding the committee's standing, emphasizing the necessity of direct allegations against the committee for it to be a proper plaintiff. ORS 260.532(1) prohibits knowingly publishing or communicating false statements of material fact about candidates or political committees. Subsection (4) grants aggrieved candidates or political committees the right to sue the violator in the circuit court where the defendant resides or can be found. The statute allows either the candidate or the political committee to initiate the action if they are the aggrieved party. However, it is suggested that the legislature did not intend for each political committee, potentially existing in all 36 counties, to have separate causes of action for the same false statement. Furthermore, a successful candidate should not lose their nomination based on conflicting outcomes from multiple cases. Subsection (6) clarifies that a political committee has the standing to sue for false statements made about it, which is distinct from statements made about a candidate. In this instance, the false statements were directed at the candidate, not the committee, and there was no evidence indicating the committee was aggrieved. Consequently, the defendant was entitled to a directed verdict, leading to a reversal and remand with instructions to enter judgment for the defendant.