Danesa L. Rains
Donice Noelle Smith
Desmond Bellard
Oregon Citizens
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FEDERAL LAWSUIT ALLEGES GOVERNOR KOTEK VIOLATED OREGON’S CONSTITUTIONAL CAMPAIGN-FINANCE LIMITS
Former gubernatorial candidate Donice Smith asks a federal court to decide whether Oregon officials may continue refusing to enforce Article II, §22 after the Oregon Supreme Court’s Mehrwein decision
EUGENE, OREGON – September 26, 2026 – Former Oregon gubernatorial candidate Donice Noelle Smith has filed a federal civil-rights lawsuit alleging that Governor Christine “Tina” Kotek accepted and used campaign funding prohibited by the plain language of Article II, section 22 of the Oregon Constitution.
The complaint alleges that official Oregon ORESTAR records report approximately $24.23 million in Kotek campaign funding during the relevant reporting period. Of the geographically analyzed funding, approximately $14.97 million-or 63.79 percent – originated outside Oregon.
Article II, section 22 restricts the campaign contributions that candidates may use or direct. It further provides that when more than ten percent of a candidate’s total campaign funding violates those restrictions, an elected candidate “shall forfeit the office” and becomes disqualified from holding elected office for a prescribed period.
Smith alleges that she complied with Article II, section 22 while campaigning for governor, while Kotek’s reported campaign funding substantially exceeded the Constitution’s ten-percent threshold.
The case asks a federal judge to review the governing judicial opinions and answer a direct question:
Does the federal judgment affirmed by the Ninth Circuit in Vannatta v. Keisling still permit Oregon officials to refuse categorically to enforce Article II, section 22 after the Oregon Supreme Court materially changed Oregon campaign-finance law in Multnomah County v. Mehrwein?
Smith also asks the court to determine whether Oregon officials’ continuing refusal to administer the constitutional provision equally among candidates violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
“This should not remain unresolved indefinitely,” Smith said. “The Oregon Constitution says one thing, Oregon officials are doing another, and intervening court decisions have materially changed the legal landscape. I am asking the judiciary to review those decisions, determine what the law presently requires, and issue a clear and binding declaration.”
Oregon’s Constitution Still Contains Article II, Section 22
Oregon voters adopted Article II, section 22 to restrict the influence of campaign money originating outside a candidate’s electoral district. The provision remains printed in the Oregon Constitution.
In 1995, a federal district court declared the provision unconstitutional under the First Amendment and enjoined its enforcement. The Ninth Circuit affirmed that judgment in Vannatta v. Keisling in 1998.
But in 2020, the Oregon Supreme Court decided Multnomah County v. Mehrwein. The court overruled its earlier state Vannatta analysis to the extent that it treated campaign-contribution limits as categorically subject to facial invalidation under the Oregon Constitution. The court held that the contribution limits before it were not facially unconstitutional and remanded the case for First Amendment review.
Following factual development on remand, the Multnomah County Circuit Court upheld the challenged contribution limits under the First Amendment.
Smith contends that these intervening decisions require judicial consideration of whether the old federal judgment continues to justify Oregon’s categorical refusal to administer Article II, section 22.
Oregon Officials Declined to Reconsider the Provision
After reviewing Oregon’s official campaign-finance records, Smith submitted a verified complaint to the Oregon Elections Division and requested enforcement of Article II, section 22.
On March 28, 2025, Elections Director Dena Dawson responded that the provision had been found unconstitutional in Vannatta and therefore remained unenforceable. The Division acknowledged that section 22 remains printed in the Oregon Constitution but stated that it would not be enforced unless and until removed or the governing federal judgment changed.
Smith’s federal complaint alleges that this remains Oregon’s operative policy.
“No executive official should have the final word on the meaning and continuing effect of conflicting constitutional decisions,” Smith said. “That is the role of the judiciary. Oregon candidates and voters are entitled to know whether Article II, section 22 is enforceable, whether it applies equally to every candidate, and whether officials may disregard its mandatory language indefinitely.”
What Smith Is Asking the Court to Decide
The action, Smith v. Kotek, et al., No. 6:26-cv-01659-AP, is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon.
Smith asks the court to:
That requested relief includes adjudication of lawful entitlement to the Office of Governor if -and only if- the court first determines that the relevant constitutional conditions have been satisfied and that such relief is authorized by federal and Oregon law.
The principal objective is straightforward: obtain an actual judicial decision defining what Article II, section 22 means today and whether Oregon officials may continue refusing to enforce it after Mehrwein.
Outside Money and Oregon Self-Government
The case raises a question extending beyond any one candidate or election: Will Oregon elections be controlled by Oregon voters, or can candidates receive overwhelming financial support from political committees, organizations, and contributors outside Oregon while a voter-approved constitutional safeguard is treated as nonexistent?
Smith alleges that the State’s policy imposed the burdens of constitutional compliance on her while allowing competing candidates to receive the advantages of unrestricted outside funding and remain qualified for office.
The complaint characterizes that unequal administration – not ordinary political disagreement-as the federal constitutional injury.
“Oregon should not be purchased by outside interests,” Smith said. “If Article II, section 22 is invalid, a court should clearly and finally explain why it remains invalid after Mehrwein. If it is enforceable, Oregon officials must administer it equally. What government cannot do is leave the constitutional text in place, ignore it indefinitely, and deny candidates and voters a current judicial determination.”
A Request for Prompt Judicial Review
Smith seeks prompt adjudication because Oregon’s challenged policy remains operative during another election cycle. She maintains that extensive discovery or a lengthy trial should not be necessary to answer the central legal question.
The relevant constitutional text, federal judgment, Oregon Supreme Court opinion, Elections Division letter, and official campaign-finance records are already before the court.
“This case calls for judicial review and a judicial opinion,” Smith said. “Win or lose, Oregon voters deserve a binding and reviewable decision. If the district court rules against me, the legal questions can be presented to the Ninth Circuit. But public officials should not be permitted to avoid judicial resolution simply by continuing to declare the Constitution unenforceable.”
About the Case
Case: Donice Noelle Smith v. Christine Kotek, Tobias Read, and Dena Dawson
Court: United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Eugene Division
Case Number: 6:26-cv-01659-AP
Plaintiff: Donice Noelle Smith, proceeding pro se
Claims: Equal Protection, Due Process, 42 U.S.C. §1983, and declaratory and prospective equitable relief
The complaint’s factual and legal assertions are allegations that remain subject to adjudication. No court has yet determined that Governor Kotek violated Article II, section 22 or that Smith is entitled to the Office of Governor.
Media
CorruptOregon.com exists for all Oregonians – and for anyone within or outside our borders – who wants to better understand, or have real-time education and clarification, about the legal efforts underway to correct what is truly happening in our state’s political, judicial, and electoral systems.
For too long, Oregon’s leadership has been shaped not solely by the will of its people, but by outside influences – from other states, foreign entities, powerful corporations, and politically motivated NGOs. These outside forces, acting in their own self-interest, have exerted enormous influence over our state’s policies, leadership, and even our elections. This site is dedicated to exposing how these influences operate, how they affect who gets elected at local, state, and federal levels, and how they distort the very purpose of representative government: to serve Oregonians – first, last, and only.
In 1995, Oregonians made their voices unmistakably clear. After Ballot Measures 6 and 9 were thoroughly researched, reviewed, and found constitutionally appropriate and lawful under both the U.S. Constitution and the Oregon Constitution, they were placed before the people for a vote.
The results were overwhelming – with more than 70 to 75 percent approval. Oregonians affirmed their belief that only through the ballot box and legitimate, fair elections should our representatives be chosen – not influenced by money from outside Oregon’s borders.
Through these measures, the people declared that NGOs, corporations, other states, and foreign actors should have no hand in determining the outcome of our elections or influencing those elected to represent us.
That public mandate – of and by Oregonians – became part of Oregon’s governing framework through Article II, Section 22 of the Oregon Constitution. This section set clear, constitutional limits on how much money a candidate – or any Political Action Committee (PAC) – could raise or spend in the Oregon election they are running in.
Many lawyers from all sides of the political spectrum reviewed the U.S. and state constitutionality of these measures before state officials approved them for signature gathering and placement on the ballot.
This was an expression of Oregonians’ self-determination and reaffirmation that our state is a Republic – not a territory or corporation. The civil right to self-governance and sovereignty cannot be undermined by the federal government or by self-serving politicians – whether appointed, elected, or compromised – within Oregon’s state legislature.
House bills and resolutions passed in secrecy or through coercion cannot nullify the Oregon Constitution, which itself was built upon the foundation of the United States Constitution. Oregon was once recognized as having one of the strongest state constitutions in the nation – and it can be again, if the will of the people is respected.
If the majority of Oregonians stand together and ensure that the Constitution – not urban dominance, NGOs, unions, corporations, or outside actors – governs our elections, we can right the ship that has been hijacked for more than forty years.
The majority of Oregon voters passed what became known as the 90/10 Rule – requiring that 90% of campaign funds come from individuals within the district a candidate seeks to represent, and only 10% from outside that district.
Oregonians’ freedom of speech through their ballots has been diluted – even canceled – by outside money outweighing local voices. Over time, this has gone unenforced, as outside funding has been justified under misused “freedom of speech” arguments, undermining the original constitutional intent.
This is not merely about campaign finance – it is about sovereignty, integrity, and the right of Oregonians to self-govern, free from outside manipulation.
Despite the people’s clear will, the influence of outside money and power has crept back into Oregon politics. Corporate interests, national organizations, and even out-of-state political machines now shape who runs, who wins, and what policies are enacted – often to the detriment of the citizens who live, work, and raise families here.
This website seeks to:
Oregon belongs to Oregonians.
Our votes, our voices, and our Constitution must never again be overridden by outside interests.
