Out-of-state law firms boost campaign cash of 2 Democratic statewide candidates in Oregon

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — Out-of-state law firms have boosted the campaign cash of two Democratic candidates running for statewide offices in Oregon.

Law firms largely headquartered on the East Coast have given more than $170,000 to Dan Rayfield, the Democratic nominee for attorney general, and over $40,000 to Elizabeth Steiner, the Democratic nominee for treasurer, Oregon Public Broadcasting reported.

According to the news outlet, the firms specialize in class-action lawsuits that Oregon is in a unique position to file.

Similar donations have marked the races for the two statewide offices for roughly the past 15 years, according to OPB, as the Oregon Department of Justice and State Treasury can decide which law firms represent the state in such class-action suits.

Neither candidate responded to OPB’s request for comment. Both have previously signaled to the news outlet that they would accept money from out-of-state firms while also aiming to be transparent and avoid conflicts of interest.

The donations account for about 23% of the money raised this year by Rayfield, a state representative who previously served as Speaker in the Oregon House, and about 10% of the money raised by Steiner, a state senator who previously co-chaired the Legislature’s powerful budget-writing Ways and Means Committee.

The law firms, including New York-based Labaton Keller Sucharow and Delaware-based Grant & Eisenhofer, are among those that represent state pension funds that sometimes file suit when corporate misdeeds hurt stock values and, in turn, retirees’ investments, according to OPB.

Oregon can find itself in a prime position to act as a central plaintiff in such suits because of its $94.5 billion pension fund.

Unlike some other states, Oregon has no law preventing public officials from accepting campaign cash from those wanting work that they can provide, OPB reported.

In 2020, Rayfield said he’d welcome such a law in Oregon, saying that a contribution from an out-of-state firm “smells real funny to anyone who’s looking at it.” But he is now OK with accepting the money, OPB reported, and says that if elected, he would make sure that decisions about which law firms the state hires are made clear to the public.

“I would like that process to be transparent, open about why those firms were chosen or why they weren’t chosen,” he told OPB, adding that ”whenever you have a cloud over that decision-making process, it leads people to question the credibility or the integrity of why those things are being done.”

Meanwhile, Steiner told OPB when she announced her candidacy for treasury last year that she thinks she has done a “pretty good job not giving extra favor to organizations that have given me substantial amounts of campaign contributions.”

“I don’t think taking money from securities litigators or pretty much anybody else is a problem, as long as you’re very careful about recusing yourself from significant decisions about who gets which business,” she told the news outlet.

Both Steiner and Rayfield have outraised their respective Republican opponents so far this year.

But this year may mark the last for out-of-state law firms donating large sums directly to statewide candidates. Under a campaign finance reform law passed earlier this year — with yes votes from both Rayfield and Steiner — starting in 2027, individuals and corporations can only give up to $3,300 to a statewide candidate per election cycle.