Skip to main content
Oregon Secretary of State LaVonne Griffin-Valade is declining to investigate two complaints alleging that a Portland City Council candidate named Ben Hufford offered more than 150 patrons free entry into his bar if they donated to his campaign.
A spokesperson for Griffin-Valade says elections officials have declined to open an inquiry because of a lack of evidence provided by the complainants of wrongdoing. The complaints provided no proof of a quid pro quo (such as Hufford putting his alleged offer in writing).
Eleven patrons told WW that they went to Fortune, a bar located at 614 SW 11th Avenue, on the night of Oct. 31 or the early hours of Sept. 1. The patrons described Hufford, who co-owns Fortune, telling them one of two things: that they could donate $10 to his campaign instead of paying a $20 cover fee, or that in order to get into the bar they had to donate $10 to his campaign.
Between Oct. 31 and Sept. 1, records show, Hufford received 170 donations. On that night alone, Hufford received nearly a third of all the donations he collected over an eight-month campaign.
Hufford told WW that he was hosting a “fundraising event” that night at Fortune. Technically, when the over 100 patrons donated to Hufford’s campaign to enter the bar, they did indeed become financial “supporters” of Hufford’s campaign. But the 11 patrons told WW there was nothing inside the bar that appeared campaign-related.
Three election experts tell WW that Hufford’s alleged actions are likely a violation of Oregon Revised Statutes 260.665, which prohibits candidates from using undue influence, which means to offer something of value in return for a campaign contribution, to solicit contributions.
In response to one of the two complainants, the SOS’s office wrote that a news article in WW about potential wrongdoing did not count as evidence.
“Review of your investigation request does not yield sufficient evidence showing that the alleged violation occurred,” the Elections Division wrote in an email shared with WW by one of the two complainants, elections watchdog Seth Woolley. “News articles on the topic do not constitute evidence.”
State law appears to show otherwise.
The state’s rules of evidence state that “Extrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent to admissibility is not required with respect to...Printed materials purporting to be newspapers or periodicals.”
In other words, news articles are “self-authenticating”, meaning their existence is straightforward and difficult to challenge. (This does not mean the contents of the article are inarguable.)
Dan Meek, a lawyer who specialized in elections law (but not one of the two complainants), says that the “notion that a newspaper report (and the information it contains) is not sufficient for initiation of an investigation is baseless.”
Meek says nowhere in state elections law, nor agency rules, does it “[demand] admissible or formal ‘evidence’ for starting an investigation.’” Meek adds: “Instead, the rules state ‘(1) Evidence of a type commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent persons in the conduct of their serious affairs shall be admissible.”'
The Secretary of State’s Office did not immediately respond to questions about why it declined to launch a preliminary investigation.
Woolley says he’s considering appealing the agency’s decision to toss his complaint.
The names of all donors to Hufford from that night are a matter of public record. That means the secretary of state’s staff, if they did choose to investigate Hufford’s alleged actions, have 170 possible names to contact.
Several of the bar patrons that spoke to WW from that night said they were uncomfortable with Hufford’s request that they donate to his campaign, but said it made financial sense because the cover charge would have been $10 more. And, they just wanted to get into the bar.