Oregon DOJ says twelve Portland candidates likely broke campaign‑finance law but won’t face felony charges

In July 2026 the Oregon Department of Justice quietly sent letters to a dozen candidates who ran in Portland’s 2024 municipal election. Those letters say the recipients probably violated Oregon’s campaign‑finance statutes – specifically ORS 260.655, a Class C felony that can carry up to five years in prison – by trading donations with each other to reach the 250‑donor minimum needed for public‑matching funds.

It sounds dramatic, but the DOJ’s Criminal Justice Division has decided not to bring criminal charges. The reasoning? A mix of what officials called “unusual circumstances” surrounding the 2024 race and a belief that most of the candidates did not realize they were breaking the law.

Portland’s 2024 election was anything but ordinary. The city had just moved from an at‑large council to a brand‑new, district‑based system, and it was the first time voters used city‑wide ranked‑choice voting. That shift produced a flood of first‑time candidates – more than 100 people filed paperwork – and a scramble to meet the new public‑funding thresholds.

According to the letters, the 12 candidates – Mike DiNapoli, Ben Hufford, Chad Lykins, Will Mespelt, Liv Osthus, Sam Sachs, Thomas Shervey, Sarah Silkie, Michael Trimble, Bob Weinstein, Luke Zak and Eric Zimmerman – agreed, in writing, to swap contributions so each could claim the 250‑donor benchmark. The practice is not a new trick; it simply runs afoul of Oregon law that forbids quid‑pro‑quo arrangements intended to influence elections.

Senior Assistant Attorney General Tobias Tingleaf signed the correspondence, noting that while “there is evidence that could support an inference that you violated ORS 260.655,” the goals of the criminal‑justice system would not be served by prosecution. The DOJ also warned that any repeat of the behavior in future elections could lead to criminal action.

One name on the list, Eric Zimmerman, actually won a seat – representing District 4 on the new council. The others either lost or withdrew, but the DOJ’s decision means no criminal record for any of them.

State officials say the move is about discretion, not leniency. They stress that the letters are a formal notice that the law has been broken, even if the state chose not to pursue a case. It’s a reminder to future candidates that the “donation‑swap” playbook is risky business.

For voters and activists, the episode underscores the growing pains of Portland’s shift to district representation and ranked‑choice voting. As the city continues to experiment with new election structures, the hope is that transparency and compliance will improve – without the need for a courtroom drama.