Page 5 - HEARING MEMORANDUM (Democratic Party of Oregon) KG9/ako 791821489 Department of Justice 1162 Court Street NE Salem, OR 97301-4096 (503) 947-4530 / Fax: (503) 378-3784 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Because this transaction occurred fewer than 42 days before the November 8, 2022, general election, the disclosure—and any amendments thereto—was subject to seven-day reporting and was due no later than October 11, 2022. Exhibit A9, page 22; Exhibit A2, page 1. This transaction was filed timely, but inaccurately listed the contributor as Prime Trust LLC. On October 31, 2022, the Democratic Party of Oregon amended the aforementioned $500,000 contribution disclosure to reflect that that the contributor was Nishad Singh instead of Prime Trust LLC. Exhibit A2, page 2. Again, because the original transaction occurred fewer than 42 days before the November 8, 2022, general election, the disclosure—and any amendments thereto—was subject to seven-day reporting and was due no later than October 11, 2022. Exhibit A9, page 20; Exhibit A2, page 2. Yet, the amendment to this transaction was filed 14 business days late and application of the penalty matrix resulted in a civil penalty of $35,000. Exhibit A4, page 5. The practical impact of the Democratic Party of Oregon’s failure to amend this transaction is that Oregon voters were under the impression that Prime Trust LLC had funded and contributed $500,000 to the Democratic Party of Oregon—rather than an entirely different person: Nishad Singh. Whether intentional or unintentional, the Democratic Party of Oregon did not correct this inaccuracy for several weeks, waiting until the last week before the general election and leaving voters in the dark for a critical period of time that they would find this information pertinent. It is undisputed that this transaction was not amended within the statutorily prescribed timeframe. For this reason alone, the proposed civil penalty should be imposed. B. MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES Respondent Eddy Morales does not contest that the transaction was amended 14 business days late or that the application of the penalty matrix results in a civil penalty of $35,000. Exhibit A6, pages 3-5.4 Rather, Respondent has asserted mitigating circumstance category A, which applies when: The lateness or insufficiency of a transaction is the direct result of clearly-established fraud, embezzlement, or other criminal activity against the committee, committee treasurer, candidate, alternate transaction filer, or independent expenditure filer, as determined in a criminal or civil action in a court of law or independently corroborated 4 See OAR 165-001-0016(3), which provides that, except “for good cause shown to the administrative law judge, factual matters alleged in the charging document and not denied in the answer will be deemed admitted by the party.”