9 - HEARING MEMORANDUM 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Page
MARKOWITZ HERBOLD PC 
1455 SW BROADWAY, SUITE 1900 
PORTLAND, OREGON 97201 
(503) 295-3085 
Fax: (503) 323-9105 
In her hearing memorandum, the Secretary advances several incorrect legal 
arguments. First, the Secretary contends that “accurate reporting requirements are not met by 
simply accepting that a contributor ‘prefers’ their contribution to be reported under a 
different entity.” (Secretary’s Hearing Memo. at 6.) This statement is wrong as a matter of 
law. Oregon law places the burden on the contributor, and not the recipient, to identify the 
contribution’s ultimate source. In cases in which a contribution might come from more than 
one source, it is up to the contributor to decide who or what they would “prefer” identified as 
the source of their contribution. This is especially true for individuals who control LLCs. 
Only the individual who controls an LLC can decide whether the LLC is making a 
contribution on behalf of itself or whether the LLC is making a contribution on behalf of its 
owner. See Wampler v. Palmerton, 250 Or 65, 74 (1968) (“A corporation can only act upon 
the advice of officers or employes[.]”). The only way the DPO can determine whether the 
owner of an LLC or the LLC itself is the correct contributor is to ask the owner. And it is 
only the owner who can answer. Based on significant and lengthy prior experience of 
receiving contributions from LLCs and based on the apparent sophistication of the donor 
(who was able to engage a donor advisor), the DPO assumed that Singh controlled Prime 
Trust, LLC and asked whether he or Prime Trust should be reported as the contributor. 
Singh’s response—that he “prefers Prime Trust”—confirmed two things: (1) It indicated that 
Singh had the power to decide, which affirmed the DPO’s assumption that he controlled 
Prime Trust and (2) it affirmed the information on the wire receipt, which showed that the 
contribution originated with Prime Trust. Thus, the DPO reasonably relied on the 
information on the wire receipt and Singh’s statement that he preferred Prime Trust. 
Second, the Secretary wrongly contends that “the ultimate responsibility for 
confirming the true source of this $500,000 contribution rested solely with Respondent.” 
(Secretary’s Hearing Memo. at 6.) The Secretary cites no authority for this proposition and 
there is none. On the contrary, the Secretary’s own Campaign Finance Manual proves her  