Two of the sharpest legal minds in Oregon politics often disagree, but both think one of the 2007 Legislature's marquee accomplishments is either a sham, unconstitutional or both.

"Number one, it's completely meaningless, and second, at least according to the current attorney general's interpretation of the law, it would not be allowed," says Dan Meek, a utility lawyer who was a leading proponent of two campaign finance ballot measures last November.

The "it" Meek refers to is the highest profile provision of Senate Bill 10, the upper chamber's 50-page attempt to clean up its own house of ill-repute.

Certainly, some have cheered the Senate's effort. In a recent editorial titled "A promise kept on Oregon ethics," The Oregonian wrote, "Lobbyist trips like those infamous Maui getaways? Banned." As the O reported earlier, several legislators neglected to report Hawaiian trips sponsored by beer lobbyist Paul Romain over the past five years. Publicity about the junkets led to calls for limits on lobbyist largesse.

But Meek says limiting gifts from lobbyists to $50 annually (from the current $100 per event) and limiting lobbyist-paid travel doesn't solve anything, because potential gift-givers can still make unlimited contributions to candidates' campaign funds.

Rather than accepting lavish meals, Meek says, legislators will simply accept a campaign donation and use the money to pay for their own sumptuous meals. And there's still nothing to stop those meals from being eaten in Hawaii, provided they include a discussion of campaign or legislative business.

"It's an acceptable use of campaign money to take a trip to get more campaign money," Meek says.

Coincidentally, another opponent is John DiLorenzo, who has successfully battled Romain over laws regulating wine sales in Oregon. DiLorenzo in 1997 won a lawsuit (VanNatta v. Keisling) overturning campaign contribution limits enacted by a 1994 ballot measure. He dislikes SB 10 for reasons very different from Meek's.

In a memo he circulated to lobbyists last week, DiLorenzo argued SB 10 abridges the famously broad protections given free speech by the Oregon Constitution. Those protections are a large part of the reason that Oregon is one of only five states with no limits on political contributions.

"Political contributions are protected expression under [the Oregon Constitution]," DiLorenzo wrote. "Both gifts and campaign contributions are expression of support made for political reasons."

In his memo, DiLorenzo also notes another "egregious provision" in the bill. "Senate Bill 10 discriminates among groups which can offer Legislators travel and lodging expenses for the purpose of accommodating their official functions," he writes. "Groups which derive more than 5 percent of their funding from profit-making entities (like trade associations and Chambers of Commerce) are no longer allowed this opportunity, whereas those organizations which do not share profit-making orientations may still exercise that franchise."

Translation: Unions can sponsor trips, but Romain cannot. DiLorenzo says he expects to sue to overturn provisions of the bill in the next month.

He says such a challenge is unlikely to affect two provisions of SB 10 that he's OK with: a larger, dedicated funding source for the renamed Ethics Commission and a requirement that lobbyists and public officials report quarterly and electronically rather than annually and on paper.

Janice Thompson of Democracy Reform Oregon says those two provisions are a great start.

"Campaign finance is the cake and these fixes are the icing," Thompson says. "In a perfect world, the cake comes first, but we don't live in a perfect world."