Salem, Ore. — Oregon Sen. Lisa Reynolds is facing scrutiny after the state’s ethics commission referred questions about a potential conflict of interest to the Legislature, following concerns that a bill she introduced could financially benefit her medical practice.
Reynolds, a Democrat representing the Portland area, is the chief sponsor of Senate Bill 28, which would require commercial health insurers to reimburse independent primary care clinics at the same rate as clinics affiliated with hospital systems. The measure, introduced in January, is currently pending in the powerful Joint Ways and Means Committee.
Reynolds works as a pediatrician at The Children’s Clinic, an independent provider that could see higher reimbursements if the bill becomes law. That connection prompted questions about whether her legislative advocacy could represent a substantial conflict of interest.
In a letter released Thursday, Oregon Government Ethics Commission Executive Director Susan Myers acknowledged that Reynolds could face a conflict but emphasized that it falls to the Legislature—not the commission—to determine whether Reynolds qualifies for a “class exception” under state ethics rules.
“Unless Senator Reynolds is able to receive a class exception, she would be met with a conflict of interest,” Myers wrote. However, she noted that the commission does not have the authority to decide whether such an exemption applies in this case, as it involves “the performance of legislative functions.” That responsibility instead lies with the Legislature and its legal counsel.
Under Oregon law, public officials must declare any conflicts of interest, but legislators are still allowed to vote on bills even when a conflict exists, thanks to protections built into the state’s constitution. These “speech and debate” provisions aim to preserve the independence of lawmakers, especially in Oregon’s part-time, citizen-led Legislature.
Reynolds told the Oregon Capital Chronicle that she has not yet decided whether to seek additional guidance but said she tends “to err on the side of caution.”
“I’ll see going forward,” she said. “It would be interesting to note the votes I’ve taken. For example, the provider tax which funds Medicaid — do I have to say that’s a conflict of interest because my clinic takes Medicaid? I don’t think so.”
The ethics commission’s input came after a May 6 letter from Reynolds’ chief of staff, Christopher McMorran, seeking an advisory opinion on whether her sponsorship of SB 28 constituted a conflict. The request was sent one day before the Oregon Journalism Project published a story highlighting Reynolds’ dual role as lawmaker and health care provider.
“SB 28 would likely result in a financial gain for her clinic, along with all other independent primary care clinics in the state,” McMorran wrote. “We are curious if her introducing, sponsoring and supporting this bill qualifies as a conflict of interest or if she would be considered a member of a class and be exempt from conflict of interest laws.”
Reynolds expressed confidence that she would ultimately qualify for the exemption, noting that the bill impacts a broad swath of independent clinics—not just her own.
“I’m a citizen legislator. My day job is that of a pediatrician. In fact, I was in the clinic all last weekend,” she said. “I ran for office leaning into the fact that I am a physician, and it informs all that I do in the Legislature.”
As the Legislature moves into the final weeks of its 2025 session, the fate of SB 28—and the ethical debate surrounding it—remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that the case underscores ongoing tensions between professional expertise and legislative impartiality in Oregon’s hybrid governing system.
