Rochester Fund Municipals

                     Prospectus Supplement dated July 6, 2007

This supplement amends the Prospectus dated February 21, 2007.

The Prospectus is changed as follows:

1. The following information is being added to the end of the section titled
"Taxability Risk":

      On May 21, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court (the "Court") agreed to review a
      Kentucky Court of Appeals decision that held that Kentucky's tax on
      interest income derived from bonds issued by states other than Kentucky
      unconstitutionally discriminates against interstate commerce. At issue in
      the case, Department of Revenue v. Davis, is a Kentucky statute that
      exempts from Kentucky state income taxes the interest income derived from
      bonds issued by the Commonwealth of Kentucky or its subdivisions but does
      not exempt the interest income derived from bonds issued by other states
      or their subdivisions.

      The Court is expected to hear the case sometime in or after October 2007
      and might issue a decision late in 2007 or in 2008. It is not possible to
      predict what the Court will decide, but its decision could have a
      substantial impact on municipal finance, including the issuance and
      relative yields on municipal securities of particular states, and on
      mutual funds that focus on municipal investments. Among the possible
      outcomes of the case are the following:

         The Court may rule in favor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, in which
         case the Kentucky statute would be deemed to be valid and the state's
         current rules governing the taxation of income derived from municipal
         bonds would not change.

         The Court may rule against the Commonwealth of Kentucky by upholding
         the ruling handed down by the Kentucky Court of Appeals and declaring
         the statute to be unconstitutional.  Because the case arises under the
         federal constitution, the Court's decision may be applied in other
         states that have similar statutes. Such a ruling would require Kentucky
         and such other states to treat income derived on in-state and
         out-of-state bonds equally - either exempting income derived from all
         out-of-state bonds from a state's income tax or taxing income derived
         from all municipal bonds. This might affect the rationale for investing
         in single-state municipal bond funds because, depending on the relative
         yields of the municipal bonds of the various states, this could reduce
         the attractiveness from an income tax perspective, of a state's own
         municipal bonds to its residents.

         The Court may also remand the case to the Kentucky courts for further
         consideration consistent with instructions provided by the Court.

            The case is not expected to affect the federal tax exemption for
            interest derived from municipal bonds.

2. The last sentence of the fourth paragraph of the section titled "Municipal
   Securities" on page 13 is hereby deleted.





   July 6, 2007                                       PS0365.015

                                 ROCHESTER FUND MUNICIPALS
                            Supplement dated July 6, 2007 to the
                Statement of Additional Information dated February 21, 2007

This supplement amends the Statement of Additional Information dated February 21, 2007.

The Statement of Additional Information is revised as follows:

1.   The first paragraph of the section titled "Diversification" on page 42 is replaced
with the following:

      Diversification. The Fund intends to be "diversified," as defined in the
      Investment Company Act, with respect to 75% of its total assets, and to satisfy
      the restrictions against investing too much of its assets in any "issuer" as set
      forth above. Under the Investment Company Act's requirements for diversification,
      as to 75% of its total assets, the Fund cannot invest more than 5% of its total
      assets in the securities of any one issuer (other than the U.S. government, its
      agencies or instrumentalities) nor can it own more than 10% of an issuer's voting
      securities.




July 6, 2007                                                PX0365.010