I'm more concerned at the way "progressive" groups are adopting the same strategy. Note particularly the number of organizations claiming to use "grass routes organizing and input" that get their hot button issues directly from national campaigns. The issues propagate straight down. I can name any number of local, non right-wing organizations that invite the public to discuss such and such an issue- a call for grass roots organizing- only to restrict the discussion to what the national committee (or local committee that just happens to agree 100%) has decided is the solution/problem. They've left me feeling like I fell for a telemarketing scam. How 'bout a simple rule of thumb? If you can get what you want by having someone sign-up to do whatever via email, don't call a meeting where you seek/will accept nothing more a discussion. As far as disclosure, how about polictical organizations that share membership/agendas/funding 100% with national, partisan organizations not calling themselves non-partisan.
You all know who you are. The simple principle- used to be leftist bedrock- that the ends do not justify the means, seems to have died a brutal death after the 2000 election.

Amen, Harold. I actually meant to point to the similarities of using MyWireless.org's service with what I know groups like MoveOn.org do. It's mainly on the level of mechanical one-stop activism kind of stuff - the form protest emails and such - but, yeah, that stuff leaves me a little queasy as well. From what you've written, I don't believe I've had near as much contact with such groups, but you hardly make it sound pleasant; in fact, what you describe provides me with just one more excuse to sit on my ass...

But, overall, full disclosure of ties is a must. The sheer volume of media makes it all the more vital to know who's talking in order to have a chance in hell of figuring out why.

-- more than 2,500 faxes, e-mails and phone calls from people in a tizzy about the tax.

Saltzman --"it's not as significant as someone who sits down to compose an original letter,"

Leonard, "he hopes voters recognize that the people behind MyWireless.org "aren't from our state, don't care about our state."

B!x "front-group being able to operate behind its cloak"

What about the 2500 local people who took advantage of the service?

Whatever the number. Randy may have disregarded all of them. That is unfortunate.

But they need a cell phone tax to make up for the million dollar per year tax exemption they are voting on tomorrow at city council. The exemption is because a 22 story apartment tower is providing 48 tiny "affordable" apartments. I calculate that the dollar amount of the exemption is actually enough to pay for a penthouse apartment, instead of a 480 sqft studio, for each of those 48 units.

Sweet deal for the developer.

JK

I'll take a wild guess with, Stop trying take more money till you learn how to spend what you already take.
What you don't think any misspending occurs? Or bogus tax breaks?

B!X: I'm curious to know what people's arguments against the tax are, beyond just a general "stop taxing me" position (taxes exist, the only issue is what gets taxed and what doesn't). Is there some reason why cell phones in particular should not be taxed, given that we tax landlines?

JK: The argument that I like best is that the land lines use public right of way and the tax, plus franchise fees, are based on that.

Cell phones use NO PUBLIC right of way, unless the cell tower is placed on public property (then I suspect it is paying rent.)

If one wants to argue uesage of the public airwaves, then we need to argue a tax on radios and TVs too. A cell phone is nothing more that a specialized walkie talkie.

Of course the earliest argument that I heard for taxing phones was that it was a luxery tax (circa WWI). That doesn't play in modern society.

The reality is that the city needs every dollar that they can grab so that they can continue their grand monument building all over town.

Thanks JK

So which cell phone company do you work for number 2501?

The best reason in the world not to give someone money is that they waste it. How about a public vote on the tax? Randy should come back with his new tax proposal right AFTER he fixes the police and fire disability and retirement fund scandal he helped cause. And ya Ed, only cell phone company employees are opposed to the cell phone tax.

"The reality is that the city needs every dollar that they can grab so that they can continue their grand monument building all over town."

How much of the tax do you think will actually go towards development? I thought the cell tax revenue was being looked at by Council members to be designated to either education or parks?

JK: If one wants to argue uesage of the public airwaves, then we need to argue a tax on radios and TVs too.

I'd go along with that. Most European countries, and many other nations, have a "telly tax," as the British call their TV set tax. The revenues go to various sources. I'd suggest we put cell phone taxes into police patrols and ambulance services, since cell phone use while driving causes auto accidents. And just as some of the tax paid on cigarettes goes to the Oregon Health Plan, because smoking makes you sick, television taxes should pay for education because watching TV makes you stupid.

"television taxes should pay for education because watching TV makes you stupid."

heh.

Since I started all this, I figure I ought to join in.

The thing that jumps out in the whole "why not tax cell phone?" debate is the apparent assumption on the "pro-tax side (OK, the side willing to allow the cell-phone tax) that every object and activity should be subject to taxation. Beyond simple mechanisms like tax abatements to build low-income housing, I'm squeamish about the idea of using the tax code to encourage or discourage given activities; it's created the sprawling monster tax code we now endure. Simplify, man. I'll admit that, with regard to land-line taxation, there's something of an equity issue with the cell phone tax, but that seems less the motivating factor than a basic effort on the city's part to beat the bushes for more revenue. I view schemes like the cell phone tax (OK, "scheme" is a cheap-shot word) as back-door mechanisms, things public officials hope can be enacted somewhat on the sly.

From the other side, the city provides services everyone uses, even if they don't recognize it. I'm kind of dumbly willing to throw my money at said services (though to nowhere near the extent as Gil Johnson - don't we already pay some form of taxes for the "privilege" of using Comcast's services?), but count this debate as one of those areas in which the Left gets a bit tone-deaf. Anti-tax sentiment is very real and not really all that irrational. Not everyone has our knee-jerk appreciation of government's role in society - especially in Oregon. And the extent to which this one can be knocked down - I thought Jim Karlock did a fair job - suggests a thin justification.