Don't get your panties in a bunch.

Suppose anyone in Oregon said just give me some money, just because. I might use it to run for office, I might use it for an initiative campaign, than again I might not. The only requirement is that the gifts are not claimed as a tax deduction as a charitable gift and that the gifts come from real live people who must also supply their occupation and consent to posting of the gifts on the internet.

I might just buy a big house or a fast car instead. So what.

Match the above to the claims against Mr. Doyle. Was his failure merely the honesty about how he would use the money? That issue can be addressed right up front, as in "I want gifts to go buy a big house and fast car," you just have to tell the whole world about the gifts on the internet.

The above might make it easier to trace the link between big money and the elected officials and their legislative choices. We might have some legislators making a cool million selling their votes, not unlike today through various indirect promises of business deals and other lucrative future employment deals, but at least it would be out in the open. Our vain little politicians are really getting quite a pittance, personally, to act against the personal interest.

How will a proposal for higher pay for legislators actually result in more "public interest?" I can only see just a different version of self interest.

Interesting idea. I like the intent and the creativity behind it.

In the end however, I would probably oppose it. If a well-to-do dentist or entrepreneur isn't motivated enough to give up his career for a few years to sit in office, then maybe he shouldn't be in office. Although... maybe they need that money to pay someone else to hold down the fort for them while they are away. Taking a few years off to serve can essentially kill a successful practice or business if you can't afford to hire somone else to carry the torch while you're away. And this certainly does limit the pool of potential candidates.

However, it seems that this system would actually be a great inroad for the wealthy to make politics their "career". Would that have positive effects on the compositon of the legislature? It seems that it would further entrench the wealthy and well connected who aren't representative of the people.

Additionally, I doubt many people run for office simply becasue they need a job and love politcs. It is a grueling process and the public scrutiny and criticism isn't for most; even those who love politics. For every hundred politically involved people I know, only one is or has been in office.

Interesting concept. Not sure I feel comfortable with the unforeseen consequences.

See, you have this thing all wrong Harris. Public service is about that -- service. Public servants are supposed to put their service above themselves. Yeah, it sucks to take a pay cut. Yeah, you could undoubtably make more in big world outside the marble halls. Still, just as American soldiers have been sacrificing themselves for freedom since 1776, elected officials have a calling to do the same (sans the dying part). You don't go to Salem or Washington to line your pockets (unless you're Doyle) or expect that the public's tax dollars should give you exactly what you're getting now. Where's the sacrifice there.

Fully realizing that this is Lefty Fitzpatrick talking here, but c'mon, welfare for legislators? This is not a good idea. Harris, are you conteplating some kind of run here?

As someone who until recently was working for the state legislature, I agree the legislators are paid too little. As an LA, my base pay was more than my Rep's (although they get per diem and mileage, which LAs don't). I personally think the following:

1. Legislators should be paid in the range of $35-50k a year, as suggested above. Public service does mean sacrifice but it should not mean digging into your savings in order to serve. This is particularly true for those Reps and Senators who come from places like Ashland or Coos Bay or Pendleton and only go home on weekends (if that often).

2. Sessions should be held annually. A suggested model I've heard bandied about is a session to deal with just the budget in odd numbered years and a session to deal with substantive law in even numbered years. I think this would actually reduce overall session length and would additionally help find fixes in substantive legal areas (such as M37 or Civil Unions).

3. I would consider increasing the size of the chamber by 10 reps and five senators. Why these numbers? Oregon already has one of the lowest rates in the country for direct represenation (about 55-57,000 for Reps and 110-115 for Senators). I think an increase at this level would increase citizen involvement while not unduly burdening the state with additional costs.

4. On an slightly unrelated note, Oregon should adopt a model similar to Iowa's for redistricting. In Iowa, a nonpartisan commission redraws the lines every ten years without regard to such factors as incumbency. Their legislature then either rejects or accepts the whole package and may not modify it. Redistricting is a sham right now and putting in a nonpartisan commission would promote competition and increase fluency in the legislature, which I think would be good.

I'm with Jenni and David on this.

Really like # 4. Also, if the salaries were going to be raised there should be an enforced open meetings law, no more of what Kate Brown called "the negotiation room". And if we are to have a partisan legislature (an open question in my book) both parties should be involved--not just the caucus the whole party. And they should both compete for NAV voters instead of just saying this is R vs. D.

What's the problem, again?

Increasing legislative pay is an answer in search of a problem. If you are concerned about attracting more diverse and more qualified people into seeking elective office, consider a suggestion -- restore competitive elections.

How? Make sure that there is a regular supply of open seats. Then, lots of qualified candidates would step forward to seek the office. Why? Because there's a chance they could win, so it's worth the individual effort. Want proof? This actually was the way it worked here in Blue Oregon, from 1992-2000. Legislative pay was not a problem that kept otherwise qualified candidates from running.

Before then, incumbency was the problem. It's still the problem. Most of today's rank & file legislators owe their career in the legislature to this revolutionary era but don't realize it. The senior leaders who survived the interim re-arrogated power based solely on their seniority. Under the current system, they won't lead, won't follow, and won't get out of the way.

That's the problem.

"Public service as civic responsibility" is such a quaint notion nowadays.

Time is money.

Ass, grass or cash, no one rides for free.

While we're at it, we should also require commensurate pay for work missed performing jury duty.

Maybe I'll send a bill to the government at the end of the year for the time I spent voting.

Great point Paul, and while we're thinking in those terms:

Why would a multibillion dollar company want the opinions of a bunch of barbers, bakers and candlestick makers in its hiring decisions for CEO and other top officers?

Given the size and complexity of the state, maybe the average person just isn't qualified to vote for its leaders anymore.

David wrote: I would consider increasing the size of the chamber by 10 reps and five senators. Why these numbers? Oregon already has one of the lowest rates in the country for direct represenation (about 55-57,000 for Reps and 110-115 for Senators). I think an increase at this level would increase citizen involvement while not unduly burdening the state with additional costs.

California has about 850,000 residents per state senator. There are 12 US Senators who represent less residents than that! New Hampshire has a state representative for every 3,000 residents, a true citizen legislature. Connecticut (identical population as Oregon) has 36 senators (95k) and 151 representatives (22.5k). I would enjoy seeing a chart with all 99 state houses ranked to see exactly where Oregon falls.

Honestly, I don't see what difference it would make to add a token number of additional legislators. However I fully agree that redistricting should be taken completely out of the hands of politicians everywhere.

A couple of points not otherwise covered.

This notion of giving up money for public service is nonesense. I worked for 20 years in social service agencies doing just that. I figure that I gave up about $250,000 of salary/benefit over what I would have earned in the private for-profit sector - and I was at the top of the social service field as an Administrator making for the most part the top dollar in my field. Giving up that kind of income affects your family, your overall security, and decreases your potential retirement. It is not a thing we should talk about so casually. Taking a pay cut for public service ultimately is not good for the public.

Second point - The proposal was about wages. In the last 11.5 years since I left social services, I haven't been paid wages. Lots of people aren't paid "wages". I run a small business as a real estate appraiser. I am strictly paid by the job. $400 here, $350 there, and an occasional $600 wow! If I were to take the step to run for the legislature, every day I was running, would be a day I wasn't working. There are only so many hours in a week, and one does have to sleep sometimes. It would cost me money to run in terms of lost business. If elected, I would take a massive hit. Those clients that send me those jobs at $350 to $600 a shot, would learn that I had gone away for six months. They would find someone else to do their appraisals. Once the session was over, I'd have to rebuild my business - and I'd be hurting for money for at least a half year to rebuild it.

I am by no means a wealthy person. Can I and my family afford the kind of financial hit this public service would cost? No way.

Income replacement is an interesting concept, but how it would be managed would be difficult at best. Do you put a cap on it? Let's say that someone made $500,000 a month. Do you pay them $3,000,000 of tax payer money for a six month session? Let's say someone is running a mid-sized company of about 100 people. They go off to the Legislature, and their company gets along without them, not making a penny less revenue. Do you pay them nothing?

The concept needs more work.

RE: Steve Bucknams comments

I know the concept needs a lot of details worked on. But some of your concerns were addressed in my original post. For instance, I suggested a cap on payment. As to wages, perhaps I should ahve said earned income. (as opposed to interest, dividend and investment income) That would address your situation as well as the factory owner situation. The idea there was that you'd only have legislative replacement wages (or earned income) if you received income subject to SSI or Self employment taxes.

I agree with you, any many others, that someone shouldn't have to sacrifice everything to perform public service. (we're talking about government service here not a religious calling and a vow of poverty) But, I also don't think we need to necessarily establish dozens of new full time career political positions. The earned income/Wage replacement option would increase the universe of people willing to serve without establishing new career political seats.

Lousy pay for legislators creates a problem for the voters, not only the legislator's family. As with campaign fundraising, penury makes legislators more open to financial support by well healed interests, whether in the form of contracts, low demand employment, junkets, or dinners. Financial insecurity erodes the independence needed by legislators to serve the voters' interests.

To Ramon...term limits is the wrong solution to the problem of the reelection advantage of bad incumbents. The right solution is campaign finance reform.

Paul,

I don't necessarily oppose a larger cadre of career politicians. But thats not really what a citizens legislature is all about, and is often cited as one of the rationalles for opposing an increase in legislators salaries. An increase that I'm glad to see is generally supported.

Your point is well taken about weakening the knowledge base of elected officials, but I don't see how an earned income replacement necessarily does that. In fact, I'd suggest it could help retain qualified people because they'd know that they could serve longer term without suffering income loss over a period of time. However, I do see where someone who was a legislator for a while would consider leaving for several years to build up her "earned income average" before perhaps returning. But that may be good. And, that happens now with the low salaries, and they may never come back.

I'd finally note that people could always decide to make "state Legislator" their career choice as I didn't propose cutting salaries for State Legislators.

Like I said....lots of details.

Rob

"term limits is the wrong solution to the problem of the reelection advantage of bad incumbents. The right solution is campaign finance reform."

Term limits impacts one person's "right" to run for a specific office after serving in it a certain number of years.

Campaign finance reform impacts every person's right to communicate political messages to large numbers of people (usually through donations or paid media).

Amazing how progressive are offended by the former but see no problem embracing the latter.

Public interest attorneys get paid well when they win a case against the citizens. We could make them live by the same terms of pay that are applicable to legislators, or the reverse. Just what it is that constitutes the public interest need not be resolved to address the issue of the pay disparity between attorneys that are given public money versus mere legislators. I would surely not expect a low paid "expert" lawyer/legislator to address this particular piece of special privilege that favors their class. I do recall hearing calls in the past to require that a legislator must be a lawyer first. The call for experts over the average man, to me, sounds about as foolish as doing away with the right to a jury of one's peers in a criminal case.

[Kari, if you pull this comment then pull all comments I have made to this site; and declare your yourself a formal Political Action Committee subject to suit on such terms. RL.]

I thought the pay level that a judge can award to a public interest attorney is a good one to compare to a legislator, which is presumed to work in the public interest. It affords an opportunity too to advocate for legislator pay that would have a matching upper limit that corresponds to that of such public interest attorneys. A judge can sometimes merely double the award based partly on the class of person on who's behalf a case was brought.

It is an argument in support for higher pay.

I want some bloke to pointedly say that a lawyer is "special" and deserves higher pay for doing good; above and beyond a mere "citizen" legislator; perhaps even a burger flipper who rises through the political ranks to represent the interests of burger flippers.

And Jenni, you cough up the notion that there is no nexus between the two. Huh?

I tried to draft an explanation here but don't know if that will hit pay dirt either.

Who is most capable of advocating that injustice is unfair than the person who actually feels or experiences that injustice? The only pain felt by a professional class is that of guilt and the vanity of potentially losing status and privilege.

I may be too Chavezista-like here, in advocating for the downtrodden, for the quaint blue folks here to see.

<h2>Ryan, follow the link.</h2>