It's great to see that Sizemore has as many progressive measures on the ballot as the unions (Sizemore #42 - Unions #44) <sarcasm intended="">

Also in favor of #46 and #47, so that makes 4 out of 10 I'll vote for. Not too shabby.

Andrew:

Why do you think that many voters are "fed-up" with the initiative system? It was put in by progressives who wanted the people to have a say, breaking the hold that special interests had on government. Direct Democracy may not be perfect, and we may get some things we don't like, but that is what is wonderful about the Oregon system.

I now realize the difference between progressives and liberals. Progressives realize that the people may not always get it right, but the elite and the powerful never do.

When I look at the list, I am voting with the property rights groups AND Bill Sizemore this year. Never thought I would say that. That is why the Oregon system is a good thing over the long run.

I agree with Andrew. We need to get out and yell "VOTE NO ON EVERYTHING!!!!"

By the way Wally - I am a liberal, but I an sick of initiatives that hurt people, only bebefit the rich or affluent, or are in our hands because the legislature is too lazy and stupid to decide it themselves when it is their JOB to decide it for us.

Kari-

Our Oregon's analysis is not only wrong, but filled with inflamations and outright (and intentional) lies.

Is brought to you with help from FreedomWorks, Americans for Limited Government, Americans for Tax Reform and Oregon Right to Life.

I can tell you that this is an outright lie and they should be held to account for it.

I don't think Oregonians are fed up with the initiative system. I think Oregonians are fed up with the way the state is allowing the initiative process to be conducted.

I think we are all tired of being hounded on the streets by petitioners (they are worse than panhandlers) needing to collect so many signatures per day to be paid by out of state organizations trying to put forward their agendas in Oregon.

I don't think we are tired of valid initiatives being put forward by honest and sincere petitioners regarding issues that really hit home for the average Oregonian.

We are basically a one party state. Once the Democratic Party sets its legislative agenda for the session, it is almost impossible for voters to get any new topic added. Furthermore, if you are not one of the party power players, then you can't get the topic added to the agenda. So, what do we do as citizens? We put forward an initiatve.

The federal courts have ruled that we cannot prevent petitioners from being paid, and the courts have ruled that petitioners pay cannot be based on the number of signatures collected. However, our state has been lax in enforcement on this issue.

Emforcement of existing initiative laws and new guidelines for signature collection are necessary. However, I don't see the state legislature adding this to their agenda anytime soon.

I think there's a lot of misconceptions about the Prescription Drug Pool Purchasing Plan initiative, and one especially important one that. The Pool went into effect three years ago, and it state agencies have the opportunitiy to opt in. Does anyone think it's weird that not one agency has chosen to?

The Purchasing Pool is a failure and we shouldn't try to inject life into a program that doesn't work.

red.

Pat & All--

I helped get the campaign finance reform intiatives rolling, and I back reform as strongly as anyone in this state. The now named Measure 47, however, is one that I am now convinced will do far more harm than good. The intent of the measure is absolutely spot on--to regulate the flow the money in the campaign system. The problem is that the courts have a clear record of overturning limits on personal expenditures, either to one's own campaign or as an independent expenditure for or against a candidate.

Given that reality, the proposal I helped to bring forward will result in a system that given the Loren Parks of the world even more influence in Oregon than they have now. We will severely limit what organizations such as Planned Parenthood can do in the campaign cycle and greatly empower the Parks and the other large checkbooks.

This is NOT what I set out to accomplish for our state. I want to find the way to set limits that will actually work, and then combine them with an option for public financed campaigns.

We will never get money out of politics, but we can get something closer to a level playing field, and a field that will work well with public financed elections. Measure 47 is not the path that will take us there.

Kari, come on. Have you really read Our Oregon's objections? Some are so ambiguous as to have no meaning. Some are purposely misleading. Some would be equally applicable to any reform that limits political contributions.

Let's have a post specifically on these measures and discuss the oints in detail.

BTW, I concur with Mister Ryans's ballot measure judgements.

"and the fact that all (ok, maybe almost all) of these measures are actually organized by special interests?"

So what? Who's supposed to organize them? Random scatterings of Oregonians?

The fact is Oregon voters sign the petitions and Oregon Voters vote onthe measures. The phony pandamonium over who funds and helps gather signatures is pathetic.

"Let's have a post specifically on these measures and discuss the points in detail"

Anmd leave out the "TABOR" talk. It's propoganda.

Please leave out the "vote yes for Rainy day" talk about the CO-TABOR-derived M48. It's propaganda, as shown by the absence of any mention of how state monies are to be disbursed in the text of the initiative.

Please also leave out any postulating that it would mandate such a fund, as that would be sheer unsupported speculation.

Just a reminder...all these initiatives were bought and paid for by companies outside Oregon. How can you vote for something that was spearheaded by outside missionaries?

Vote NO on EVERYTHING!

..and if we keep voting no on everything, maybe these poeple will think twice before trying to force garbage into our lives again.

Oops, my bad! I meant to say "by the absence of any mandate of how state monies are to be disbursed". It would except such a disbursement from the draconian limit, but the fund would remain a pipe dream.

Eric, since you interposed comment...

Since your concern seems to be about outsiders bending Oregon law to their will, wouldn't it be more effective to take a proactive stance, such as working to expose such efforts as equivalent to dumping their garbage here, rather than shutting down a progressive-instituted check on legislative power?

Eric-

Just a reminder...all these initiatives were bought and paid for by companies outside Oregon.

Where did you inform that remark?

Rep. Peter Buckley-

Sorry to say that you sound just like a politician that is beholden to the system that got you into office. The language hasn't changed since you supported the measure, just the power groups that have aligned for and against. Doesn't speak well of your integrity.

As for those that think that one element or another will be stricked out, Don't count your chickens. The measure by my count is 16 pages long and filled with ways to hinder big money buying influence. For example, if as you say, independent expenditures are left unlimited (which is a HIGHLY debatable point,) they would still have to adhere to the requirements that they disclose who they are, what they do and where they get their money IN EACH ADVERTISEMENT. This has the effect of nullifying any statement they could buy just by time constraints.

That and many other provisions should be looked at hard before throwing stones (or signing on as a chief petitioner.)

Just as important as these measures are in their own right, is the issue of how these measures will affect voter turnout, and in whose favor.

With a dismal primary turnout, the general election for governor and key contested legislative races could turn on a GOTV effort driven by these measures more than the candidates themselves.

Candidates will be asked to take a position on one or more of these measures (see Saxton thread above), and that could make or break support. The only measure in which Democratic and Republican incumbents agree, is that terms limits are bad (for their careers).

• Wes

"Vote No on Everything" campaigns historically don't work -- and there's no reason to think this year will be any different. Also, for what it's worth, the prescription drug purchasing pool expansion is not being funded by outside interests -- as was written above -- and is likely to pass despite modest funding.

Engage these initiatives on their merits, how they would hurt our state, and have unintended consequences and we will win the day. Go to Our Oregon to find out how to get involved.

Prog--

I'll cop to a lot of things--and definitely to the fact that my understanding of the impact of the measure wasn't what it should have been when I agreed to be a sponsor--but I won't cop to a lack of integrity.

I worked from August of 2004 until May of 2005 to get people to focus on the proposal, but it wasn't until it was on the street before there was a willingness to actually study it and go over how each piece of it might play out. Once it began to be clear that is some pieces of it were thrown out, the proposal as a whole could do more damage than good, I worked for months, through October of last year, to try to broker a new proposal that would work for all sides and actually accomplish the common goal of real campaign finance reform.

So all I can say is that you're wrong--100%, absolutely wrong, as a matter of fact. I am still committed to findng the way to reform that will work, and I hope you will join with me in the effort.

Peter, I applaud your work. Sometimes it is hard to get people to focus on the details. That is why it is good to have discussions of measures. Recently I got an email from a friend saying he thought a particular measure was just what the few word identifier said it was, and I found the ballot title online at Sec. of State and quoted it to him. That is what serious debate means--discussing the actual wording. If a group writing a measure is stubborn about changing language, that is not the fault of someone who tried and failed to get those changes--it is the fault of those who refuse to change the wording.

Prog. may never have met you as I have. You are a hard worker.

Have many of the posters - especially those most assertive of their righteousness on this blog- actually read the text of the measures? Not just the titles, not the spin and summaries at Our Oregon, Freedomworks, and the like? Read the actual text. The right wing TABOR supporters are liars. Not spin. Liars.
It's a TABOR measure. It's the same limit formula as Colorado. It does not create a rainy day fund. Read the text. Find these words: Creates rainy day fund Establishes rainy day fund Directs legislature to establish a rainy day fund. Or anything similar.
You won't. The term rainy day fund only appears in that is named as something that is not prohibited; it's allowed in the event one is ever created. Guess what? Nothing in the constitution now prohibits a rainy day fund. They are lying. They are on their third try at coming up with a catchy name: They called it TABOR when they started, then SOS for about a month, now "rainy day amendment" (type www.sosoregon.com into your browser; it takes you to the "Rainy Day" measure site). If it's so clearly and plainly a rainy day amendment as has been asserted by it's proponents, then why is it only now being called a rainy day amendment? Why was SOS (Stop Over Spending) the title not long ago if it is so clearly about a rainy day fund?
It's TABOR. Inflation plus population = Colorado. That's TABOR. If you support it, have the integrity to honestly own it. Likewise, read the actual 20 pages of the campaign finance measure. It's excessive and unrealistic. Most of the left wing organizations opposing it are against the unilateral disarmament that it will create when the limits on rich guys writing check get thrown out in court. It also directs judges to set new limits if they rule the current ones are too extreme. Is that the role of the judiciary - to decide the appropriate dollar amounts for campaign finance limits?
BTW, the "special interest" money system in place now isn't good for the left either. I saw recently that Corporations outspent "big labor" 24:1 in 2004 (nationally); probably a greater gap between corporations and enviro groups, choice, GLBT, etc. The current system sucks. But just because the sponsors are extremely liberal and use the word "reform" alot, doesn't mean their measure works. Good people have bad ideas sometimes. And they sold their souls by having the petitions circulated with the right wing measures.
Read the text of the whole measure. Do the same for all the measures. It's easy - they are all on the Secretary of State's site. Who gives a rat's ass what Our Oregon, Freedomworks, and the like spin when you can read the actual text of every measure? At least Sizemore's actually do what he says they will do. He isn't lying and you know where he's coming from (but I'll vote no on his because it's time for him to go get a job).

Read the Actual Measures Please,

I may not agree with your review of the CFR measures, but I agree with your name.

If you want to inform your opinions, don't start with the spin machines like "their oregon," start with the text.

BTW, I don't know how you can say that they "sold their souls" by being petitioned along with the right wing measures. If is against the law to limit an individual from carrying whatever petition they want to. So if some people carry multiple petitions, you can't hold that against the campaigns.

So if some people carry multiple petitions, you can't hold that against the campaigns.

Of course you can. Also, no one said that coordinating with TABOR was ILLEGAL, just slimy. The legality argument's a total red herring.

When you pool resources with TABOR, you help TABOR. When you offer petitioners a chance to lead with a progressive sounding CFR measure (especially in Portland), then pivot to the spending trap, that helps TABOR. If you don't understand this it's only because you haven't worked on initiative campaigns before.

"When you pool resources with TABOR, you help TABOR."

This is just silly. If you are a paid petitioner on contract with multiple campaigns, of course, you can lead with whatever petition you see fit. Suggesting that the independent actions of petitioners is tantamount to separate campaigns "pooling resources" is a totally bogus charge.

"The right wing TABOR supporters are liars"

It ain't TABOR and never was. Who's lying?

"It's the same limit formula as Colorado"

No, it is not. They don't limit the same things.

Who's lying?

"It does not create a rainy day fund"

It makes one happen automatically by not limiting tax collections while limiting spending. There will be an immediate excess that will sit in the State coffers earning interest.

Who's lying?

No the words,

"Creates rainy day fund Establishes rainy day fund Directs legislature to establish a rainy day fund. Or anything similar"

do not appear in the text. They don't need to.

"Guess what? Nothing in the constitution now prohibits a rainy day fund"

That's right but your blue legislators do prohibit a fund. M48 disables their effort to spend every dime.

"They called it TABOR when they started"

No, the M48 people never did.

Who's lying.

"It's TABOR. Inflation plus population = Colorado."

If you have any honesty you'll address the FACT that the two limit two different things. TABOR limits all state and local government tax collections, M48 only limits State spending.

It's obvous that none of the M48 opponents here have ever contacted the M48 sponsores and asked them anything.

Instead you pile on one misrepresentation and fabrication after another.

You could easily call up the Taxpayers Association and ask them some questions. Here's their phone number. 503-603-9009

Rep Buckley wrote:

"Once it began to be clear that is [if?] Some pieces of it were thrown out, the proposal as a whole could do more damage than good, I worked for months, through October of last year, to try to broker a new proposal that would work for all sides and actually accomplish the common goal of real campaign finance reform."

Given the complexity of reforming campaign finance, this seems an extremely high hurdle, one we may never get over. To effectively control big money, which tends to move wherever the system allows, Measure 47 covers a lot of ground. Of course it is possible that some provisions will not pass judicial scrutiny. That is the case with all initiatives and legislation. Uncertainty exists about the ability to control independent expenditures, which were the greatest problem in the 1996 elections run under the reforms passed in 1994. Is it not better to attempt a fix rather to lament the possibility that IE limitations will be struck down?

If parts of the Measure 47 reforms are declared unconstitutional, or if problems in the system become apparent, is that not motivation for the next round of reforms? Is it realistic to expect all parties to agree on some perfect reform package? I don't think CFR works that way. The problems are too numerous and too complex.

Measures 46 and 47 are reworks of the 1994 reform package, designed to withstand free speech objections and informed by the 1996 Oregon election cycle experience and federal court decisions on CFR since then. Just what other approach to the issue would be prudent?

I am a fan of public financing, which, of course, Oregonians recently rejected. Even if we could reverse that vote, there remains the need for contribution limits to make public financing more attractive to candidates and more affordable for taxpayers.

Measure 47 may not be perfect. Parts of it may not withstand judicial review. It has, however, made the ballot. It is quite similar to a measure that Oregonians passed overwhelmingly 12 years ago. Are we going to ignore a good chance at real reform because it does not please all parties?

The present system is so bullocked up, it is hard to imagine these reforms, in part or in full, will not make things better. It is not hard to imagine that interest groups of all persuasions would balk at changes in the way they do political business. It's easier for candidates and groups to finance their campaigns with a few fat checks, but it's not good for democracy.

A note to "just vote no" eric:

The campaign finance reform initiative campaigns have been almost entirely Oregonian financed. If you are going to ask people to take a Nancy Reaganesque approach to politics, at least do some research so you don't appear a complete buffoon.