Mari Anne--

Thanks for this post. I think you are absolutely on the right track. And I think that this view is shared by many, many people on the progressive side, but it has obviously not come together yet.

Your push for year round, constant focus on the development of the agenda is how we have to view it. Even in the midst of the extremely important work at hand now to defeat TABOR and other awful initiatives, as well as pass the prescription drug pool measure and elect the candidates we need to elect (particularly in the Oregon House!), we need to be focusing on developing the agenda for 2008.

We went after this over the past two years, and came up short on the HOPE initiative as well as the Apollo energy initiative, and failed to come up with a workable campaign finance reform package, all of which is extremely frustrating. We got some of our proposals accomplished (such as Pay Day loan reform and the negotiations for nursing home staff levels) by pushing them towards the initiative ballot, but we are left without an overall positive agenda for the progressive side on the initiative vote in November.

So please keep pushing on this. It absolutely has to happen. And I will keep pushing every way I can, too. I'm hopeful that the Archemides Movement might lead to a proactive health care agenda for 2008, and I'd like to see at least two or three other very proactive measures on the ballot for us in two years as well.

I think the basic problem with the idea of an agenda based on progressive initiatives is that it ignores the advantage the conservative haves. Progressives tend to support measures that benefit everyone a little at high cost to the rich and powerful. The successful conservative intiatives have often provided huge benefits to the rich and powerful with a small benefit to everyone else that is a net loss when carefully considered. Not surprisingly progressives lose and conservatives win, that is one of the benefits of being rich and powerful.

One possible approach to overcoming that disadvantage is to treat the signature collection process as a political campaign, rather than as a technical requirement. Make the goal to gather the signatures of a majority of Oregon voters, rather than the minimum needed to get on the ballot. Of course collecting that many signatures is a huge hurdle, but if you were successful you would have had to build an organization capable of defending it against whatever campaign its opponents ran.

Which brings me to a second point. Coalitions almost never develop successful intiatives. They add up everyones wishes in ways that create complex and subtle legislation that is not clear on its face. The results i, in the words of bottle bill opponents, "confusing." There are usually all sorts of provisions that are only understood by policy wonks or that drive away more votes than they attract. If you are going to develop intiatives they have to be recognized as first and foremost political documents where every provision clearly attracts more support than it creates opposition or even uncertainty among voters.

Which brings us to the thrid point. The staff and leadership of organizations supporting an initiative are likely to be looking out for their organizational interests. They aren't going to put huge resources behind something that only marginally addresses the concerns they are organized to address. Nor are they going to agree to a partial solution that leaves them without the ability to address the rest of the problem as they see it. Getting all those staff and leadership to agree on something almost guarantees that it will be marginalized, failing to get their agreement guarantees it won't have the resources behind it to be successful.

Labor unions know the power of having even nominal majority support before going into an election. It doesn't guarantee success, but it makes it a lot more likely. The PIRG's were mostly created based on petitions from a majority of students on each campus. Both are models for the idea and both would recognize the difficulty of the task of getting a majority. But setting that as the goal would transform the process by putting a majority behind whatever measure was placed on the ballot. And it would force the groups organizing to create an intiative that could be easily pitched to the average person on the street.

I am not sure a better approach wouldn't be an intiative to make it much easier to get on the ballot - ensuring a lot more iniatives - and much harder to pass, making it difficult to get them passed.

For instance, if it was easy to get on the ballot there would be an iniative banning abortion on the ballot every year. And it would fail every year. Not only would it stop having any force and frustrate its supporters but it would make legislative action impossible.

It would also restore the idea that a small number of committed people could put something before the voters. Instead of a handful of measures backed by the wealthy and powerful, you would have a full ballot of ideas. It would be relatively easy to put an alternative on the ballot if a measure addressed a problem in an extreme fashion.

The easiest way to make it difficult to pass would be to require a majority of those voting to support it. In other words, failing to vote would be a no vote. I also think people would feel free to vote down any measure they weren't entirely satisfied with since they would be confident that if it really had merit they would get another chance in a couple years.

Having managed campaigns both for and against ballot measures, those are my off-the-wall ideas for your thoughts.

Peter and Ross both have good points. Agenda items are needed--but specific proposals everyone can agree on. Nothing worse than "you're not a progressive if you don't agree with this proposal"--too many people are down on politics these days as it is.

What happened with the campaign finance proposal is an object lesson why a good basic idea doesn't always translate to a winning measure.

First priority, though, needs to be electing good people in the November election.

One great advantage to an organization like this: you can create a database of people who signed on to your initiatives in the past. Get a list of 200,000 to 300,000 names, then -- instead of hanging out in public areas trying to snag passersby, you send volunteers/paid canvassers door-to-door using that list. Provide the list to allied progressive organizations in exchange for their collecting signatures for one another's ballot measures.

A variation of that idea: add to the database every registered Democratic and Green voter. Keep it continually updated. The idea that Ross Williams had to "treat the signature collection process as a political campaign" is a good one; the canvassers who go door to door should know the details of every measure they're circulating, and be able to advocate to the (presumably sympathetic) voters signing the petition.

This organization could provide expert aid in drafting the initiatives AND market-testing them. Survey groups of several hundred likely voters and find out which are most likely to pass if they go before the people. Get input from a lot of different people, mostly to anticipate points of attack. Circulate the three or four or five most popular initiatives, or maybe the most popular initiative on each of several broad issues -- those seen as most important to the public. (Health care, energy independence, global warming, civil liberties, equal rights, tax reform, school funding, land use -- there's quite a menu there.)

Be ready to start collecting signatures as early in the process as possible.

In terms of fund-raising, the internet has proved its potential as the big leveler. I presume this organization could be something of a MoveOn.org in terms of adopting several measures to support and giving active fundraising and logistical support to each campaign. You can get one person to write a $1 million check, or 50,000 people to give $20 each with the click of a mouse. How about fundraising house parties, or donating stuff to be sold on ebay to raise money for a campaign? (is that legal? no idea...) The internet makes it possible for a lot of people to do a little. As Ross points out:

Progressives tend to support measures that benefit everyone a little at high cost to the rich and powerful. The successful conservative intiatives have often provided huge benefits to the rich and powerful with a small benefit to everyone else that is a net loss when carefully considered. Not surprisingly progressives lose and conservatives win, that is one of the benefits of being rich and powerful.

But since progressive measures benefit everyone a little, it means "everyone" has an incentive to throw $5 or $10 into the hat to get cleaner air or cheaper drugs or whatever public good the measure supports. Internet fundraising makes it possible to collect all those small donations without transaction costs eating up most of it.

Mari's right... Oregon really could use an organization like this.

This cycle the unions are playing "defense" by opposing multiple ballot measures through a group called "Defend Oregon."

However, next cycle the plan will be to also bring progressive issues to the ballot so as to go on offense.

It would be smart to distinguish your dual purposes.

Perhaps "Offend Oregon" would be appropriate?

I agree whole-heartedly. The best political defense is a good attack on the ballot. Find something that most progressives and independants agree on, get it on the ballot and force conservative "status-quo'ers" to spend their funds to defend it.

I'd say that same for civil rights measures, but I believe that although Portland is fairly liberal, most progressives and liberals only talk the talk and prefer to set this on the back burner.

However, Oregon deserves only the best. I believe that begins with equal opportunities, for schools, for jobs and for civil rights.

Restating in shorter words what some others have said above--I can see two monster issues in favor of setting up this sort of organization:

Fundraising

Volunteer coordination.

I like the idea floated above that signature campaigns should try to get a majority of voter signatures, not just the bare minimum. I'd also advocate that this proposed organization needs to network with local groups in every county in the state, and develop a presence everywhere. Even in the small towns of Eastern Oregon, you have a handful of progressive sorts. Network them into the larger circle. Listen to their ideas for stressing the points which will address the issues near and dear to their local communities.

Most of all, avoid paid signature gathering. I'm old enough and have been involved with enough signature campaigns...OUTSIDE of the Portland Metro area...to know that it's not impossible to run a volunteer signature campaign. The successful campaigns from the pre-paid sig days ran the signature campaign like an election campaign. Build your base on knowledgable, committed volunteers whose job is not just to collect signatures but to recruit more involved potential signature gatherers. Build the consensus. Build the involvement. That way, when it comes time to run the election campaign, you already have your database and campaign workers recruited and ready to go.

Grassroots campaigning. That's what it's about. Forget the canvass-type paid signature gatherers (a pox on all of 'em, that's what put the foot in the door for paid signature gathering). Plan for recruitment as you get your signatures, and use committed volunteers who understand the issue and are involved with the issue. That will make you stand out from the paid signature gatherers who couldn't explain it to you if they tried. Have them wear buttons that say "I'm not a PAID signature gatherer--I'm a volunteer who BELIEVES in this issue!"

I'd like to see someone try this. My gut instincts tell me it could be worthwhile. I think many people are fed up with initiatives-for-hire.

Let's get back to the grassroots!

I agree whole-heartedly. The best political defense is a good attack on the ballot. Find something that most progressives and independants agree on, get it on the ballot and force conservative "status-quo'ers" to spend their funds to defend it.

I'd say that same for civil rights measures, but I believe that although Portland is fairly liberal, most progressives and liberals only talk the talk and prefer to set this on the back burner.

However, Oregon deserves only the best. I believe that begins with equal opportunities, for schools, for jobs and for civil rights.

"What happened with the campaign finance proposal is an object lesson why a good basic idea doesn't always translate to a winning measure."

LT, if you define winning as victory in November, please stay tuned, as I believe you're mistaken. If you referring to "winning" as in winning over the hearts and minds of some self-interested liberal lobbying groups, well, that's a "victory" some of us will happily forego to get the corrupting influence of big mammon out of Oregon politics...

I think Mari Anne is absolutely correct on her points, except for ignoring the significance of the CFR measures returning to the ballot this year. Nothing could be more progressive...or more vital towards advancing a progressive agenda, IMHO.

I think Mari Anne is missing a key point. There are two progressive measure on the ballot this year regarding campaign finance reform. The voters of Oregon in past years have strongly supported such efforts and will likely again, notwithstanding the efforts of 'Our Oregon' to prevent these measures from even getting into the voters' hands. Progressives should be very dissapointed in 'Our Oregon' for opposing the two campaign finance reform measures that have made the ballot this year, ballot measures 46 and 47.

One can understand some concern with the specific campaign finance reform strategy laid out in Measure 47. Fine, the specific campaign finance reform program that's right for Oregon is a debatable issue. However, Measure 47 would even the money playing field and put a heck of a lot more emphasis on the ability to mobilize large number of small donors. Can the right beat us at this game? That remains to be seem, but one this is clear, they are already kicking our butts at the big money playing field. Even the Public Commision on the Oregon Legislature is flagging the unlimited money allowed in Oregon politics as a major issue (see http://www.oregonlive.com/weblogs/politics/)

But by also opposing Measure 46 - which simply allows the voters of Oregon (or a 3/4 vote of both Houses of the Legislature - a steep hurdle) to prohibit or limit contributions and expenditures in elections in Oregon - 'Our Oregon' seems to be opposing campaign finance reform completely and offers no alternatives.

The arguments against Measure 46 on their website are weak, reading like a rich man's incantation of the mantra 'money is free speech.' Does 'Our Oregon' think it in the best interest of progressive values that unions should remain a distant second in political giving to the types of corporations and rich right wingers that are bankrolling their opponents' campaigns every year? Just look at the huge donations Ron Saxton is getting from a handful of wealthy individuals, CEO's and corporations, or the amount of money now needed to win a contested state senate or house seat, to see the out of control nature of big money in Oregon politics.

'Our Oregon' should at the very least drop its objection to Measure 46 and put its weight behind it, while engaging in a healthy discussion about the kinds of specific reforms that should take place with other progressive groups that do support campaign finance reform such the Alliance for Democracy, OSPIRG, the Sierra Club and more.

quizzical hits the bulls-eye on Our Oregon's opposition to Meausures 46 and 47 campaign finance reform. Labor has always been outspent handily by its corporate opponents. M46 and M47 would allow unions to level the playing field through small donor committees. It would be "hard work", to quote the Shrub, but American workers have always worked hard. Their representatives in the labor movement shouldn't get lazy when faced with an opportunity to better promote worker interests.