Isn't this a Sizemore measure? When has he cared about the "working poor"? My guess is this is either to test his ability to return to the initiative business full time if he can get this passed, or there is some clinker wording hidden in the fine print that has an unintended consequence.

I don't care if Bill Sizemore claims he has a cure for all that ails Oregon. Are any of his measures that passed in the last century still intact--upheld by a court, the original wording? Remember that while voters defeated Double Majority as a stand alone measure, it was also hidden in Measure 47--the measure which the legislature had to re-write because it was unworkable.

If this were really an important issue, someone other than Sizemore would have put it on the ballot.

What irks me most about credit-scoring is that no one outside of a reporting agency really knows what's in the proprietary formula. The FICO score, while federally regulated, would be one thing, but most insurers will probably use one of the reporting bureaus' proprietary formulas.

When a bank denies credit based on a score, they have to issue a detailed statement explaining why... to ensure, among other things, that race or national origin didn't play a role in the poor score. So, the banks use the FICO formula.

But when an insurer raises a rate based on a credit score, they don't have to issue an explanation at all. What formula did they use? Did that proprietary formula include race as a factor? Are they charging old Asian ladies higher rates? Who knows! It's a secret.

Movie theaters don't make a lot of money through ticket sales; they make most of their money at the concession stand.

Thusly, they should charge skinny people more for movie tickets, because they're generally less likely to buy candy and popcorn. After all, right now the people who buy concessions are subsidizing the ticket costs for those that don't buy candy.

M42 is awesome.

LT - This was attempted in 2003 by the Senate Democrats. Think of this as Sizemore's "community service."

Popcorn logic: my kind of thinking. LOL Never throw the baby out with the bath water. Insurance Co's, Friend of man..want to buy a bridge? ROFLMAO

This is a bad measure. It is a Bill Sizemore measure. No babies hidden in here, just vote no and throw out this dirty bath water.

Bill Sizemore is bad, evil, and not even a friend of the unions. Don't you remember who Bill is?

This is a bad bill (okay measure, initiative, whatever) because Bill is a Bad Bill.

Bill's motivation is pretty clear to me, every year it gets more and more difficult to find places to circulate petitions. Since retailers now have the right shut out petition circulators, you often have to find a way to let you on the property. Enter, "The Lead."

A circulator approaches a manager or owner with a petition that sounds like a no brainer and the manager/owner supports the issue and lets you stand in front of their business. Little do they know that you have a bunch of other petitions behind it.

This was very effective in Corvallis with a cell phone tax repeal (Starbucks were letting circulators inside the store!) Alos effective has been "Jessica's Law" type petitions.

I think that Bill thought that this measure would open doors for him and his other petitions.

Sorry...but this is an initiative by Sizemore. Anything Sizemore deals with get a NO automatically. The guy is a convicted felon, and is using this initiative as a personal vendetta. Besides - if you can not afford to drive a car because of no money, it's God's way of telling you that you shouldn't be driving anyway.

This is why we should vote NO on eveything.

Charging people more for insurance based on their credit rating, rather than on their driving record, is just another way for corporate America to screw the little guy. And people with low credit scores probably don't have a lot of options, so screwing them with high insurance rates is very profitable. Kind of like predatory lending.

Just because Sizemore is a moron does not mean that he has not come up with a good idea in this partiuclar case. The laws of probability dictate that everyone might eventually have one good idea, even if the rest of their lives are spent promoting ideas that are BS.

I got this same letter, and had to laugh. I'm an unemployed single mother - what do you suppose my credit rating is?

Where did these people get my name? I haven't gotten ANY other campaign literature other than a couple of mass mailings from those running in my area. [I assume they're mass mailings because they're from Republican candidates and I'm a registered Democrat.]

It's disappointing to me to see such knee-jerk negative reaction to this initiative, simply because of who's sponsoring it. I agree Sizemore is repugnant, but I, for one, would appreciate a real analysis of this measure by the political "wonks" so as to better understand if there is indeed "some clinker wording hidden in the fine print that has an unintended consequence."

I recall reading that Sizemore started this because he had trouble getting insurance because of his bad credit rating. His motives most likely are entirely selfish and if this helps the working poor, it's merely a side effect. But is that a reason to discount it out-of-hand?

I really fear for the Democratic party with comments like: "Besides - if you can not afford to drive a car because of no money, it's God's way of telling you that you shouldn't be driving anyway."

Man, sounds like Bill Sizemore could endorse Kulongoski for Governor and most of you guys would vote Saxton! Way to think independently.

Nate, good advice, but let's just skip straight to step #3! Good measure, should pass.

Boosting insurance premiums for the poor will result in more uninsured motorists. While driving is a privilege not a right, it should not be limited to the privileged. The no on 42 ads pit the middle class against the poor, e.g.; You are subsidizing the deadbeats by voting yes on 42. More divisiveness - thanks insurance industry. Obviously more uninsured motorists will result in greater subsidy than will affordable insurance based upon driving history. It's too bad Sizemore sponsored this check on discrimination against the poor. Even worse that none of our representatives will embrace this issue. They know the power of the insurance lobby. Whose subsidizing the ads the industry is running non-stop in opposition to this measure? What next? Democrats are more accident prone than Republicans? A party affiliation premium boost? Stay tuned.

I'm surprised by the number of folks who would vote against this measure based on their dislike of Sizemore, and the idea that he probably has bad credit (there's that judging a book by its credit thing again, which is what the insurance companies are banking on when it comes to 42, the 'criminalizing' of the poor)...thus Measure 42 is entirely a self-serving proposition. Who cares? The working poor and the dwindling middle classes are being raped by insurance companies, and any other corporate interest that has a strong enough lobby (the funds to hire a hot-shot PR company.) They are willing to pay someone to convince voters it's a good idea to stomp on the financially challenged. We HAVE to have auto insurance, just as we HAVE to carry home insurance if we have a mortgage. In these areas we are captive comsumers. If the insurance companies don't screw us on rates, they will screw us on settlements. Ask the folks along the gulf coast how they feel about insurance companies....and remember, not all of them were poor, or had bad credit. They just paid premiums faithfully for a lifetime, and were left high & dry (pun intended) when the water receded. Insurance sompanies are still posting profits.

So....I guess my questions to the people who would vote down Measure 42 because they dislike its author are: Do you feel it is fair to base insurance premiums on credit scores? And: If someone other than Sizemore had brought forward this Measure, would you vote for it? What is in the Measure that you don't like?

I suspect most of the nay-sayers here are shooting from an "I've got mine" stance. And as for Sizemore being a convicted felon...whatever happened to the old idea of someone having "paid their debt to society"? At what point do you think Sizemore can get this debt off his social credit score? No matter what I think of his character I've got to wonder how many folks base their hatred (apparently NOT too strong a word gaging from some posts here) of him on previous big-lobby propaganda from other issues. And I have to admire the fact that he keeps on exercising his right to be part of the democratic process. How many of us do that?

Josh....Point taken. But it does seem like a disproportionate fine to me. For what is basically a civil crime. Speaking of which, we've got the leader of this country and his administration violating our Constitution on what should be an alarming scale, certainly doing more harm to American citizens than Sizemore's crimes... (And I'm not defending him, I'm defending Measure 42 on it's merit and not on the history of its author).... no one is prosecuting the President. Who we could say should be held to a higher standard as he is a public servant.

I'm straining intellectually to find some sort of logic and balance in the caliber of crimes someone in the political arena has to commit to incure wrath and loathing....and prosecution. It appears one size does not fit all.

What is it within Measure 42's verbiage that you object to?

Voters....leave your sentiments about Sizemore and his crimes outside your ballot envelope. Vote for what is fair.

Let's see... we don't actually get to vote on Sizemore himself... so I'm assuming you mean you're voting no on 42. You're basing your decision solely upon who sponsored the measure?

How do you feel about the actual Measure, though? If George Washington rose from the grave to sponsor it instead, would you vote for it then?

"How do you feel about the actual Measure, though? If George Washington rose from the grave to sponsor it instead, would you vote for it then?"

I just might. This is not about ideology, but about life experience. There were those of us working in customer service during Sizemore's heyday who got furious with him. He couldn't be bothered with courtesy towards others or with details. How dare anyone ask him any questions! If we weren't polite to customers even when they asked dumb questions, and if we didn't pay attention to details, we could be fired. But Sizemore was a law unto himself. And just because the measure he has this year has merit in some people's eyes we are supposed to forget the excesses of "Buffalo Bill Seizemore" because someone likes his measure?

Anyone who likes the measure has the right to support it. I won't. He needs to learn that he is not and never was King of Sizemoregon. Period.

I don't see fine print that can be a problem. I am not a fan of Bill Sizemore, but if you had an infinite number of
monkeys sitting at an infinite number of typewriters for an infinite number of years one would eventually type the entire works of Shakespeare. Here a monkey hit it early in the process.

After my wife had a moderate surgery I could barely afford complications ensued, the end result was $150,000 in unsecured debt for hospital bills. I was the guy everybody wanted to lend money to, well, bankruptsy will cure them of that. I have had an insurance problem, not because there were any "at fault" accidents or tickets, quite simply, I'm a bad risk because my wife's head tried to explode. As long as I was with the same carrier everything was fine, the problem is that commercial accounts weren't carried and I had to have them. So, not only did people not want to lend me money, which is bad for a businessman, but insurance companies like to stick a rod where the sun don't shine.

Agreed, Bill Sizemore has the ethics and morals of an alleycat, I automatically suspect anything he even likes (oh I hope he loathes ice-cream). Now my interest in this is pretty narrow, I'm getting screwed for something that's not my fault and has nothing to do with cars. Gee, I wonder why I don't like that. So, if you don't like Bill Sizemore, which I don't, what is it that you've got against me?

Let me remind you, I work very hard to make very durable longterm products (houses) and I employ and pay fairly well several people and even espouse a pretty progressive agenda. By the way, you don't even want to think about what I pay insurance companies per year, but here's a hint : 25-27% of wage/employeee for comp ins, 10% of wage for business liability, a bunch of vehicles. Think about how screwed those poor insurance companies are, they only get in excess of 1/3 of the wages I pay to hard working guys, for a piece of government mandated paper. I've never in 18yrs had a liability claim.

I don't want sympathy, I don't want to be given a damn thing, I'd just like the knife taken out of my back. and some others' backs

I'm still undecided, but the question in my mind is: If this initiative is defeated, will Bill Sizemore go away?

If the answer is very likely "Yes", then by all means I'm voting "No." However, if it is likely that Mr. Sizemore will be back with more bad initiatives in the future, then what is really stopping me from examining the text of this measure and voting on the merits?

• Bob R.

I'm sorry but the only arguments I've seen so far against this measure (plausible or not) are:

A) Bill Sizemore wrote it

B) Insurance rates will (may?) rise for those with good credit to cover those with bad.

Argument A has been pretty much explored here. But as for Argument B...I think "genop" brought up an excellent point:

"Boosting insurance premiums for the poor will result in more uninsured motorists."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't all those uninsured at least one reason why rates are set the way they are? Isn't this why I have to carry uninsured motorist coverage?

I marvel at the hypocrisy, fear, outrage, bias, stupidly, and moral indignity over one man. Sounds exactly what we would expect of the religious right. Hysterical gnashing on teeth over Sizemore is such a polemic waste of energy. The spate of condemning a ballot measure based on the merits of the individual overshadows the merit of the bill it self.Ask your self two questions: 1- why are insurance Co's spending so much to defeat this bill? 2- Will the insurance commissioner of Oregon allow rates to increase over the passing of this bill? Strange, not a word out of Salem on this bill from the commissioner. Without his acceptance this bill cannot raise your premiums

INS 101: Insurance is a contract between the insurer and insured that works because insurers have a large pool of insureds. Insurers use actuarial and statistical analysis to set rates; in essence, its an educated guess as to the cost of the contractual risk of insuring you. For auto insurance, they evaluate all sorts of things for which they have big pools of statistics - age, gender, your driving history, location, miles driven, type of car, etc. More than likely, they have determined that, statistically, folks with better credit have a lower claims history. If so, that helps them make a more accurate guess. Sure, there are always exceptions to the rule (some with good credit are bad risks, some with bad credit are good risks, some teenagers are low risk, etc.). But, in the end, the adjustments and factors are just ways to allocate the costs of a predictable level of payouts. Because its a zero sum game, if you pass a law to eliminate one of the underwriting factors (some might favor age, perhaps the young?), the costs have to shift somewhere (so long as insurance is not nationalized - full on socialism anyone? - when one premium goes down, another must go up). If you eliminate all differential underwriting factors, we'll all pay the same premiums. Does that make sense? If not, is it a good idea for us to tell insurers that they cannot consider statistically significant risk factors? If so, where do you draw the line?

Assuming that insurers can demonstrate that your credit score is a statistically significant factor in underwriting, on balance that seems OK to me. If I had any doubts (and I really do not), the Sizemore factor would be the "tie-breaker" and make this one a clear NO.

I for one will vote yes for this measure. There is NO correlation between a person's Credit Score, and their driving habits!! I have bad credit due to Medical bills over and above my Insurance. I've had to declare Bankruptcy due to such bills. I'm a professional Driver, with NO moving Violations ,or Chargeable Accidents EVER!! Under Measure 42, My driving record would count for nothing, but I could be denied Insurance based on my Credit score alone. BTW- I pay my Insurance premiums on time and in full. This is nothing more than Insurance Companies attempting to Cherry Pick who they will Insure, to further Pump up their Profits, at the expense of the public in General. I am skeptical of Bill Sizemore, and any link to "Public Service", but the Measure IS a legitamate concern to ALL Oregonians. And to those who think they are,"Subsidizing bad Drivers"-Think again!! YOUR rates will NOT go Down!! For every other insured person who's denied Insurance, your rates will increase, because Insurers aren't about to show a negative income!! Less people paying into the System means those left paying in will do so at increased rates.

I bet the "Browne Family Farm" that measure 42 will pass. Im voteing YES for a good thing. Im sure most of the negative comments on this measure are posted by "paid for by NO" boneheads.

Elves... show me the actual credit score algorithms that are used, and I'll tell you if I like 'em. Call up Equifax or TransUnion and see if they'll fax 'em right over.

But why stop at insurance rates? We all know that poor people use more government services than more well-off people... Why, that means that those of us with jobs are subsidizing unemployment and health benefits for those people without jobs!

Therefore, poor people should have to pay more in taxes than rich people, because poor people are more likely to use the services that the taxes pay for.

Thanks, Josh. The real question is whether government (through laws we pass) should regulate private businesses so as to redistribute wealth. If you are for that, I guess you'll like this measure because it makes folks who have a statistically lower rate of accidents pay for insurance for folks who have a statistically higher risk. This is NOT the same as using taxes and the government programs they pay for to help those who are less fortunate. Pick any business and apply the principle in this measure. Say you are a house painter and an initiative passed that said you had to charge 10% less to paint a house of someone with a lower than median income, thereby forcing you to either accept a lower income yourself or pass it along to higher income customers. Sound fair to you? How would the better off folks feel about paying a higher price?

Sure, none of these underwriting measures are perfect nor are the metrics insurers use. But if that's the problem, fix that with the right tools. We do plenty as a society to redistribute wealth and support the less fortunate through social programs, food stamps, health programs, earned income tax credits, and the like. There are other things we could do, but telling business how to set their rates is not right. Oh, and if there is such a huge margin in the insurance industry, that mean there's plenty of opportunity for new entrants. Instead of legislating the way a business sets its rates, consider starting your own company to compete in the marketplace and charge lower premiums for those folks you'd like to help here.

There's also a correlation between having a bad credit score and likelihood of car crashes. FALSE

The insurance industry's argument in 2003 when this bill was up for consideration was that there was a correlation between credit score and a person's likelihood to file a claim.

Meaning that a when well-to-do person fender-benders and loses a mirror or a taillight or whatever, they'll eat the $500 and the insurer won't be any the wiser. But a person with a lower credit score can't do that. So the real name of the game is to charge people not for the likelihood that they're going to get in an accident, but for the likelihood that they're going to use the product that they purchased and are entitled to!

That's ridiculous. Restaurants don't charge people based on how hungry they are.

Very true DifferentSalemStaffer!! I can agree up to a point on being forced to pay higher premiums due to one's Zip Code, model of Car, etc. but Also adding into the mix one's Credit Score as a basis to deny coverage(which this is actually all about- NOT just charging higher rates to those who have lower Credit Scores)is just not right, and has NO scientific Proof of liability!!v Base one's Insurance rates on their Driving Record, type of car, miles driven ,and that's OK. Just don't think that denying someone access to Affordable Car Insurance just because of Bad Credit is anything defensible!! To Paint poor people as Derelicts of Society is to put the blinders on to what is around you in the same Society!! Remember-,"There but for the Grace of God, go I" It can happen to anybody!! Just ONE catastrophic Illness is all it takes to wipe out the best of Credit scores!!

Sizemore aside....let's not lose track of the fact that big insurance lobbies are behind all the anti-Measure 42 propaganda. You are gaging your dissenting opinions on info you've got from them perhaps? For all we know their minions are behind the Kill Bill Sizemore anti-42 comments we see here....after all it is no secret that blueoregon draws 40,000 readers a week. Unfortunately the citizens who would benefit most from the passage of 42, do not have the funds to launch a counter-campaign. The sentiment here seems to be that there is great shame attached to having poor credit, even when we know it is such a slippery slope to get to.... one or two late pays, a lay-off when you've worked your whole life, a medical emergency and suddenly you are lower class. If you are for this measure you must be lower class. If thousands of currently uninsured bad-credit drivers suddenly find the premiums within their means, why on earth do the nay-sayers believe THEIR rates will go up? You are paying for uninsured drivers now!

Actuary tables? Show them to me! Show me the formulae the underwirters use to tweak statistics and set rates for poor credit "risks"....and I'll show you an insurance company with unprecedented profits. Really. Go to any search engine and type in "insurance company's posted profits".

Once again I will cry "hypocrite" because I know some of the high minded "I'm not paying for them" borgeoisie who are against this feel a great sense of hubris in giving to charities and supporting their favorite non-prof....and telling your friends, clients and the IRS about it. You know that's true.....I can see you blushing.

Yes on 42 because it is the right thing to do.

For all we know their minions are behind the Kill Bill Sizemore anti-42 comments we see here

There is a famous poster I have seen several places "Don't try to talk yourself out of a situation you behaved yourself into".

I might well be in favor of this idea if it were introduced in the 2007 legislature. But over the last couple decades, Bill Sizemore has been one of those "good people agree with me" bullies. One of those quotes at the top of the page is "because Bill Sizemore still owes me money".

There may be insurance company people who would love to see this idea fail. But I will not support a Sizemore ballot measure because I think he should go out in the real world and get a real job like ordinary people instead of running ballot measures for a living. Go to the Sec. of State website and see how many measures he has already filed for 2008. Why would those measures convince anyone he is the friend of the poor working person with a lousy credit rating? That anti-Sizemore sentiment comes from the 1990s. I once spoke to "Buffalo Bill" in the capitol and found him a very cocky human being. I am not now and never was connected to an insurance company--just a fed up Oregonian who likes my friend's idea that maybe we should have a short moratorium on all ballot measures so the legislature could do its job.

Measure 42 won't pass, but it should. It won't pass because people will do whatever the tv tells them to, and right now the tv is telling them to vote no on measure 42. I find it so creepy that the insurance industry is convincing progressives to vote no because Sizemore sponsored it. Since when are progressives and the insurance industry in bed together? I've heard from so many sources that he did this because he's broke and his credit is so bad, selfish reasons. But c'mon, what do we expect from him? He's a selfish man. He's a bad man. But the insurance industry is bad too - and so much more powerful. Let's all use our heads on this one and vote yes on measure 42.

Come on guys! Has anyone seen X-Men United?

Progressives are the X-Men (cool). The evil General Stryker is the insurance industry, and of course Bill Sizemore is Magneto (though perhaps a little less cool).

Yes, for this film we have to team up, but we'll be fighting again in the sequel!

I have never seen anyone lose a job or stop doing something because someone else didn't like their ideas. Voting No on measure 42 will not make him go away. I know that upsets you but guess what people don't go away because you tell them no. Stop voting becuase you don't like the person who happens to be one of five people pushing it. The majority of arguments against this measure are from people who stand to lose a lot of money when they are forced to play fair. It may be a little off topic but I want to point out that people who convince themselves that not voting for things is a way to get rid of someone are no more right than those who vote because their party says to vote that way. If something sounds right it is right. If something sounds wrong it is wrong. If this measure passes it will be a boon not only for the people of Oregon but for those in other states who will realize that we can rise up and push off the oppresion of the insurance companies and insist on fair business practices. We expect the government to step in when it comes to Microsoft but for some reason insurance companies are untouchable? Where was that keep government out of business when insurance was made a legal requirment. Think long and hard and vote the way you feel is right not to spite someone who won't stop beause you called him names.

I think the initiative process should be used only when the Legislature hasn't/won't address an issue, or has made an egregious error that must be fixed. The Legislature passed Senate Bill 260 in 2003, prohibiting use of credit scores for existing policyholders and allowing its use for new applicants only if the companies also use other relevant factors like driving record, previous claims, etc. Since that legislation passed, few complaints have been processed by the Insurance Division. And there are already free market forces coming into play, in that State Farm and Allstate don't use credit ratings for new applications.

This measure affects only people applying for a new auto insurance, so it doesn't apply to folks whose credit rating tanks because of medical issues or business failure or whatever. I need more data (any data?) to show how many people have being affected, and by how much, since the law passed in 2003, before voting to overturn the considered, adopted verdict of the Legislature.

To me, the extraneous factors of Bill Sizemore vs. Big Insurance Companies are offsetting penalties. The real questions are, does Oregon really need this law, and if so is the initiative process the appropriate way to pass it? Unless someone can give me reasons why the Legislature messed up badly on this in 2003, the evidence suggests to me "maybe" on the first, but "no" on the second.

Elves, You've made a fatal error in your argument. Insurance for automobiles and some other types is not an unregulated business and the government mandates that their service be used or a bond of equal value placed. Now I have no idea what your insurance bills each year total, and I'll not tell you my total, but I'll give you an idea what a small contractor pays for vehicles and business liability, a lot of people could make house payments with my monthly bill, and that's with no liability claims-business or driving. My sympathy for insurance companies is very limitted.

(This measure affects only people applying for a new auto insurance, so it doesn't apply to folks whose credit rating tanks because of medical issues or business failure or whatever.) It actually does because in cases of prolonged medical issues insurance companies tend to drop these people to avoid paying out anymore using the excuse that they are starting to pay out more than was ever paid in. Then when these people attempt to get new insurance they face the issue. The other reason that this intiative should be passed is everyone should ask themselves a very simple question, Why are the insurance companies so against it if they don't set prices based on credit reports? If they did not then this would not affect them at all nor would they need to fight something they already do. As they are fighting it logic concludes that free market or not they have no wish to lose money. I say vote yes. Even if because they are telling you that no is the way to go.

To boil it down to one simple point of why the 2003 does not do anything. It only protects existing customers when it was passed meaning as of two days after it any one who reaches an age needing insurance may have their credit reports used against them. Also anyone seeking a new insurance company will have their credit reports against them. The previous law basically means that unless you want to pay a lot more for insurance you stay with the current company they may suck and not do much but hey they aren't screwing you on prices.

Thanks Chuck. I was wondering when someone would mention that unlike getting the house painted, I HAVE to have car insurance if I want to drive - and keep my car and license. And I HAVE to drive, if I'm going to work, shop - do just about anything.

When such a thing is mandated by law, but we're at the mercy of the free market and an industry that seems to be able to use whatever factors they want to reduce their liability (ie, raise their profit), what can we expect? [See Krugman's column re: medical insurance

Personally, I'm all for nationalized insurance - "full on socialism" or not. Otherwise car insurance is legislated extortion.

Here's my sad, but true, car insurance saga which confirms Derek's comments. This is what happens when you have to choose sometimes between paying the rent and paying the car insurance:

First, as Derek wrote, your premium will be significantly higher for the first six months of coverage if you didn't have insurance in the previous six months. (I was quoted a rate that was 60% lower for the second 6 month term from one company. Little did I know...) I was without wheels for awhile, and this happened to me when I finally did get one and tried to insure it.

In fact, if you were without coverage for even a few days (see why below), your rates will be higher once you do reinstate it. I was told by three different companies that this is because I had a car, but no insurance - and was therefore automatically considered to be driving unisured. Even when the car isn't operable. [I always choose the rent over insurance when the car isn't even running.)

My monthly car insurance bill - unlike the phone, PGE, etc. - allows no leeway or grace period. In other words, it can't be late. Not by a day, not even by one minute. (you know the spiel: "this policy expires at 12:01 am ...") If this does happen, that policy is cancelled.

Now maybe that same company will agree to write you a new policy - but maybe (probably) not. Even if they do, it's a new policy, and they can therefore charge you more for the first six months again - for whatever reason - credit score, allegedly driving unisured, no previous coverage, or whatever suits their fancy.

That happened to me once. I also had two different companies just out-and-out cancel me - for no reason - after my first (high priced) six month term was over. Paid on time, no claims, (I have an excellent driving record: only one accident and 2 speeding tickets in 30 years of driving - last one 15 years ago) but yet they cancelled me after collecting over $1200 for 6 months minimum liability coverage on my 25 year old car. Vultures!

And the cycle begins again - new company, new policy, exorbitant rates for 6 months - etc. etc. etc. And oh yeah, bigger companies like State Farm and Farmer's wouldn't even write me at all for the first six months - at any price. Just wouldn't do it. I had to go with companies that offered risk insurance. Cha-ching!

I don't know if it's legal or not to just cancel you without cause. But what does it matter? I still have to have insurance, and I can't force them to write me. Sure, I could file a complaint with the AG or whoever "regulates" the industry here; I could call the ombudsman and my legislator, maybe even file a lawsuit.

But what do I do in the meantime? I still need friggin insurance while I'm waiting (fruitlessly)... and for what? A long wait for a long shot at a slap on the wrist for Allstate?

Poeple...we have to remember that Driving is a privilage - not a right. If it was a right, then the application and the free insurance to go with it would be right next to the voters registration forms in the post office. But since it is not, we have to remember that we have to maintain standards in order to retain the privilage.

Thank you for giving further information about the need. It sounds like yes, there is a problem that should be fixed. My question then is, was there an attempt in the 2005 Legislature to fix it, and/or is there an opportunity for the 2007 Legislature to take another look at it? I heartily dislike the practice of using ballot measures to fix problems that should be discussed by elected decision-makers.

Another idea, raised by someone in Rep. Greg Macpherson's coffee chat on Saturday, is to have all car insurance paid for by a tax at the pump. That way, there would be no such thing as an "uninsured motorist" in Oregon, and it would automatically make folks pay by the amount they drive - plus give an incentive for using fuel-efficient vehicles. Apparently this concept was on the ballot in California and failed, but it sounds to me like an idea that could have merit.

The lesgislature wont do it because they would rather worry about who is on what committee, and what tee time they need for the afternoon rather than do their work they should be doing. The populus of Oregon is an initiative dumping ground for unfinished legislative work. Thank you to the legislature, who are bored and lazy not to do their jobs.

Eric -- in 2003, both parties in the Senate united to get this passed out and hand the insurance lobby a good solid thumping. Hats off to John Minnis for getting it done. This concept was killed off in the House... and not because they were bored or lazy.

Publishing a newspaper is a right (not a priviledge), but you don't get a free printing press with citizenship. The roads that my tax dollars pay for? You better beleieve that I have a right to use 'em.

I cringe at the idea that I would support ANYthing proposed by Mr. Sizemore. That said, I have to vote yes on M42. Personal for me, I have poor credit due to a divorce, haven't had a ticket or accident for 25 years, yet a couple years ago my rates went up almost 20%, with a letter telling me it was due to my credit history. Same company I had been a customer with for three years prior.

The insurance company ads claim rates will go up...does anyone with fantastic credit recall their rates going down when this crap when into effect?

And of course you won't see any ads promoting this measure...after all, those who it impacts will have the least resources.

Emess - unless you have a valid drivers license, and have paid your fees on your car and have insured it properly, you don't have a right to the road. Thats why people get cited for improper insurance and failing to register thier car (and maybe towed in the process). The road is there for those who have shown responsibility to recive the privilage of driving the roads and maintaining that privilage through tax dollars and driving within the laws of the road.

Art, if you live in Oregon, the experience you report is clearly illegal under the 2003 law which prohibits use of credit ratings for existing policies. Even now, it might be worth filing a claim to document the problem with the state Insurance Division.

Eric, I don't know who your elected representatives in Salem are. Mine are Greg Macpherson and Richard Devlin. They are intelligent, thoughtful, meet regularly with their constituents, and work hard. I think we may add to the problem of initiative dumping when we enact laws on complicated issues by ballot measure, instead of asking whether anyone in the Legislature is willing to take up the issue. Let's face it, what percentage of voters do you think are going to spend any time looking into the pros and cons of this measure, the way we are here on Blue Oregon?

Frank Shields has tried to pass this several times in the Senate, but not been able to get it passed. It's a great idea and will address a significant form of discrimination against the poor. I suppose Sizemore HAS bad credit after the court judgment so he's got a personal stake, but the bill has to be considered on its own merits, not just lambasted because Sizemore had something to do with it.

Oregon Action supproting Sizemore? I never thought I would see the day that would happen.

Oregon Action hasn't taken a position on 42 YET and it's possible it will oppose the measure. One of the great things about Oregon Action is that no one person decides Oregon Action's positions on important issues. Our endorsements are first done in a committee who recommends positions to the board - and that process is going on right now. That is why I did not include the Oregon Action URL in my post.

Eric - that logic could be applied to anything.

Unless The Oregonian has paid their business license fee, they're not permitted to sell newspapers.

Unless I make sure it complies with the building and health codes and has a smoke-detector, I don't have a 'right' to live in my house.

Unless I comply with the "No Running" sign, I'm not permitted to use the public pool.

I forget what tangent we went off on... so I'll just say YES on 42!

And to ????... look at it this way: If Sizemore and Oregon Action both think something's a good idea... it's probably a good idea. If all your friends jumped off the Empire State Building, there must be something to it.

To address the question of leaving everything to our elected officals. They are not our kings lords or anything else they were elected by us and if something we care about is not being pushed, discussed, or even encouraged by them we shouldn't sit idly by and let them ignore us. The inititive process is there so that we have a voice. So that we can stand up and say hey we want this. If we didn't have it then the only voice we would have is being able to elect our officials who could then do whatever they wanted because we would have little to no say. When you get a diagnosis you question at the doctor's office I doubt you say, "Oh well he is the doctor so okay" No you go to another doctor until you find one that is making sense. And in some cases your friend draws your attention to a medical condition that has been discovered that your doctor was not aware of the research on. If you only rely on one person to do the job then the job isn't always done right. I for one love the ability to speak up and say hey that's not cool. As always vote yes on M42. Remember the answer is 42.

Poeple...we have to remember that Driving is a privilage - not a right. If it was a right, then the application and the free insurance to go with it would be right next to the voters registration forms in the post office. But since it is not, we have to remember that we have to maintain standards in order to retain the privilage.

Based on this logic, perhaps we should just sterilize everyone with bad credit. How can you be trusted to raise productive members of society if your credit is in the crapper?

I guess none of you want to try my lasagna, since my currently abysmal credit surely has an effect on my cooking ability?

Why do I forsee a future police state in which those of us "creditly challenged" individuals are rounded up and forced to live in camps outside of normal society?

"we have to maintain standards in order to retain the privilage"

"The road is there for those who have shown responsibility to recive the privilage of driving the roads and maintaining that privilage through tax dollars and driving within the laws of the road."

So by "standards" and "showing responsibility," you actually mean having enough money. Because as many people have stated, they have good - if not great - driving records, but less than perfect credit scores. So even if they are "maintaining that privilage [sic] through tax dollars and driving within the laws of the road," you'd exclude them from that privilege simply because they've had financial problems.

And then you'd call 'em all lazy, irresponsible, welfare-sucking blights on society when they can't work and support their families at all. How very progressive.

Financial security does not equal privilege.

"Financial security does not equal privilege."

hey, wait a minute, that goes against the capitalist thinking of corporate and mr. and mrs. america. what is wrong with you? of COURSE you are more "entitled to___" when you have more money.

i am being sarcastic of course. i completely agree with you. i visted the stop 42 website and did some of my own research. the "no" folks are using scare tactics in their tv ad (showing the soccer-looking mom, looking quite concerned, talking oh so proper in that quiet voice--anyone else have a problem with this??) by saying the rates of those with good credit will increase when on their website, under the q & a section, they repeatedly say the rates MAY raise. their campaign is also sponsored by 48 businesses--21 of them insurance agents. no bias there, eh?

the stats they use, claiming those with poorer credit scores, are sponsored by the insurance industry. again, no bias there, eh?

aren't these "no" folks concerned at all with the idea that insurance agents want the freedom to take advantage of those with less-than-perfect credit scores? and aren't these "no" folks concerned at all with the idea that insurance agents are threatening those with the good credit scores that their rates may have to go up if the measure passes? am i the only one who sees MANIPULATION and GREED written all over this??

the real problem-makers in this mess is the insurance industry.

In addition they cannot raise the rates for existing customers for reasons of credit because of the previous law. So if this one passes everyone is safe from their manipulation and price gouging.

No matter how you look at this measure 42 it is a great measure and you must vote YES no matter who it was sponsered by. Credit reports were created to help banks and lending institutions determine if someone was credit worthy in order to receive a loan. Today they are wrongly being used to judge us for everything. Our insurance rates should not be based on credit but on driving. But even worse and what I hope we can change very soon is a persons ability to get a job. Why on earth is a credit report a good source of deciding whether a person will be a good employee. People get laid off then fall behind on paying their bills while looking for work and the next thing you know you can't get employed at all, another vicious circle created by the misuse of credit reports and don't forget how much help our credit reports are to crimminals who steal our idenities.

Vote YES and let's create a measure to stop the use of credit reports for anything except what they where meant for "loans"

Barry

I don't care who sponsered this initiative, it is a good bill.

I worked as a software engineer for a large carrier in Oregon. They already have the capacity to adjust rates based on a FICA score. I know because I wrote it. (shame on me....gotta make a living)

Believe me, given the oppertunity, they will jack rates so high to make driving unaffordable.

I had to declare bankruptcy 3 years ago due to medical expenses. I have a perfect driving record, one accident (not my fault) in 30 years. This business about rates going up for all Oregonians due to "high risk" - "low FICA score" people is a load of crap. They will raise rates either way.

Ken...well put, and it all goes to my point in writing this article in the first place. Brave of you to fess up, BTW. But the real shame is that with skills such as yours, and the fact you wrote software which garnered your employer a huge edge on boosting profit, how did it happen that they did not provide you with either medical insurance, or a fat enough paycheck to purchase your own medical policy?

It seems you, Ken, are in the perfect position to answer a question that has come up several times in comments here....How DOES the insurance industry sort, factor, and calulate credit scores to adjust rates? We all REALLY want to know! Just what is that formulae? In my line of work I often study statistics, so I know full well how easy it is to set down parameters that will guarantee mitigating factors will be left out....scewing the broader results. Is that how they do it?

And please try to use your power for good & not evil in the future? (Just pulling your leg, Ken. They've got us up against the wall on this making a living thing....yeah?)

If I'm correct, the NO on 42 commercial/ad states that those with poor credit (including those with lower FICO scores), are more likely to get into car accidents etc, or "have losses"

WHERE'S THE DATA, WITH SPECIFIC NUMBERS & PERCENTAGES TO BACK THEY'RE CLAIMS?

Why aren't the Insurance companies stepping in with #'s, since they have provided so called information??? It is so easy to make a statement, and nothing to back it up!!

I've been in banking/lending for the past 14 years, I've seen low credit scores, where the customers with 620 FICO, were never late on ANY of their debts. They may little or no credit which is not negative. The FICO is based on so many variables. I myself have had a line of credit transferred to a loan. This raised my FICO score just based up the type of loan vs. having a credit limit.

I am an Oregon licensed insurance agent who is against using an individuals credit to determine their premium. I have seen way too many cases where an individual or couple have been discriminated against for the credit score.

I am amused at the claims from the opposition indicating that those with good credit should not have to pay higher premiums to subsidize those with bad credit. Why should credit have anything to do with the underwriting of insurance in the first place? It is discriminatory by nature. The primary factor for underwriting auto insurance should be age, location, driving record and loss history, nothing else.

American Family insurance and Wawanesa Insurance have been around for a long time and are profitable. They do not use credit score. This boils down to noting more than continued greed in this country at the corporate level. As Oregonians, we have always prided ourselves on being more responsible, enlightened and concerned for our fellow man. Let's continue to do that. Please vote YES on Measure 42 in November.

I'm a little late to the party here, but my major reason for leaning towards voting for measure 42 is the privacy implications.

With all the ID theft going on, I want my credit report/rating only disclosed to those I am applying for credit from. (I also only want my SSN to be disclosed to those who are paying into and paying me Social Security, but that's an argument for another day.) I don't think insurance agencies or employers should have any access to my credit report/score, since I'm not applying for credit. Where do the insurance company correlations stop? They already use gender. What about race? What about income? What about SAT scores? What about IQ tests? I'm sure there's some correlations there. Just because they can better measure risks with some of these tools doesn't mean they should invade my privacy to do so.

One more place with more info about me means one more chance that my privacy gets invaded, and my ID potentially stolen.

I support measure 42. Peoples credit score is by far no crystal ball when it comes to insurance claims. As a person in the Collision Repair Industry, I've seen direct correlations with rainy days and slippery roads as well as reduced visibility to be a factor in auto accidents. But in the 20 years of Collision Repair, I cant see at all how credit scores affect driving habits. Another thing I've noticed is, most of the accident claimants drive nice new cars and all appear to have good credit by the looks of their vehicle. No insurance is paying out thousands for repairs on junk cars. Just think about that people. The only money lost by the insurance companies on this deal will probably be the inability to sell credit information to third parties, which is a booming business these days, and the kick backs or business deals from the third party paid credit checkers which is another booming business. Its all about the side $$$$$$. I believe Oregonians are not fooled by the insurance companies mumbo jumbo commercials. Another important thing to remember is, if the experiment to find correlations with credit scores and insurance claims isn't measurable by mathematics or if the numbered results are not closely the same in each test, then it is not a conclusive test, therefore it is a Null Hypothesis. This means by the laws of science, credit scores and driving habits are not related.

I will be voting YES on 42, I just signed up for insurance yesterday and was surprised at the difference in cost from the initial quote I was given by Farmers and the cost after they ran my credit report it went from $28 a month to $45 a month for minium coverage with a perfecct driving record. I was laid off for a long period and my credit of course went south, I am now trying to reapair it but it takes time. This is just not right my credit report has nothing to do with my driving and never will, so why can they charge me this way? The ability of companies to use credit reports for hiring purposes is also one reasone why I couldn't find work and that was not right either and must be changed.

Everyone must vote yes on 42.

Where do I get signs, banners, stickers and such?

This is all about fairness. If Lon Mabon sponsored it, I would damn sure read it three times, but would come to the same conclusion. The insurance companies have opposed this in many other states, but sensible people have been able to prevail. Please, people, this diatribe about the sponsor and negativity are hallmarks of the "other" side, not us. I like to think and hope that dispassionate objectivity is what separates "us" from "them". That is my 2 cents.

It doen't matter who put this on the ballot, it should have been on there on long time ago. Our privacy is being invaded continually by these big companies. The insurance companies are spending a lot of money to defeat this propostion. Their reasoning is exaggerated to say the least. There are plenty of reasons why someone has a low credit score but is still an excellent driver. The insurance companies make their money with high rates or dropping clients they see as problems. They don't need your score.

it is so good to read so many who support this measure. i have a real concern though that, given the "yes on 42" campaign has not reached the tv spots (at least i have yet to see any), those with good credit will blindly support the "no on 42" folks. (anyone else but me sick of seeing that soccer-type/upper-middle class/coffee-drinking mom on tv with that oh so look of concern on her face??)

it is preposterous to think a low credit score reflects one's driving abilities, choices and likelihood of filing an insurance claim, especially since there are so many reasons for having credit that is less-than-perfect. what should cause concern for everyone, including those who are against this measure, is the idea that insurance companies are not required to show you the consumer how your credit score was created. it is the epitomy of greed for a business to say "we must charge you a higher price because you possess 'x'. however, we will not be telling you how we arrived at this conclusion. just that we did."

This is my first post on Oregon Blue. I work for Consumers Union and we’re supporting Measure 42 because insurance scores are too often based on inaccurate and outdated information and it’s simply unfair and unnecessary to use them to underwrite and price insurance. Low income and minority families are hurt the most by this practice and many end up paying higher premiums even though they have spotless driving records. Today’s Oregonian editorial in support of Measure 42 points out that credit scoring in insurance amounts to unfair redlining.

The insurance industry claims in their ads that under Measure 42 “those most likely to be in an accident would be subsidized by those least likely to be in an accident.” This is blatantly false. There is no proven connection between low credit scores and a higher likelihood of getting into an accident or having a home fire.

At best, insurers have shown a statistical correlation – not a causal link -- between a lower credit score and an increased possibility of filing a claim. In other words, if you’re living on a tight budget, you’re more likely to use the insurance policy you’ve paid for when you need it. But that’s only relevant if you get into an accident in the first place, which insurers can’t prove is more likely to happen.

A statistical correlation between low credit scores and a higher likelihood of filing claims does not justify this practice given all of the other negative impacts associated with it. Even consumers with good credit can end up paying higher premiums because insurance companies weigh credit data differently than lenders. Hopefully voters will see past the insurance companies’ negative ads and recognize that Measure 42 will help make the insurance market more fair for all Oregonians.

For more information on why insurance scores are unfair, check out this Consumer Reports article on the subject.

Insurance company made record profits this year. And people are supporting their side on the Measure 42 issue???

I too have problems with a bill by Bill. However, I have more problems with the persistent and consistent ads which have run AGAINST this bill for the past several months. Additionally, I have serious problems with the logic that the ads have employed in their reasoning to vote against the bill. I have to say that I was suspicious of the bill from the first moment I saw the ads against it, in fact the hairs on the back of my neck stood up from these 'concerned' citizen ads. The campaigne seemd oddly reminicscent of another bill debacle - measure 11 (the property tax 'reform' bill of the mid 90's)As we all know this measure was disastrous for the average homeowning Oregonian. And I am worried that Measure 42 would have the same disastrous effects for the average driving/passenger Oregonian. I agree with the dire scenario Mary portrays. But I believe that the ultimate result will be more pervasive into all of the ordinary citizens' lives than we can even imagine. If people's insurance rates will be based on their credit rating and not their driving record, I believe that all of us driving Oregonians are in for a rude awakening. Many questions arise as to What is a good credit rating and how does that translate into 'premium' dollars. How many of us even really know what our credit rating is? Or if it is good enough to warrant reasonable insurance rates. Since there is no criteria in the bill to regulate these issues and concerns aren't we giving the Insurance companies carte blanche to discriminate against drivers based on age, job, ownership, debt to income ratio etc all under the guise of a 'credit rating'? Any one who has been involved in applying for credit for a variety of different institutions knows how widely this information can be interpreted or misinterpreted. Additionally, if any one has had the pleasure of being in an accident with an uninsured motorist they can imagine what that experience will do or does to their own insurance rate and probably ultimately their own credit rating. The propensity to have even MORE uninsured motorists on the road than we already have is greatly increased under Measure 42. How many young people, college students, renters, unemployed workers, dislocated workers etc, etc have great credit ratings? And once again does a credit score of 625 get you a goodrate or a poor rate. I have seen people's credit score fluxuate 100 points a month depending on when something is reported to a credit bureau. How many of us even know enough about how a creditscore works to want to risk our isurance and the insurance coverage of fellow Oregon drivers on it. I for one don't want to take that risk. Bad credit?! I DON'T CARE. Great Insurance coverage! THAT I CARE ABOUT because it directly effects the well being of myself and my family and friends!!!

Guess what...someone is a little sore. Oh and one more thing generally people with low credit are criminals who are undeserving of any social consideration! As for your bull^%$ scenerio, the stupid criminal who was lacking insurance shouldnt have been driving. The lame as excuse you gave for why he was lacking insurance was pathetic...because he couldnt afford it...so does that mean because i want the queens crown i just go and steal it, it sounds to me like a lot of your thoughts arent thoughts at all but a load of tross!!!

Measure 42 is sponsored by a FELON. Are we going to let convicted FELONS dictate what our laws are going to be? FELONS have restricted rights, and sponsoring a measure should be another restricted right.

No No No No No!!!

^^^ hey u up there who just left that comment...ur a fucking fag. Your just a poor sun of a bitch who has probably made 1 too many mistakes in his sad sorry excuse for a life...probably even toked on the old ganj pipe but hey... we all make mistakes so while your sitting there with your boken ass tv set and a microwave dinner with no insurance get used to it cus this measure isnt going to pass...biaaaaaaatch cus the rich rule the world incase u havent noticed so if i were a poor sorry son a bitch like u...which im not thank god...im only 18 and i have bmw..hahaha i love being rich...oh and guess what i have insurance hhahahahaha and u never will u poor low class son of a bitch!!

Hey Sean,

If you are rich, I'd bet it's from drug dealing, coz you write as if you're on crack or crank or meth maybe.

And, riddle me this rocket-scientist ... how come Oregon has more Pay-Day-Loan sharks than McDonalds if 60-70% of Oregonians have such sterling credit, hmmm?

Those Oregonians that make-up that "statistical" LIE of 60-70% had better not get sick either ... coz something like 70-80% of all bankruptcies are the result of overwhelming MEDICAL bills.

And Hey "Sean" you sound like you're 12 y/o ("bmw" is correctly "BMW", and it's still a heap of nuts & bolts that rusts like every other auto does). To the lemmings and sheep who equate credit-scores to a person's self-worth, or driving skills, or anything else ... get a passport and do some travelling, and grow-up. Credit scores are an artificial, non-sensical B.S. mechanism perpetuated by giant corporations to enslave, and relied upon by the truly POOR. If you need CREDIT to make purchases for what others are able to pay cash, tell me again who the truly wealthy persons are, sheez. Sean, you are cluesless lamb. Same as the lemmings that voted for Bush, and who cannot THINK for themselves. You are destined to cue-up at the nearest Pay-Day-Loan-shark franchise ... it's only a matter of time.

DA - BloggerRadio