I don't buy this conspiracy. Most people have made up their minds on this issue.

My rule of thumb is, if you cant figure it out vote "no".

Bill is technically a Felon - and I don't care for felons dictating how the law is supposed to be. There is no conspiracy - just Bill looking out for his own neck and no one elses.

Kristin- this is hilarious, though I consider it more of an unintended consequences. Voter turnout is following traditional percentages. (Kari, can someone do an analysis of this?)

Here in Corvallis our Mayors race is pausing most voters. Neither camp has come out swinging, and it was finally today that the newspaper took a side.

Wouldn't it be great if the stigma following Bill Sizemore finally reached the point where any measure or movement associated with him completely bombed, just because it was associated with him. The guy would be out of a job and finally out of Oregon politics. Let the bum go and screw up someone else's state. It's just too bad we can't deport him.

Oh and Clinton, my mind on the Mayors race was made up the instant I knew Rob Gandera was running. As someone who knows the guy I could never bring myself to vote for him. I don't even care who the other guy is.

I just love that Sizemore has crappy credit because of his sleazy history, so he came up with a way to try to cut his rates while maybe, just maybe, getting a little credibility back with the Loren Parks of the world.

I'm voting no because I haven't figured out how it's good for anyone. Then again, the insurance companies are so vehemently against it, it must be a good thing. But it's a Sizemore initiative. But people should pay for their risk pool. But so many people have bad credit because of non-risk-related factors.

Ah, the heck with it. I'm skipping it.

The funniest thing about this is that Sizemore has managed to demonstrate that a lot of "progressives" are easily distracted by shiny objects (the fact that a sleaze like Sizemore is the sponsor) as right-wingers we criticize here.

Few of the "No on 42" arguments here are based on an argument that attempts to deal with the substance of the initiative, and I have yet to see one "No on 42" argument that demonstrates any real knowledge of how the insurance industry works. Or that actually refutes (as opposed to ignores) arguments elsewhere that a "Yes on 42" vote is a vote for working people whose impact can be made to fall on those who mainly derive unearned income from the insurance industry.

I gonna hafta vote "No" also, which surprised me.

I don't believe it will send Bill away (where I would send him would require no packing!) but this measure is obviously more abuse of the initiative petition for his personal gain. There has been no public outcry over this injustice, no angst over a failure of the Legislature to act on the will of the people. This measure is only here so Sizemore can show he's still a player. I'll have to demur.

Don Smith -

But people should pay for their risk pool. As much as folks want to believe this simplistic understanding of how insurance works, (leaving aside your apparent misuse of the term "risk pool"), it's not. You can find the explanation why elsewhere on BlueOregon, where the working of the insurance industry was debated in at least a little more detail.

Kari Chisholm and Ed Bickford -

Nothing like cutting your nose to spite your face. You choose to not address the substance of the issue, and instead say you will vote "No" regardless of the merits, because your personal primary goal is to snub the sponsor.

Some of us are genuinely persuadable to vote "No" on matters like this if we hear just one intelligent argument why we should vote that way. (I for one never vote until the end of the campaign so I have the best chance to hear any possible argument). And a lot more folks make their voting decision as a result of hearing an argument they believe in their gut reflects their values. Some of us even offer substantive arguments inviting those with opposing views to refute them with the hope that out of the debate a persuasive gut argument in favor of the best vote will emerge. Instead you give us nothing but petulance and pettiness.

That's the approach that has served us so well over the last 26 years as we gave up our power as the majority party because we didn't care to do a good and competent job in holding it. Voting simply to snub someone reflects the values of very few voters, and least of all those with whom the kind of people I respect for their intelligence and competence prefer to associate.

And Ed, why, exactly, is public-outcry over a matter the reason to make a particular public policy decision? By that measure, from taxes to immigration to war, the right-wing has offered precisely the right kind of governance. They have both stoked emotional public outcry and taken the position that speaks to that outcry. And it remains to be seen whether we will actually take back either chamber of the Congress, the abysmal state of the country notwithstanding. It's also the standard by which today's media, Fox being the being the best example, decides what is "news".

And finally, speaking to your rationalization, why would a loss on 42 cause someone like Sizemore to go away?

Thank you for conflating my opinions with those of the august Mr. Chisholm, but I speak only for myself.

My assessment is that taking legal matters to an initiative petition is only justified when it is a matter that reflects the perceived judgement of the populace, and is not being or cannot be addressed by the Legislature. Anything else is anarchy.

M 42 does not pass that test.

I have made arguments on some blogs in favor of M 42 heretofore, recognizing that "[v]oting simply to snub someone" would be petty if the measure were a good cause justly put forth. I now realize that this is a cause safely and rightly left to the Legislature.

It is the nature of the initiative petition to make "public-outcry over a matter the reason to make a particular public policy decision". It must be carefully restrained by deliberation over its true merit. M 42 pales under that light.

Wow. Just wow. Can you say blind partisianship?

Gee, what IS up in Kansas? Talk about voting against your own interests. (And if not yours, a good deal of the silent, poor masses who long for some sort of representation or acknowledgement of their troubles - which we used to turn to the Dems for.) Many of us feel like we're in SouthPark, stuck picking between a douche bag and a turd sandwich.

So, this is a non-issue because "There has been no public outcry over this injustice, no angst over a failure of the Legislature to act on the will of the people."

Yeah, and 1.5 M people in Portland all approve of cops kicking the crap out the of mentally ill, because only 50 people showed up to protest it. Gimme a break.

Geez, you know I'd be down at all the hearings in Salem and e-mailing and meeting with my congressmen about this (if I knew about it in the first place), but my two hour each way bus/train/bus commute back and forth to work (cuz I can't afford car insurance) eats up too much of my time. And personally, I saw quite a bit of angst coming from the considerable comments in favor of M42 in earlier posts here.

Why, do you suppose, with the current deplorable Repuglican track record, Dems are still struggling to win seats? Because with comments like this, the rest of us realize there is no one in government who is really looking out for US. It's all a big game, a power play, and we're the pawns.

Great, you get the satisfaction of pissin on Sizemore. Too bad you're just pissin in the wind and but a drop lands on ol Bill. He's got a big old Loren Parks umbrella, and the rest comes blowing back in our faces. I'm glad so many "progressives" feel the rest of us are just collateral damage in some noble quest to "show" Bill.

Seriously, what a bunch of crap. So unless the initiative, legislation, policy, rule, or idea is posed and sponsored by your "approved" group of good (blue) guys, you won't honestly consider it? Talk about your liberal elite, huh? How are Dems any different than the neocon ideologues? You're either with us or against us, right?

And let's not forget that we DID leave this up to the legislature, who cowtowed to their masters, the lobbyists, and weakened the proposed bill by prohibiting using credit ratings UNLESS you switch companies. If it's valid not to do it otherwise, why is it OK to do it then?

And doesn't this tactic actually reduce the alleged free market competition amongst insurers, because a person with less than stellar credit won't switch companies if his rates will be higher? The insurers have a captive market of anyone who's FICO score isn't up to par (whatever that might be). Because you know, those formula are proprietary info, and you'll never know for sure what exactly they are using or how.

This was covered today in USA Today. Besides the usual No arguments: that rates will go up for those with good credit, and that those with low credit scores are more likely to file a claim, they have another one I haven't heard here before. From the Insurance Information Institute:

"People who manage their finances well tend to also manage other important aspects of their life responsibly, such as driving a car."

Oh, really?

So in other words, if you're poor, or have bad (or non-existant) credit - no matter what the reason - you are not to be trusted. You are irresponsible. What's next, are you going to take away my kids? If not being able to balance my checkbook means I'm a bad driver, what does it say of my parenting skills? Should I even be allowed to handle sharp objects?

BTW, according to the USA Today article, Norma Garcia, senior attorney at Consumers Union notes that in California, insurance rates have dropped since the use of credit scores was banned. It also said there is no proof that credit score predicts driving skill or incidence of claims. "A review of how credit scores are used to set rates in Texas found that they have more to do with economic status than personal responsibility, says Birny Birnbaum, a former insurance regulator who is now executive director of the Center for Economic Justice."

Well go figure. Your credit rating correlates to your economic status. I never would have guessed.

But I hate Bill. And that's good enough for me. Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up.

Vote "YES" on 42.

Just because I've made a few consumer purchases that I've been late in paying off doesn't mean I should be penalized by higher insurance rates.

My past credit problems in no way reflect my understanding of traffic laws or decision making.

A YES vote helps make it fair for everyone, not just you silver spoon liberals that have never had to manage credit because you have your hippie trust funds to draw off of.

Ed Bickford -

Your comment most certainly was not conflated with Kari's. You and Kari were addressed with respect to your independent comments. In your case:

I don't believe it will send Bill away (where I would send him would require no packing!) but this measure is obviously more abuse of the initiative petition for his personal gain.

As far as your mental meanderings about "public outcry" which, frankly, lose me with regard to how they bear on the matter being decided, I fail to see how they could even be remotely characterized as addressing the substance of the initiative.

Kari Chisholm -

Your a nice guy and you provide a very important service for our side in making this forum available. Some of us don't say "Thank You" often enough for that even though we think it.

I can understand you may not have personally decided how to vote, but unfortunately the argument you presented did not discuss the aspects of the issue that you found to be unpersuasive. That would have been most helpful. The only argument we have in this thread is one that our common disgust of Sizemore should be persuasive. I think we owe more than that to working people, many of whom have credit scores that have nothing to do with how good a driver they are. And who much less deserve to be economically penalized because insurance companies have found a way to optimize their profits and the unearned income to investors that has no demonstrated link to the actual cost of underwriting the risk pool.

Unbelievable -

Thank you for actually addressing some aspects of the matter being decided as some of us also have attempted to do.

I still haven't made up my mind how I will vote, but as a progressive Democrat, a string of posts and comments by supposed "progressives" that have mainly focused on Sizemore and theories about the initiative process on this issue are steadily removing any opposing force to the pull of those actually offering arguments about the issue from the "Yes On 42" side.

I'll repeat what I said before, I have yet to read on this blog a post or comment from a supposed "Democrat" who actually demonstrates they hold core Democratic values in support of working people or on the supposed "progressive" side offering a "No on 42" based on the facts of how the insurance industry actually works. There have been plenty of arguments based on unsupported suppositions about the industry works which are usually based on an inapplicable small business model or some variant of the gross misunderstanding that claims are paid wholly out of premiums. Two unrefuted and irrefutable facts are that Insurance companies are anything but small businesses and claims are not paid wholly out of premiums.

It is more than a little disheartening in this crucial election year that our side, which professes to be all about the "reality based culture", makes the sponsor of a measure the decisive factor in our vote rather than a serious examination of the issues. And more importantly, that a lot of folks on our side who are conditioning their vote on what they believe they know about insurance won't address serious refutations of their own arguments and thereby maybe actually learn something.

I've read the "No on 42" arguments in the voter pamphlet and everyone of them is an unmitigated display of misrepresentation, self-interest, and outright deceit. In fact, if one reads them carefully, everyone of them offers a regressive viewpoint about insurance and society. If we are using who supports or opposes a measure as our yardstick for deciding the issue, then those arguing "No on 42" here should explain why we should listen to those in the Voter Pamphlet arguing "No on 42". Almost all of them are by individuals and groups who historically have overwhelmingly been unapologetically regressive and right-leaning.

Anyone consider the possibility that just maybe this is just a chance to actually take advantage of the ill-will, ego and incompetence of the other side to actually accomplish something beneficial? Wouldn't we have benefitted more from the kind of careful examination that would have made it clear if indeed this is the case rather than viewing this as a chance to "stick it to them" (and perhaps in fact to ourselves)?

Unbelievable chose exactly the right nom de plume for the discussion I've seen on Blue Oregon about this one.

And Kristin has actually highlighted one thing about our side: The nature of the "debate" on 42 on our side reveals that we do suffer to a distressing degree from a lack of political intelligence and electoral competence that the other side has taken advantage of in recent years. And we still have to see how things turn out next week.

To my knowledge, the insurance industry, together with the finance and real estate industries, are the largest financiers of "our" government. Maybe those who "hate" the insurance industry ought vote for Measures 47 & 48 and advocate for the same on the national level, rather than worrying about how they'll vote on M42. Auto insurance is not historically in & of itself profitable for the insurance industry -- ie, claims paid exceed premiums collected, but for premiums collected being put to profitable use in investment markets. It's the decline in those investment markets along with catastrophic losses that have created greater testiness on the consumer front.

Medical or health "insurance" is largely not "insurance" at all in the sense of covering unexpected losses, as are homeowner's or auto companies. The rants against medical "insurance" companies would be better separated from those of the actual insurance industry and subject to their own rants.

But as long as insurance companies effectively own <s>our</s> the government, complaints and reforms will likely just circle around the periphery at best.

You've got it all backwards.

The insurance companies secretly paid Bill Sizemore to run this measure knowing that they could kill it that way.

Once this loses, here they'll never have to worry about it here or anyplace else.

It is the political innoculation strategy at work. They took a strong viral idea (take credit scoring out of insurance industry) and weakened it by integrating Sizemore with it.

They injected it into a body politic already suffused with anti-Sizemore anti-bodies. The body politic rejects it and builds immunity to the original idea.

Next Exxon will pay Lon Mabon to file a ballot measure promoting bio-diesel.

Brilliant!

AQ1 is as usual so full of hot air that he is straining at the mooring ropes... Talk of mental meanderings, does he aspire to win arguments by dint of the column-inches he occupies?

Sir, the matter under consideration in M 42 may have merit, but in my opinion it is not justified in being brought to the venue of the initiative petition at this time. It is you who are being obtuse.

All,

I have a little insight on this...

First off, you are all very smart, and I got a kick out of all the theories on how this measure came to pass. I hate to burst the bubble, or stifle this discussion, but none of you has stumbled onto the real story.

Despite some very believable and hilarious scenarios about the origins of Measure 42, the truth is far less sexy.

I was approached by Bill Sizemore about circulating this initiative last year, and we had many discussions about the merits of it.

The main reasons I agreed to work on this measure and support it publicly are:

1) The insurance industry makes record profits in a business where consumers are required by law to purchase it in order to operate an auto. This means the insurance industry gets to set rates/premiums any way they can convince our state's insurance commissioner to let them, and use the power of our police force and courts to enforce their price-gouging.

2) A credit score (no matter how it is figured/indexed or created) is not intended to be an indicator of risky driving or health risks; rather it is only indicative of potential risks for borrowing or credit based purchases. Insurance rates should be based on the behavior of an individual, not their personal financial situation or outside financial decisions. The compromise on this is that I would support the insurance industry's ability to charge higher premiums on delinquent payments to THEM, but not loosely based on the person's history with other institutions/lenders.

3) Insurance companies didn't reduce anyone's rates when they started using "credit-ratings", and that tells me that this was just instituted as a way to charge more money to law-abiding clients (who are required by law to carry insurance if they want to drive a car).

4) Insurance companies are not going to be forced to incur any additional "real costs" as a result of this measure. They won't have to change their day-to-day operations, or make expensive changes in personnel or technology. Instead, it will probably allow them to save money on mandatory credit checks for new clients. This is in line with my belief that a citizenry has a duty and right to regulate business, while still allowing them the ability to protect themselves and make a profit. It is a fine line, and on this issue, I was willing to cross over and support an additional regulation.

4) Credit scores are deceptive and the insurance industry has their own way of calculating them (the actual method is an "industry secret", even though all of us are subject to it).

5) This is just one more attempt to invade the personal liberties of individual citizens using the power of government (mandating auto insurance coverage). Those of you who lean libertarian on issues of personal privacy and liberty will understand my objection to this personal information being sought or used too broadly.

6) Finally, we have no reason to believe that the insurance industry MUST raise rates to compensate for this measure. This is an absolutely lie... They may CHOOSE to raise rates as a result of this passing, but this speaks to why I think we need to reign in the insurance industry and their political power and influence.

The honest-to-God truth about this measure and it's origins is going to be hard to swallow for so many of you: Bill Sizemore and I actually believe this is good public policy, demonstrating that occasionally arch-conservatives like us and progressives like many of you find a common ground or "enemy". It was financed by Loren Parks who, as with all his generosity, gets no personal benefit out of this; just the satisfaction of promoting ideas, that in our mind, help aveage hard-working Oregonians.

My advice to the reader? Vote how your heart tells you to.

I voted "yes", and I will continue to work for sensible regulations and protections of individual liberties, regardless of whether we are liked or hated for it.

"Insurance rates should be based on the behavior of an individual, not their personal financial situation or outside financial decisions."

Oh, really? So no more rate classes of, for example, gender and age?

"This is just one more attempt to invade the personal liberties of individual citizens ...."

Yes, and even more than that which is mandated by government. The best reason I can think of for voting not to allow credit-scoring in insurance decisions is to start trying to keep this growing behemoth from turning into the monster it seems to be turning into. I am finding "credit scoring" increasing on numerous fronts. In checking my own credit scores with the three big national companies recently, I found that while my score itself is excellent (which I knew), the details and data contained errors large and small, which I did not know.

Seems like everyone is checking your (my) credit score .... I speculate that most of you (us) have little idea how large and how pervasive this has become.

it's as simple as this: i have bad credit, but a spotless driving record. i am an excellent driver and don't have any claims on my policy. why should i have to pay higher premiums for coverage?

Insurance companies also maintain that there is a correlation between a low credit score and a higher chance of filing a future claim. It’s important to remember that insurers can only point to a correlation between the two factors – not a causal link. Why should a person with a spotless driving record who happens to have a lower than average credit score pay more for insurance than someone who has a worse driving record but good credit score? It’s simply unfair for insurers to charge consumers more up front just because of the possibility they might use the policy they paid for at some point in the future. Credit scores shouldn’t be a factor when it comes to pricing insurance.

I still don't get this measure. I'm most likely voting no but I haven't filled in my ballot yet.

The insurance industry claims that bad credit is an indicator someone is more likely to file a claim. If this is true the higher rates are justified. End of story.

What I haven't seen is any discussion on whether or not this is actually true. Are there other factors that correlate with this - are people with bad credit more likely not to perform routine maintenance on their cars or drive vehicles that are old and don't offer the latest safety features?

But that isn't what's being discussed, its either screw Bill Sizemore, screw the insurance companies, help the poor that's what Democrats/liberals/progressives are supposed to do or some personal story about being a good driver with lousy credit. All of these seem to gloss over the actual question at hand which is "Do people with bad credit pose a greater risk justifying a higher premium?" Which is why I think this issue is probably something best left for the state legislature to decide.