Another good argument for simply allowing all initiative campaigns to gather signatures via a website and e-signature technology.

Carla, it's a damn shame there's no longer any real jobs or careers for journalists; you'd have been great. You still are great, and I appreciate your reporting even if you don't reap the financial rewards and public acclaim you deserve.

As to the whole notion of initiatives, I'd be in favor of having to go through the process TWICE before an initiative gets on a ballot, with say a six-month period between the signature collection process. I love the idea of initiatives, where the people can be directly involved in the legislative/constitutional process, but as we can see in California, too many initiatives can result in creating problems that only another initiative can solve.

And as we saw with Prop 36 here, steaming emotions are not the best motivations for making law.

What a great example of irresponsible reporting. Don't you know that a stable job is a bulwark of rehabilitation? Worse, you shame them further by posting their faces and labeling them according. If any of them loses their job over you, I hope they use their unemployment to hire an attorney. Truth @ www.oncefallen.com

Signature-gatherers first and foremost must believe in the cause for which they're working.

Is there any doubt that the people shown in Ms. Axtman's piece would prefer the outcome that Ross Day, Kevin Mannix, and Russ Walker (and most importantly their funders) want?

Eliminating the $733 million in funding by making corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share (after 8 years of Bush giveaways to both groups) would force the state reduce its public safety workforce and result in the scofflaws & convicted criminals working for "the cause" to go free.

Of course these people want the referenda to be successful.

This is completely irresponsible, and something I would expect to see on Fox News, not Blue Oregon. You know nothing about the details of these persons crimes, probation, or their lives in general. You know nothing about whether they disclosed their past, and their current employers found them to be trustworthy in the interview process. You know nothing about whether they have rehabilitated themselves. Some of their convictions are twenty years old. Do you think they might have evolved as people in those years? You behave exactly like Mannix, whom you mock, by labeling these people and treating them as indistinguishable from their crime. Once a criminal, only a criminal, and nothing more than a criminal.

And now that you hang the digital scarlet letter on them, what solution do you have? What work will you approve for the convicted criminal you know nothing about? Should we prohibit them from retail work where they will see credit card numbers and receipts? Maybe ban them from delivery work, since that would give them access to addresses? Where does this end, once we strip away all the potential pitfalls for these people you know nothing about? Penal colony? Maybe you and Mannix can collaborate on that ballot initiative.

Sounds like fodder for a Swiftian "argument in favor of tax repeal"

SEX OFFENDERS FOR LOWER TAXES

"We are Oregon's criminal element and we want you to vote to repeal the legislature's taxes on the rich. Without those taxes, the government will have to close some prisons and let us out into the streets. And with a reduced education budget, they'll have to lop days off of the school calendar in districts around the state, which will mean more days in which your children will be out of a teacher's supervision and likely to run into the likes of us at the mall, at the park, on the corner...we know where to find them. That's why we're circulating petitions to put tax repeal on the ballot.

"Send us your children. Vote yes on upper income tax cuts!"

Probably the ugliest thing I've seen you do Carla.

To bully and attack people who circulate a petition that you don't like is not journalism.

These are not political figures but people with wrong's in their past and you hold them up to be attacked.

Did you ask the Secretary of State's office if there was any reason to suspect problems with these circulators? Did you talk to Vote Oregon (their employer) about this?

I think you might live to regret this attack on people just trying to make it in this world, especially if they lose their job or get harassed trying to do their job.

wake up folks. Do you think for a second that Mannix or Day care two cents about these folks they hired? Do you think they care whether they are rehabilitated or not? And do you think for a second that if one of the unions or progressive groups hired these people the other side wouldn't use it?

Give me a break! This type of handwringing, and idealistic nativety is what led us into the wilderness only a few years ago. You don't go a knife fight...and let's be real about what is at stake...with your bumper sticker slogans about redemption.

And these weren't exactly victimless crimes, and in all cares exposed here they weren't isolated "mistakes." Ask yourself a question. Would you feel comfortable inviting any of them into your home to discuss the tax measures? And that's assuming they know anything about them.

Bravo Carla for your hard work. Punch them in the nose, and keep punching until Mannix and Day are broke and out of work.

So a registered sex offender is gathering signatures. So what? What does his history have to do with his current job?

I'd be a little bit concerned about someone with a history of forgery or identity theft being involved in the process. But if someone's been arrested for a crime that has nothing to do with theft or fraud, served his time, paid his debt to society ... what? He's not allowed to hold a job? Can't participate in the democratic process? Can't advocate for a cause he believes in, or just take money to help out someone else who does?

As for giving people open access to your address ... well, unless you've taken pains to conceal yourself, just about anyone can work that out with a little time on the internet.

You start out by saying "I'm all about giving people a second (or third) chance when they mess up and are convicted of a crime." But the rest of the post seems to put the lie to that statement.

Really an unethical attack against people who have made some poor choices in life. Is it to much to ask for these people to be given a second chance. I thought the liberal position was for others to be given a chance.

Your actions Carla, with this article, make you just as bad as the conservatives you so dislike. Your actions are no different then theirs. You are painting with just as broad of a brush when it comes to political propaganda and you should be ashamed of yourself.

You embarrass yourself and you embarrass Oregon with this fear driven attack. How about looking at the issues rather then pandering to the mouth breathers.

If any of these people testified in court (took an oath to tell the truth), their credibility could be attacked if they had been convicted of a felony, or of a misdemeanor involving dishonesty or a false statement, within the prior fifteen years. (OEC 609(1), ORS 40.355)1)). Presumably, signature gatherers have to offer some kind of sworn statement as part of the process. Whether you agree or disagree with how much weight to give to the convictions in assessing credibility is your own choice; but the information is certainly relevant.

What we can see here are the lengths a pathetic whore for attention like Carla will go to. This is why Blue Oregon is such a sewer that serious, intelligent progressives need to shun.

Leave aside the ad hominem argument she has made here rather than focus on the issues (and I support the taxes).

She hasn't done anything to determine whether these people have paid their debt to society and in fact have earned the right to be integrated back into society. Period.

And she pulls the sleaziest right wing tactic of waving the crimes they were charged with to solely to invoke a fearful emotional reaction, without even reviewing the circumstances of their crimes: We know one big problem in our police-state era are formal charges (and convictions) that bear little congruence to the actual crime.

I would hope petitioners for progressive causes would hire, and hire first, those who have been convicted and served their time, and are seeking a chance to work their way back into society. In fact, starting today, I will not sign any so-called progressive petition unless the petitioners prove they actually have a progressive attitude towards rebuilding society and individual lives by doing that.

Nice sleazy little hate operation you've turned into Carla and Kari.

I haven't thought about this but you raise a good argument. They need to put these people on other jobs doing something that won't be tempting and draw them back into what got them put in jail. footprints in the sand poem poem footprints in the sand

On further thought, what Carla is doing here, since she has not done any work to show these individuals actually are a threat to anyone at this time, is nothing short of bullying and harassment. One way to stand up to bullies like Carla and Kari is to call 620KPOJ and tell them Blue Oregon representatives have no place on the public airwaves until they apologize publicly for their bullying and harassment, or take the time to vindicate themselves by doing the work now to demonstrate to a reasonable person these individuals are an actual danger. We have to clean up our own house just as we demand the right wing clean up it's house.

http://blog.oregonlive.com/mapesonpolitics/2009/08/canvassers_come_under_fire_as.html

is the Jeff Mapes take on this.

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2009/08/oregon_conservatives_launch_no.html

"I want people to feel good about the system again," said Day. "I want to make sure it's done right.

<<

is from an article on the petitioners.

If Ross Day didn't do background checks on his employees (the way many other businesses do background checks) that is not the fault of anyone who disagrees with Day & Co. Others have the right to think if these folks really want a say in Oregon, they should run for office and not try to force us to believe that ballot measures are supposed to be more powerful than anyone who wins a candidate election. Before 2006, those folks (anti-tax Republicans) had House majority. What happened--did voters tire of their antics?

One of the comments on the Mapes blog is this:

bsizemore on 08/04/09 at 9:24AM The thing I find most interesting about this debate is the lack of connectivity between the petition circulator and the petition itself. The circulator is irrelevant in the final analysis.

<<

This is 2009. We the people have the right as individuals to make our own decisions. We have the right to comment on the signature gathering process. We have the right to sign or ignore any petition. We have the right to ask to see the names of the chief petitioners on the back of petitions and notice that Russ Walker doesn't seem to be among those names.

Do we live in a representative democracy, or a government of, by, and for professional ballot measure types? That question, as much as the tax question, is what is being debated this summer. If the anti-taxers thought this would only be a debate about tax policy, tough luck. We as individuals have the right to debate whatever we want!

Good job Carla! Providing progressives with information is not harassment or intimidation. I would CERTAINLY think twice about signing a petition knowing that my private info would be in the hands of criminals.

I agree that theft, forgery and crimes of moral turpitude felons should not be allowed to collect signatures.

And I also impishly like this opening to slime the Sizemore/Mannix prostitution of the initiative process.

But registered sex offender statutes are a tad over-broad for my taste. Good when putting focus on pedophiles, bad when they include draconian statutory rape law violations. and public nudity convictions which I am capable of believing people can redeem from.

Also troublesome is the inclusion of arrest information in public discourse which I find constitutionally problematic as it flies in the face of the presumption of innocence and relies on notoriously unreliable police state data.

If this weren't so disturbing, it'd be funny. Kevin Mannix--tough on crime, lock em up and throw away the key Kevin Mannix--is hiring multiple sex offenders, forgers, and thieves and sending them out onto to Oregon streets to gather signatures for his company.

Thanks for doing your part to keep us safe, Mannix! Glad to see you've moved past Sizemore's antics. Oh, wait.

Heaven forbid I, spawn of the God of Hellfire, should be taken aback by these premises degeneration into personal attacks in this otherwise vital debate.

Progressives, the W word should be reserved for our real enemies. Not persons of good faith expressing reasonable differences. Or maybe we are all secretly fond of the persons of the very late afternoon...

There is room for middle ground here and I appreciate Carla for opening the discussion, even as we have some disagreement on details.

Carla

Will you be reporting on the criminal backgrounds of petition gathers for liberal initiatives as well, or only on initiatives you don't like?

Yes, just look what can be done knowing a person's name and address. Talk about irony.

The form the signature gatherers sign states: "Have you been convicted of a criminal offense involving fraud, forgery, or identification theft?"

Presumably, that question is there because that is what the law states, though I haven't looked up the statutes to be sure. None of the people you've "outed" above have been convicted of any of these crimes, save the last one, who your linked document clearly states lied. In that case, it would seem she would not only be liable for another crime and it's resultant penalties [the form says something to that affect, but I can't read it because it is greyed out - perhaps from being a bad scan of a colored area?], but wouldn't all the signatures she gathered be thrown out as well?

As far as your distrust for those who've been in trouble for crimes other than those listed on the form, why don't you take your own advise and go through the proper channels (i.e. the legislature) to address your concerns? I seem to remember you getting all up in arms when some citizens protested a legislator's actions on public property outside his home re: LNG. Now, thanks to you, a simple Google search of any of these people's names will turn up their entire criminal history. That seems a tad bit more invasive ain't it?

I know I'll now - in typical BO fashion - be castigated and relegated to irrelevance for using a pseudonym. Do you wonder now why some of us do? Just look what can be done in the name of political expediency.

If this is journalism, so is the "Enquirer."

predatory sex offender = "... people who have made some poor choices in life"

Congratulations for the Understatement of the Day Award.

Posted by: mp97303 | Aug 4, 2009 10:54:22 AM----are you implying that all activists are alike, and anyone running a ballot measure would hire perfect strangers and pay them to carry their petitions without the kind of background check?

I've had to undergo background checks whenever working with kids (most recently before/afterschool child care) and I would expect any ballot measure campaign I was involved with (have been involved with few over the years) to do similar background checks.

Did the people with backgrounds like the ones described here fill out a job application with the language standard on so many applications these days, "check here to agree to a criminal background check"? Did they realize this would not be an anonymous job because emotions run high on this issue?

If there was no consent to criminal background check on the job applicationm for these folks, it is not Carla's fault--it is the fault of the employer.

We need a clean initiative process or Wm. S. U'ren's creation is in danger.

One more reason to be skeptical of anyone carrying any petitions for any issue.

Well, two things suggest thermselves:

(1) Get rid of paid signature gatherers entirely. If some subset of We The People feels strongly enough about an issue, then those folks should put themselves out there.

(2) Decline to sign all initiative petitions unless and until the system is radically reformed. Hey folks, the entire notion of citizen initiatives arose about 100 years ago as a way to counterbalance the robber barons who controlled state governments. Now those robber barons bankroll initiatives.

Carla, under commonly accepted employment law practices in Oregon, the employer may generally use history of felony convictions as a means to exclude the person from employment if the crime is in direct opposition to the essential functions of the job. An example might be excluding a felon with history of embezzlement from working in accounting, an ID theft person from working in an inbound telemarketing position or a child molester from working in day care.

With the examples given there are a few people you have singled out who have no business being questioned. Actually only one, Michelle Tiedy (if convicted as reported of felony forgery), would be considered an unwise placement under existing Oregon employment law practices. While the others pictured and mentioned have serious "Ugh" factors, there is nothing that could reasonable preclude employment in their stated capacity.

Thanks Carla for setting a new standard. I am sure that we can all expect similar employee reviews for any and all progressive backed signature gathering efforts.

DEMOCRATS- the people who work hard to let Criminals walk free with their OWN Ballot measure last year (funded with Union dollars which is OK to D's but not when a successful individual is doing the same), yet D's complain when those freed criminals get a job to allow the Voters to have a choice in feeding the black hole of Gov't. Remember Courntey and Brown NOT passing "Jessica's" law in session?

Maybe if you didn't fight against tough on crime laws via Kevin Mannix, there would less criminals able to collect sigatures as they would actually be in Jail dummies. But it's too "expensive" too do so?!

D's tried too make a Yes equal a NO too this session, Hypocrites, as usual.

Democrat add campaign this fall? - Vote YES for keeping tax hikes because some signatures were gathered by people convicted of old crimes. Please do this!

What a great issue this topic raises. As to undeserved notoriety, unfair, maybe but it comes as a consequence of doing the crime. Sex offenders -subject to certain criteria- lose their anonymity. Got a problem with that - tell it to the Legislature. Carla - all I can say is "Grande Cajones". Almost as Gande as the liability insurer who accepts the risk of sending some of these folks door-to-door. Wow - eye opening.

Kurt: where are you finding what you refer to as "commonly accepted employment law practices in Oregon?" Actually, an employer can refuse to hire anyone for ANY reason, as long as the reason is not prohibited (e.g. discrimination based on gender, religion, etc.).

More broadly, on the issues of whether these persons' prior offenses have any bearing on their credibility, would you be less inclined to let them turn in your ballot for you on election day, knowing their background? Now, I also wouldn't want Bill Sizemore to turn in my ballot for me, and I don't believe he's been convicted of a crime; but background sometimes matters.

I work in the office of a "felony friendly" temp agency. We run criminal background checks on every person we send out to a client. We do not send people who have theft, forgery, or fraud convictions to work in a client's office. Predatory sex offenders don't get sent to clients who have women on the night shift. We don't send the guy with a DUI to work at the brewery (where they get a free beer after their shift). We give people a second chance, but we don't place our workers in situations where they have the opportunity to reoffend. We want them to succeed.

As an employer, I would not send a predatory sex offender out on the streets to gather the addresses of potential victims. Nor would I send someone convicted of identity theft to gather signatures. There are plenty of other felons I wouldn't have a problem sending.

I don't think Carla is being unreasonable in her concerns. If she hadn't posted the public records on these folks as examples of her concern, readers would have asked her to come up with proof of her accusations. It's a topic worthy of discussion and calling Carla nasty names is hardly productive.

Jonathan, I base my assertion on 30 years working in Employee Relations/Human Resources, the last 15 of which have been in Oregon. I also base this on numerous discussions with highly regarded attorneys representing both sides in employment law situations. This observation is based on what is deemed best for the applicant/employee, employer and community.

While you are correct that an employer may generally deny employment on a host of factors, a broad stroke - "We don't hire convicted felons" rarely passes muster any longer.

The irony is just not with Mannix. Perhaps these people would be in prison if Carla had not advocated against tougher sentences for forgery and theft. I recall Carla's opposition to measure 61 and I am guessing that she was in favor of HB 3508 which revoked M57 and increased good time for cons. I say guess as the topic of HB 3508 was so embarassing for Democrats (overturning what over 60% of the voters wanted) that Kari did not have an article on it here.

What is unfortunate is the way you dodge the very legitimate questions posed by those who disagree with you, Carla.

So OK. you've stated twice now that "someone who has been convicted of molesting kids doesn't get to work in a daycare. They've lost that opportunity..period." No one here is arguing with that. But should that preclude them from gathering signatures? Perhaps it should, I don't know. But what does the law say?? If they're not breaking the law, what you've done is use these people as pawns in a mean-spirited and thoughtlessly cruel manner to get at Mannix, et. al.

Don't get me wrong, l have no love lost for predatory sex offenders. I am not defending what they did. But in this country we've decided that we allow those people out and about - and expect them to work and be productive - after they do their time. If you think they shouldn't be gathering signatures, go to the legislature and change the frigging law so they can't. Then, if Mannix hires them anyway, you have a story. While you're at it, why don't you make background checks mandatory for all signature gatherers if there is so much abuse?

Carla, excuse me if I missed this before, but quite seriously, how did you match up names, arrest records and photographs? How complicated of a database search was this for you? I discovered very quickly that an on-line sex offender database and an on-line criminal-record database are available--and by the way, folks, the sex-offender database provides offenders' addresses--but I didn't find photos there. (Could be I missed them.)

Perhaps the pertinent worry is that there's too damn much personal information available about EVERYONE....

"The unfortunate part is that you're trying to shift the focus away from the real story here: Mannix and Walker are tightly associated with racketeer Sizemore."

Oh, so THAT'S the real story? Excuse me, but is that news to anyone? I wasn't trying to shift focus from that, I thought it was basic, common knowledge to anyone who reads the paper or frequents any local political blog. Yes, it's duplicitous for anyone associated with Sizemore to claim to be trying to restore the public's faith in the signature gathering process. That's obvious isn't it? At least to anyone reading here it is.

You did not have to plaster the pictures as well as the identifying info (including signatures and addresses) of people who are simply trying to make a buck and again, HAVE NOT BROKEN THE LAW by trying to be signature gatherers, here in order to make that point. You're all in a tizzy because these people will have your address, but see nothing wrong by exposing them to untold invasions of their privacy? Talk about a high horse.

And, you still haven't answered why it's so horrible for a couple of people to stand on public property and protest a legislature - because they didn't go through the "proper" (in your opinion) channels - but it's OK for you to do much worse here against people who are unwitting pawns in your political dramas. If you don;t like the way it is Carla, go through the "proper" channels and change it.

I've seen the ads for signature gatherers for environmental causes and toyed with the idea of picking up a few extra bucks while working for a good cause. Not now. I've got a clean record, but who knows where this type of bile stops? I'm not interested in having my personal info plastered all over the web, accessible by a simple click of the mouse. Though this info may all be public record, it's a far cry from going to the trouble and expense of digging it all up, to being able to find it all out in a split second by putting my name in the Google machine.

I guess that's one way to subvert opposition to your cause. The ends don't always justifies the means.

What a waste of space this entire thread and OP is. Carla, I'm disappointed that you would stoop such low behavior. I look at my intellectual foes as mostly ignorant or programmed, but not evil until they have power. Some manage to get there without it.

All I can think is what a nicer place this would be if politics were but back in the box. I have an idea...how about limiting the vote to people who actually produce wealth and prohit it to government employees and anyone who receives a govt check (or works for an entity that receives direct govt subsidies). Hey, I like this so much that I want to go a bit further...have two entrances to public buildings. The front door is reserved for taxpayers while tax feeders and public employees have to use a back door that is located next to the dumpster...which is where this thread belongs, to get back on topic.

Methinks its time for some Warren Zevon. Folks could cool off to, "send lawyers guns and money; the shit has hit the fan"

I love dirty politics. You can almost smell the Chicago breeze blowing toward Oregon. In addition to reciting the sins of the signature collectors, you should focus on their parents, siblings, etc. Also perhaps on the history of the roster of Blue Oregon contributors and their respective parents, siblings, grandparents, etc. Bound to be a felon here and there.

God Bless American Politics!

"The front door is reserved for taxpayers while tax feeders and public employees have to use a back door that is located next to the dumpster..." Query: But which door do the banksters use? Ans: Neither, they live off-shore, but collect a cover charge at both doors.

Since we can not constitutionally prohibit paid signature gatherers, why not get rid of them the logical, easy way, the way that helps get big money out of the initiative qualification game:

Go to a web-based signature system where all registered voters can read pro and con arguments for and against the proposed initiatives, read the complete text, with links to the current statutory provisions that would be changed and complete fiscal analyses made by any group that wants to submit them --- WITH the proviso that only three or four or some fixed number of initiatives will appear on each ballot, and those are decided by the number of valid signatures that each one gathers.

This would let less populated places in Oregon participate more fully in the initiative process, limit the role of big money (at the qualification phase anyway) and favor initiatives with real grassroots support over petition-o-matics like Oregonians Without Common Sense and other groups like that.

genop, get rid of the FED, restore sound money and legalize free banking (bank issuance of specie) and there wouldn't be any banksters.

Always aim for the head. The FED is the locus of evil.

George, that's a great idea.

Funny how the mouthbreathers spend 6 months parsing EVERY SINGLE opinion, speech, and utterance of Sotomayor but god forbid Carla spends 30 minutes to perform a simple background check only to find sex offenders and convicted felons gathering names and addresses for the local republican pro-corporate, anti-tax, sore election losers.

Sounds like the local GOP blogger patrol has their manpanties all in a bunch. Good!

I look forward to Carla's musings tomorrow!

Carla, this wasn't a particularly strategic move, and reeks of amateurish political hackery. I expect the scrutiny on any progressive ballot initiative to be equally and unnecessarily as harsh. The only people who lose are those who are just trying to make ends meet in this really crappy economy, with our 12% unemployment...and you just threw them under the bus to score political points against Mannix and his bunch.

But it's clear you could care less. They are expendible fodder for you. I believe Lenin called them "useful idiots," right? I'm sure progressives are glad that you are using his playbook...especially with the word "socialism" being dropped at every twist and turn.

When you go to bed tonight, ask yourself if you made politics better...or worse.

It was very irresponsible to publicly humiliate people trying to rehabilitate and make an honest living. Shame on you!

"...god forbid Carla spends 30 minutes to perform a simple background check only to find sex offenders and convicted felons..."

Uh, Carla didn't do anything but report the findings of Defend Oregon. She said herself she'd post findings of anyone who does the same for those gathering signatures for liberal causes, if someone else does the work. That's not journalism, that's a press release.

BTW, one of the linked PDFs I read was 118 pages long. That's a bit more than 30 minutes worth of searching.

Actually, what you said Carla was: "I'd have absolutely no problem reporting on signature gatherers for progressive or liberal petitions if I'd come into that information."

How that differs from my paraphrasing of your statement is beyond me. But whatever. My point, of course, was that you did nothing more than take the info given to you and post it here. That is not journalism.

So, they should stop hiring Democrats? Where's your Blue Oregon loyalty? At least this represents jobs. Better than the Dems in Salem have managed...

Hey, let's hire them as teachers instead. Then BO can defend them!

"a number of the signature gatherers for the anti-tax-fairness petitions have been convicted of forgery, theft and a number of other troubling crimes."

Why are local politicians gathering signatures?

By the way, LOVE the 'anti tax fairness' moniker you've arbitrarily assigned to those who don't agree with this. I'm sure several already paying $22,500 ANNUALLY in Oregon income tax would take issue with the additional $5,000 tax penalty being labled as 'fairness'. Maybe it is just me, though.

Read page 10 of the PDF Report on Ms. Tidey. She signed in 2009 that she has no prior conviction of forgery. On page 1 of the report it states she was convicted of forgery in 1995. On page 13 it states this may be a felony charge carrying a fine of $125,000.00 and/or prison for 5 year.

It's a shame to democracy when we pay anyone to gather signatures. No matter how high or low you set the bar on people paid to gather signatures, you corrupt the vote of everyone in a paid system. Take out the pay and you will have volunteers, and there would be almost nobody willing to volunteer for Sizemore and his like minded fellows.

Problem solved.

Carla is a freakin' hero. Everyone else is worried and crapping themselves if it was right to do it. Well...who cares? Carla took a shot at the Mannix Machine and if only one person decides not to sign that petition...it was totally worth it, and who cares if some ex-con losers got hurt? We are in a war!! The ends totally justify the means and the sooner we start playing to win, the better. It doesn't matter if we look like hypocrites...the news cycles don't last that long and no one will remember the tactics....only the winners. Carla...you ROCK!!

Way to go Kari! "Thank Goodness for the Voter Education Project." East Oregonian

If you had the East Oregonian on your side for that project, who is going to call them lefties?

Rick Attig has a good thing on this on the Oregonlive.com Stump.

I worked for the Labor backed Voter Education Project in '01 where we monitored the work of petitioners, reporting illegal actiity, most notably the two petitioners at The Lloyd Center who forged signatures from one peition onto numerous others as we filmed them. They ended up in The Oregonian, and hopefully prosectued, although I don't think the Justice Dept has done eveything it can in this area.

There are some real doozies out there, as Carla documents. The poster child in Oregon '01 was Dan Ricca, who had a rap sheet that grew with his ptition crimes. He ended up with his own company, Ricca Petition Services, in Montana.

The challenge is for progessive ballot measure campaigns to hire better people. Oh, wait, there are never any progressive ballot measure campaigns (with a few exceptions, like the minimum wage (passed) and bottle bill expansion in (lost)both '96.

The obvious difference of course, Kari, Is that the people in your rougues' gallery were guilty of forging or otherwise manipulating the initiative process illegally. Unless I'm mistaken (and this post doesn't say otherwise), the people exposed here (save the last one) have not done anything wrong by merely working as signature gatherers. If they've forged signatures, then by all means, flame away. Until then, leave em alone.

"Rick Attig has a good thing on this on the Oregon.com Stump."

Indeed. Carla should take note of how real journalists can ethically handle this story. Note that Attig did not have to plaster their pics on the website nor even mention names to be credible, it was Defend Oregon's case to prove - not his, as Carla rationalized.

Note too, how Attig qualified these findings to maintain focus on the piece's premise: that "You'd think a new organization determined to help Oregonians again "feel good" about the initiative would start by doing everything possible to get entirely out of the shadow of past signature gathering abuses."

Attig responsibly and ethically (in contrast to Carla) states: "It's important to make two things clear: One is that while Defend Oregon would happily use its findings to tar the tax issues, in fact this has nothing to do with the tax debate and the almost certain vote on the measures next January.

Two, every one of the petitioners found to have criminal records is allowed under Oregon law to circulate petitions and gather signatures. Oregon law only bars paid petitioners convicted of fraud, forgery or identity theft within the past five years. Defend Oregon found no disqualifying convictions when it researched the backgrounds of the petition gatherers. Furthermore, there is nothing inherently wrong with hiring people with criminal records."

To paraphrase Mr. Attig:

You'd think an organization (the Democratic Party) determined to help Americans again "feel good" about the political process would start by doing everything possible to distance themselves from past ruling party's politically expedient abuses, like Carla's hysterical and ethically challenged post.

alun, your honest expression of complete cynicism is refreshing.

Or you may have simply been ironic...

Carla, this should go beyond the standard "Republicans are all scumbags" mantra. Were you so inclined, you could have written the same kind of article involving grassroots activities among Democrats. ACORN, in particular, would keep you busy for a long time.

The real story is shady activities and downright corruption in grassroots organizing, lobbying, and other kinds of efforts designed to influence the political process. Liberals and conservatives alike are guilty.

I find it interesting how the liberals will demand they know all the details of these petitioners lives. Imply that by signing these petitions you are putting their identification at risk. Yet you just put all the personal information about these people, their driver's license, date of birth, first five of their social security number. Wow it sounds like you just committed identity theft. I wonder if these petitioners can file a claim against you.

Again even if this company hired these people and they are what you say, for arguments sake. You just did the same thing you just railed against. Seriously putting someone's driver's license on the internet, signature, cell phone number, first five digits of ssn#, date of birth, place they lived, relatives. Man you can start an account of this info at any check cashing place and destroy their credit. All this because they wanted to do a job. Did they ever get convicted of a crime pertaining to circulating a petition? Did the state bar them from circulating these petitions? NO. You guys wanted this law about background checks and you got and now it still it isn't good enough. I don't get it. The unions got this measure on the ballot to pay per hour and background checks.

Actually what these circulators are doing is a form of dissent. The First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law..abridging...the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Sounds like the state violated their rights to dissent by publishing their history and allowing their vital information made public. You also violated their privacy.

Just because VoteOregon is culpable doesn't mean YOU aren't either. Calling me a troll doesn't mean you are right. Friggin Brilliant.

I am getting so tired of hearing "these measures WILL be on the ballot" as if the decision has been made before the signatures have been collected.

Let's assume that everyone hired is as pure as the driven snow. They still have to convince people to sign the petitions, incl. people who have said for years, "I no longer sign petitions--it just encourages them".

The petitionaires went overboard over the last decade, implying Oregonians live to read ballot measures in the voters pamphlet and vote on them, and anything else in their lives (jobs, family, etc.) is secondary. Do they really believe measure elections are more important than candidate elections? Or is it just that they can't get enough people to vote for their candidates?

No matter what the ballot measure, unless a friend makes the case to me that it is a worthwhile ballot measure, I will take no part. There have been too many ballot measures over the years, and if you don't like my attitude, blame Sizemore, Mannix, Walker et al for causing many Oregonians to OD on ballot measures.

I believe elected officials are better prepared to handle most debates than the folks who run ballot measures for a living. Call me an old fogey or any other name, that still won't get me to support any ballot measure I don't believe is in the best interest of the state.

And I don't believe "Back to Basics" was a serious alternative, I don't think the "if only you had accepted verbatim the OBA proposal this wouldn't have happened" mantra of some Republicans.

Why not just turn the lawmaking process over to the lobby and the petitioners? Do you suppose anyone would be successful with a ballot measure like that? Or would citizens rebel?

I'd like to see serious campaign finance reform which gave ordinary citizens (not just lobbyists and petitioners) more of a say. That is why I supported Measure 65 for non partisan elections. Call me a subversive or anything you like, I won't support people who are basically telling citizens "shut up and let us tell you what to believe".

The criminal record is a matter of public record. Putting someone's driver's license is not. Even if it is legal, just shows the hypocrisy that you hold. How ethical is it to publish others info, if you are crusading against such tactics? Obviously you don't give a damn about others info, this is a slanted piece to smear and fear. Smear Mannix and circulators, put fear in the process so it doesn't matter about the legitimacy of the referendum. You are a HACK!! Whether YOU consider it honorable or not your opinion doesn't matter. The Constitution has upheld paid circulating as free speech over and over and over. Paid campaigning, circulating has gone on forever. Every group does it. From Greenpeace to Peta to Sizemore to the NRA. In fact the Unions paid to get their circulators to put hourly circulation on the ballot. So were they dishonorable in doing this? Seems like you liked this law.

"Shit Wages?" For any circulator, if they are allowing others to indulge in their freedoms they provide a service. Last time I checked you get paid for time and service. Just like Democrats when they do voter registration drives. Are they getting "shit wages"? Their time is worth something. I don't know what they get paid but who are you to say it is "shit wages"? Sounds very petty. Petty, petty, petty, petty.

So where were you when ACORN was allowing felons to register people? Crickets...

"...I'm sure those companies that go out of their way to hire those folks with convictions like forgery and theft don't send them to work where they are more likely to re-offend for absolutely no reason."

Do you have any proof for either of these claims?

Just wondering.

Yeah, I thought not.

"Karl Rove lies and makes shit up. I have done neither"

Obviously, yes you do.

So anyone hired by Sizemore is a not worthy of circulating a petition? Unbelievable. Talk about character assassination. I bet most of them are honorable people. Can you tell me one person on that crew that was convicted of a crime circulating a petition? Not something outside of petitioning. If there was something wrong the state wouldn't allow them to circulate. What Sizemore did with his finances are different than what his circulators did. In fact if there are convicted circulators, I doubt that they are working now.

If VoteOregon is scum what makes you any different putting others people private information on the internet. Still you keep blaming them while not looking at your misdeeds. What ethics and morals do you have? Quit talking about their misdeeds and look at your own. If this is how you operate then your credibility is base. To do something legal doesn't mean it is moral or right. I guess George Bush can sleep well at night with the wars he started. Remember it was legal, extremely basic stuff.

I agree with Sal and Bartender. Plus the Pirgs and Peta have asked me to sign a petition. The petitions were not to go on a ballot they were to be submitted to Congress for legislation. They petitions still ask for your name, address and signature. Also contact information.

So where were you when ACORN was allowing felons to register people? Crickets...

Oh yes Carla. That's it. I'm a secret operative for Vote Oregon. AND I'm also a sock puppet - just ask Jeff Alworth - for Mothers Against Microbreweries (or other such nonsense, I'm not going to bother to go back and look up the exact quote). It is truly pathetic how some here have to resort to such BS as this when their reasoning runs out and the hypocrisy sets in.

Sorry Carla. It's not that easy. I, as do a lot of people weighing in here - many of them, regular commenters here with solid progressive credentials, disagree with your Rovian tactics. You have absolutely no proof that these companies GO OUT OF THEIR WAY to hire people with convictions for fraud or theft or that working in this job will make them more likely to reoffend. You made it up. It is a lie. Extremely basic stuff - as you like to so condescendingly say so often.

Further, Vote Oregon and these petitioners have done nothing illegal. Sure, it might not "pass the smell test," and that is a valid point to make, but you could have done it without hanging these four people out to dry. See Attig's piece in the O on how to handle this type of story responsibly and ethically - and without muddying yourself (and the Left, which you represent here) in the filth that has come to represent the Bush era. I mean, what happened to "change you can believe in?" I voted for Obama cuz - perhaps idealistically and stupidly - I wanted that change not only in policy, but in political discourse.

You discredit a party that claims to be a friend and protector of those without power. You've shown that the little people don't matter if it means winning. At any cost. It makes me sick.

"You've spent this entire thread repeating the same, tired garbage just hoping that somehow, someway, saying it enough will make it true. Newsflash: it doesn't. So get over yourself."

There's the pot calling the kettle black! Right back at ya baby.

"Your bullying, cajoling and otherwise nasty BS..." 

Now THAT is really rich coming from you! I'm rolling on the floor laughing my freakin ass off!  Damn, this is getting good. Keep diggin yourself a deeper hole. Or better yet, do yourself a favor Carla. Look up the meaning of the word "hypocrite." I think if you had even a basic understanding of this word, you'd get what alot of us are bitching about here.  

And, BTW, calling out a liar is not being nasty. Pointing out your duplicity is not BS. Protesting your Rovian tactics is not bullying. At least it's not when you do it to others, is it? There's that old double standard again. 

But it's painfully obvious you don't care about honesty, integrity, or civilized political discourse. At least it's out in the open now. Ethics be damned! Its ALL about winning. We "useful idiots" are merely pawns in your manufactured dramas. We don't matter. And we most certainly should not have the audacity to speak up.

Good to know.   

Bartender--Carla as Rove?

I have met Carla. She is a nice person. She is not a secretive political operative who is all about winning at any cost. She is all about open public discussion.

Which may be what some people don't want. So many people are SO sure that both anti-tax measures will make the ballot that they don't want to talk about even the possibility that there is uncertainty involved. How good was the training for the petitioners?

http://www.statesmanjournal.com/article/20090809/STATE/908090328/Tax-increase-opponents-race-clock-for-an-election&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL

is a fascinating article from the front of the Sunday Statesman Journal.

It includes a picture of a worried Ross Day, and these paragraphs,

The potential election still is six months away on Jan. 26 — and if tax-increase opponents qualify both measures for the ballot, it will be the third such election in seven years.

The clock is ticking.

Opponents must submit at least 55,179 signatures — 4 percent of the votes cast in the most recent election for governor, as specified in the Oregon Constitution — by 5 p.m. Sept. 25. The secretary of state then has 30 days to verify them through statistical sampling.

What do you know, a news article that says IF the measures qualify for the ballot. A friend who follows such things was saying the other day that this group will be lucky to get a 70% validity rate. That means if they only turn in, say, 57,000 signatures, there might not be enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot.

Call me any name you want, but I will believe the measures qualify for the ballot when the signatures are verified. I don't support measures by Day, Walker, Mannix, et al---that is my right as a citizen. And I would love to see such a wide range of people (the sponsors, many politicians and commentators) proved wrong if the measures do not qualify. Conventional wisdom has been known to be wrong.

Too many people have said, "when the measures qualify, as they have in the past...".

Have they never heard the saying "past history does not guarantee future performance"?

To me that sounds like publicly declaring victory in an election before the ballots are sent out.

Oregonians are notoriously independent thinkers, and I will believe the measures qualify when the signatures are verified, not before.

LT - Please note that I wasn't the first to compare Carla to Rove. Please also note that Carla herself basically defined (at least one aspect of) Rovian politics as lying and making shit up. She then went on to do just that. You draw what conclusions you will.

As far as the rest of your comment, I hope that Vote Oregon's initiatives do not make it to the ballot and, considering the odds they're up against, maybe they won't. [Contrary to what Carla may think "looks incredibly obvious," I've always lobbied for higher taxes here. Like in cigs, even tho I'm a smoker. And on beer, even tho I make my living selling it.] But none of that is germane to the points I was trying to make.

I have said repeatedly that this whole issue could have been handled more responsibly, ethically and honorably. Flame away against Vote Oregon all you want for the hypocrisy of claiming to restore faith in the initiative process while not doing everything they can to do so. But leave these individuals alone. When - and IF - they forge signatures or otherwise abuse the process, have at 'em.

The really ironic thing that someone else addressed above, is that if Carla's worst fears come true and these people do something illegal, they'll be fined enormously, be subject to criminal charges and the work that they do for Vote Oregon would all be for naught. We still win. It's in our best interests for them to screw up, is it not?

Carla, your arguments sound desperate and cheap. I am amazed at somebody who is so enlighten as you think you are, has the audacity to believe you are above the law. Go Slogger, Sal, and bartender!!

Carla, your arguments sound desperate and cheap. I am amazed at somebody who is so enlighten as you think you are, has the audacity to believe you are above the law. Go Slogger, Sal, and bartender!!

"There are other jobs that these folks can do."

Really? Are you hiring? Have you had any experience with "these folks" and how easy it is to get a job during a deep recession with a conviction on your record? The only part of your story that holds any water at all is the one person who has a forgery conviction that may or may not be relevant. You make no apology for heaping scorn on people who are trying to make a little money by doing honest work (no matter how contemptible their employers may be) AFTER completing their sentences and being expected to re-enter society. Your singling them out and publishing information on them can only make the lives they are trying to remake for themselves and their families more difficult. That you seem to take a self righteous pride in doing so is stomach turning.

Demonizing these people to make a political point is mean and beneath anyone professing progressive values. There is plenty of material on Walker and Mannix to paint them in the deepest shades of black without resorting to to such cheap personal attacks on people who are working at one of the few crappy jobs they can get hired at rather than reverting to criminal activity. The initiatives are a mess and pointing out how bad they really are is the best argument against them.

I would hope you would take a step back and really think about what it's like to walk in these people's shoes.

"Bartender: No matter how many times you write this..it doesn't make it true.

You're right it doesn't. But the FACT that you can't provide any proof whatsoever to back up either of your hyperbolic claims, does.

C'mon. Show me proof and I'll leave it be and apologize. If not, you absolutely deserve what you get.

I should say - I'll apologize for calling you a liar. This post still sucks no matter what.

To elaborate a bit on styrofoam cup's comment...

Carla wrote:"There are other jobs that these folks can do."

That's a cavalier attitude considering:

It’s difficult for ex-felons to find steady jobs even in good economic times, with unemployment rates sometimes as high as 75 percent one year out of prison. During the worst recession in a quarter century, it can be almost impossible.

As to whether they're more likely to reoffend in this job as Carla claims, there's this:

The civil consequences of criminal convictions can be more severe than the criminal consequences.

Many of the statutory barriers to the employment of former offenders make no sense, particularly since former offenders, after seven years of law-abiding conduct, have a similar risk of offending as persons without criminal records.

It may even be illegal to deny them employment under some circumstances (ibid):

Although employers frequently adopt policies refusing to hire felons, such policies can be illegal under Title VII.

At the very least, this type of discrimination has a serious and expensive backlash (ibid):

Because employment at a living wage is closely linked to desistance from crime, high unemployment among former offenders presents a serious public safety risk. One study found that former prisoners who are unemployed are three times more likely to return to prison than those with steady jobs.

[And yes, I get that collecting signatures isn't a steady job at (I don't think, anyway) a living wage. But it does have to be better than nothing, and it will give these folks real work experience that is valuable in finding a better job down the road.]

And gaining employment isn't the only problem for those with criminal records:

Written and researched by the Legal Action Center, the study, "After Prison: Roadblocks to Recovery," presents a first-ever comprehensive catalogue of how current laws and policies prevent qualified individuals with criminal records who have paid their debt to society from obtaining housing, public assistance, employment, drivers' licenses, and from voting and becoming adoptive and foster parents. "Rather than helping them successfully transition from prison to community, many current state and federal laws have the opposite effect, interfering with the rights and obligations of full citizenship in nearly every aspect of people's lives," said Debbie Mukamal, the staff attorney at the Legal Action Center (LAC) who oversaw the report. "These laws diminish public safety and undermine the nation's commitment to justice and fairness, creating roadblocks to basic necessities for people who are trying to turn away from crime, support their families, and become productive members of the community," she added. The "Report Card" distinguishes between policies that serve legitimate ends, such as enabling employers to screen out individuals whose criminal behavior demonstrates they pose an unreasonable risk to public safety, and roadblocks that unfairly prevent those who do not pose a threat to public safety from successfully reentering society.

It took me longer to format these dratted hyperlinks than it did to Google this info, Carla. 

As Mr. (Ms.?) Cup wrote above, there is plenty of valid muck to fling around about both the initiatives themselves and their sponsors - Mannix, et al. - without dragging these individuals into the fray. 

Making these types of wild, unsupported allegations about what horrible things these people may or may not do serves no purpose other than to demonize them unfairly, and frighten people away from the initiative process....

Oh. I get it now.

Seriously, is that it? Most of these measures are brought about by conservatives, so the plan is to frighten people away from signing anything? If so, that's just sad. I never have voted for or signed a petition for any of these guys' measures, but I will defend the process. It may be being abused by out-of-state, well-heeled interests, but this is not the way to fight that.  

[And BTW, guess what? The guy at Jiffy Lube has my signature and address. So does the  girl at the Geek Squad. The gas station attendant has access to my credit card. As does the pizza delivery kid... He even knows exactly where I live! Do I have even an inkling what these people's criminal history might be? Do you? Of course not!]

Ok. So I added A LOT more to what styrofoam cup wrote.   But at least I did some research and provided some proof for my claims.

I'm tired of hearing about the holy initiative process, as if all Oregon politics can be distilled into the GOP, the Dems, and the holy initiative process. Ever heard of people who aren't registered in major parties, or vote across party lines?

Bartender, about this: "frighten people away from the initiative process".

You mean all ballot measures are created equal? Or that the anti-taxers have a divine right to put measures on the ballot and if "tough on crime means agreeing with Mannix" Kevin Mannix has to resort to hiring people with blemished records, that is OK because Kevin is one of the "pillars" of the "initiative community"?

Here's a homework assignment. Not every ballot measure has been sponsored by Mannix, Freedomworks, Russ Walker, Sizemore, McIntire, (or even Marbet and Meek).

If you are such a great researcher, how about answering this question:

There is information on the validity rate of various ballot measures--I have heard policy wonks talk about it, so it must exist somewhere.

There have been a number of citizen initiatives over the years--Oregon Natural Desert Assoc. and friends sponsoring the measure against cows getting too close to creeks, an attempt to enhance/modernize the Bottle Bill, 2008 Measure 65 about non-partisan elections, and back in 1994 the Measure 9 campaign finance reform measure which collected signatures in all 36 counties and passed in all 36 counties (later to be overturned in the Supreme Court). Not to mention the adult adoptee measure which was run by women who had been adopted as children just wanted to see their real birth certificates as adults. There was a wonderful woman from that ballot measure who had really good ideas about initiative reform.

If you really care about data (are not just angry that someone attacked Mannix, Ross Day et al for hiring people with blemished backgrounds), do us all a favor. Research the validity rate of the measures like M. 65 which were citizen initiatives, not part of the ballot measures as a living movement which Walker, McIntire, Day, Mannix, et al try to convince us is what Wm. S. U'Ren really wanted when he created the initiative, referendum and recall process in Oregon roughly a century ago. Then report it here.

Are the signature validity rates of those like Russ Walker, Kevin Mannix, Don McIntire et al as high as the validity rates for M. 65, the adult adoptee measure, M.9 campaign finance reform?

Or is that too much detail when we aren't supposed to believe in any regulation of the initiative industry?

Whoa, LT, slow down. Not sure what your so mad about. 

First of all, where did I say all ballot measures are "created equal," that anyone has a "divine right to put measures on the ballot," or that Mannix "is one of the "pillars" of the "initiative community"?" Please don't put words in my mouth. 

You couldn't be farther from the truth. But, like Carla, you won't take my word for that, and I really don't see what else I can do to "prove" myself to you. C'est la vie. 

And, of course I know that not every ballot measure has been sponsored by Mannix and the others you listed. That's why I said that I support the process even though people like them abuse it. [I'm a big backer of NORML and medical marijuana, for just one example.]  

I'm tired of reiterating that I'm not "angry that someone attacked Mannix, Ross Day et al for hiring people with blemished backgrounds." Respectfully, please get this through your head: I'm angry that someone attacked these individuals for simply working for people with blemished backgrounds.

I have no idea what the signature validity rate is for any iniative, no matter who sponsored it. I guess I don't see what that has to do with anything I wrote. If your point is that using ex cons will result in less valid signatures, I'd first have to say, where's the proof? If you have some, please post it here. (I posted a link that at the very least suggests that this wouldn't necessarily be a given for those who have been clean for seven years or more.) Then, I'd add that if that truly is the case, isn't that good for those of us who do not want to see these iniatives reach the ballot? Just sayin.

And where, exactly, did I even imply that you "aren't supposed to believe in any regulation of the initiative industry"? Hey, by all means, regulate away. If you'll look back at my comments you'll note one of the very first points I made was that perhaps if Carla felt the laws weren't sufficient regarding the background and qualifications of signature collectors, she should go through the proper channels and try to get the law changed. That would be regulating it, would it not? Again, do not put words in my mouth, please. I merely said crucifying these people isn't the way to clean things up (anymore than hiring them is - remember, I said that this was one valid point Carla had).

I never claimed to be extremely knowledgeable about any of the things you demand I go look up and post here. [And I frankly don't care, cuz IMO, it doesn't matter to this discussion. If you think it does, go to it. I don't need to pass your litmus tests either.] Likewise, I never claimed to be a master researcher, a great journalist or even a competent blogger. 

But I do know how to construct a credible argument, back it up, stay on topic, and recognize the tactics used by those who can't or won't do the same. I also go out of my way to try and not be the things I'm complaining about in others. (I don't always succeed, I'm human too.) I detest hypocrisy. So since I asked for Carla to back up her claims, I thought I should back up mine. It's as simple as that. Read into that what you will. 

Finally, you wrote: "I'm tired of hearing about the holy initiative process..." then go on to talk in glowing terms of the many (great) citizen initiatives (go NORML!). I really don't get that. But no matter, cuz I think we both agree that while the citizen led/financed initiative is perhaps the best of the system, the ones by interests such as Parks, Mannix and the like, are the worst.

Oh yeah. I am a registered Democrat, but only because I wanted to be able to vote in the primaries. I plan on changing that to "unaffiliated" as soon as possible, largely because I disagree with the poisonous tactics used by some Dems since we came to power. Like this post, for instance. I voted for change. Stuff like this and the post featuring Nick Pell is not change. And it's not progressive.

Whoops! I'm not sure what you're so mad about either.

GOOGLE Jehovah's Witnesses pedophile for shocking facts on the JW abuse cover up.

Jehovah's Witnesses commits door to door ASSAULT of child! http://www.religionnewsblog.com/16510/je... Wolves in Sheep's clothing cult predators

Please protect your children. Sexual Abuse/Child abuse issues among Jehovah's Witnesses http://www.exjws.net/sexabuse/