This is exactly why you don't have many measures on the ballot. You have always in the past let the good ideas lead the way, rather than searched for reasons to use the initiative process. This is entirely the wrong approach. It is much more reasonable to first have the great idea, to then try to get the Legislature to pass it, and if that fails, to put it before the people. If you have a good idea and the Legislature knows that you're willing and able to take it directly to the people, they're much more likely to try to do something about it.

Your much-despised Measure 5 was brought to the people only after several Legislatures failed to address property taxes running out of control. Same with Measures 47/50. And Measures 7 and 37 came about again because there were legitimate problems with Oregon's land use laws that were harming too many people, and finally the issue was taken to the voters.

Obviously, you have a vested interest in convincing Democrats to bring you ballot measures so you can make your living. But to Democrats I would say, ask yourself what you have been trying for years to get the Legislature to address. What is the ignored, serious need out there that has built up to the point that resorting to the initiative process is legitimately justified? Do you really want to model yourselves after Sizemore, flooding the ballot with initiatives just to force Republicans to spend a lot of money, without having first tried to get a Legislative fix? Or would you rather use the initiative process as it was intended to be used - as a last resort when our elected officials fail to act on matters of serious importance to the people of Oregon?

Like I have stated before, in Oregon Democrats were hell-bent to crush Bush but we fell asleep at the wheel on defending a couple of our party’s core principles: protection of Equal Rights, Effective Government and the Environment.

Now we will have to live in the shadow of urban sprawl, clear-cutting, bias and bigotry.

By crowding the ballot, Republicans frame the campaign debate in their favor, increase their voter turnout, and force millions of Democratic dollars to be spent to defeat the thousands that Republicans spend on these ballot measures.

I disagree on this statement that it would have cost millions; I think that it would have been an issue of framing the message and sending it out too County parties and having the PCP’s canvass the state on a couple of weekends. Measure 34 was a regional issue, specifically NW Oregon—but it has overall effect is the full state of Oregon; and that was the core issue. Measure 36 was a simple issue of Equal Rights and not Marriage. Measure 37 is about the desire of not becoming Los Angeles, Houston or other mega-metropolitan areas.

We Democrats deferred tax issues—a core issue for our party; and Republicans attack our core issues: effective government, civil rights and the environment; too the voters; with the same effect—Democrats lose.

Yes, M38 passed because of all the small business realized that it was a bad thing for SAIF to dissolve. In addition, M31 and M32; were overall trivial things for the voters to care about. M33 was tough one because of the core issue of Marijuana. M35 was not a hard one to figure out for the voters.

When will Democrats have ballot measures that attack Republican core issues?

As well, the Governor’s State of the State speech focused on M37 and the potential consequences of it—where was he 6 months ago. Now he is talking about the importance of not turning on our backs on gays or lesbians—where was he on M36 six months ago. Protecting the salmon runs around the state; M34 has issues about protect the streams and rivers temperatures for the safety of the fish there—where was he six months ago.

As for a statement from State President, Senate Peter Courtney: “The Governor is the CEO of State of Oregon.” If the Governor is the CEO for the state—these three issues should have been championed last summer and not during the current legislative session. I am not blaming all of these woes on the Governor; it is equally on the other party leaders. This is where it is important on not willing to compromise on core party believes—be confrontational and not hide behind the office that they hold

I've known Ted Blaszak for many years- his company is a valuable asset to progressive Oregon. He is offering us the opportunity to think about what measures will promote our goals of building the progressive movement. Sure, it's good for his business, but many of us make a living at politics- nothing wrong with that.

Regarding his challenge for us to think about measures that could go before voters- we need to be thinking along the same lines as those on the right who put forth M36 to turn out conservative voters. We need to think strategically about what we want to accomplish. Who do we want to activate?

I would set forth that any measures we consider should be A) Revenue neutral B) Build our base.

One idea that I am intrigued by is the concept of equity in contraceptive insurance. For many sessions, we have tried to get a bill through the legislature to require insurance companies to cover contraceptives. They may cover viagra- but not the pill- that's unfair. The pro-choice community has been on the defensive for so long- a proactive battle might be just what the doctor ordered to help us turn out more women voters.

As for progressive ideas and causes, we need too work the full state and not just the large urban areas of the Willamette valley.

For those BlueOregon'ers outside the Willamette Valley: What progressive cause/idea that could start from your neck of the woods.

Jenson,

I totally agree with you idea.

However, by capping the overall number of measures, could infringe on the freedom of speech and congregate the purpose of debating these issues.

Your idea of capping the measures by PAC's and individuals would be good; but instead of a couple of them to watch--these numbers would explode by the permutations and combinations of the Roman numbers and letters that we use today.

Then if we limit the individuals to head up these PAC’s could yet again infringe the freedom listed above.

Therefore, I think it is one of those dog-eat-dog situations that we progressive need to attack back with fundamental issues that we can frame against the conservatives.

STOP THE MEASURE FRENZY!!!

Obviously progressives can't trust the voters to see things their way unless you remove or reduce their democratic franchise.

Afterall, it's in their own best interests....those sad, stupid voters.....so the progressives must prevent the voters from hurting themselves (take away their forks so they don't poke out their eyes).

Just need to come up with a real catchy name for the powergrab movement.

Hmmmm.

How about labelling your political organization the "Guardians of Oregon's Collective Common Sense"?

Those poor boobs (voters) are bound to eventually recognize that you are only trying to help them.

You can start by chanelling Nurse Rachett.

Aaron- You asked about outside the valley? I've lived in Bend for almost a decade and haven't been represented in Salem by any D's. Moving to a nonpartisan legislature- an initiative idea being floated by Charlie Ringo could go a long way towards giving voice to progressives outside the beltway-- out here just having an R after your name will get you elected. Removing this might force rural voters to look at the issues and the person.

William,

I like the concept behind your first idea, but I am not sure that retired judges will be above suspicion of political collusion (afterall, most judges were first appointed by a politician at some point).

Perhaps it would be possible to have a computer program redraft legislative boundaries based upon a neutral set of published criteria that could be extracted from census results every ten years?

Stacy,

I know the Sen. Ringo is working on the non-partisan initiative for the legislative body; I truly think that it is a great idea. However, it will be a Herculean task to get it passed, from his own party let alone the full state.

Then what are core issues out in central and eastern Oregon that will be easily framed for progressives from that side of the state; to take charge on: fair statewide economic development, irrigation, transportation infrastructure and municipality transit, airport development funds. What is an issue(s) that the 130000+ Democrats in the 2nd CD take charge and lead the state; in a statuary or constitutional change of Oregon law?

I know a solid problem is that we, inside the beltway; do not ask what is needed outside of it; and then if there is conversation then we frame it for those inside the beltway. This then disenfranchised those outside the beltway from the future process.

As well, what are the Republicans state senators and reps. proposing from Eastern Oregon and openly stating these ideas? How can you, or other progressives in Eastern Oregon—if you cannot; deliver the counter-message?

Pat,

Seems you suggest we can't even trust the voters to vote for President?

Voting intelligently is a responsibility some people understand and others don't. Voters are much more likely to connect the dots between cause and effect when they get a chance to vote on things.

They will get the chance to see the consequences of M37 (we can all agree to disagree on them for now).

They are already witnessing the consequences of raising the minimum wage.

Every political decision requires a tradeoff of some sort. Letting voters make those decisions will better enable them to evaluate the consequences of those decisions.

For those who can't be bothered to read about ballot measures because they prefer Democracy-Lite, move somewhere else.

In Oregon, the people decide.

Others have made good arguments for and against ballot initiatives. I would suggest that is the wrong way to approach the issue. Do not overlook Ted's thesis: the Rabid Right conducts a campaign of ideas to attack. Battles are more frequently won when one is on the offense. It is time to attack the Republican's paradoxical positions. I don't particularly care where you take the ideas, but I do care that you put them out under the spotlight and make Republicans answer to the Blue Barrage, rather than allow them to continue to lob cherry bombs at us.

As another poster said: these ideas need to be budget neutral. That means no "spending requirements" for education--it didn't help in Cali, why would it here. (Can you hear me rolling my eyes?)

Ideas: - Patient's bill of rights: Include contraception. - Reform the Kicker Rule: Allow for a portion of a matching surplus to be held in a rainy-day fund.
- Accountability in Salem: When state employees are found to have cheated, partially expose them personally to the consequences. Include fraud, embezzlement, forgery, assault, vehicular manslaughter, etc. - Ethics in governance: Attack the role of lobbyists in Salem. Bar legislators and their staffers from working with lobbyists in Oregon within ten years of leaving the capital. Take redistricting away from the party caucuses (HINT: see also current action in Florida on the topic).

If you like it, feel free to adopt it. I am already committed to the gills in other projects.

Any ballot measure needs a cohesive group behind it and a simple message. If people argue whether alternative 8 is better than alternative 12, the thing will never get approved for a ballot title, much less get on the ballot and pass. Look at the adult adoptee measure--that was basically a grass roots effort.

I think supporting SB 201 is a start--if 10% of signatures need to be collected before a ballot title is issued, that would cut down on ballot title shopping. Have the group which campaigns to pass the ballot measure be a diff. legal entity than the signature collecting entity--with restrictions on carryover money from signature gathering group to passage group. This could hamper initiativemeisters like Sizemore, but shouldn't hurt grass roots--orig. suggested by the chief sponsor of the adult adoptee measure.

And support Charlie Ringo's non-partisan legislature measure after what stunts the House majority has already done.

Here's an idea for a ballot measure:

Government Accountability in Energy Use

Over the last blah-bity-blah years, energy costs to local governments have increase by XXX%. Technology can and conservation can avoid these growing costs to taxpayers. Measure sets targets for local governments and schools to implement energy conservation measures, become and/or rely on local energy producers (the eastern oregon farmers will love this because it immediately gives them a market for their wind power?), and invest in on-site energy production.

Local gov'ts need to diversify their energy budget by 10% by 2010; 20% by 2020; and 50% by 2050 (I picked these because they follow the recommendations in Solar Today magazine's recent issue).

I don't know much about any of this other than we need to get our schools and local governments to start implementing energy efficiency measure--because it's a long-term cost tax payers can avoid, it can diversify the income stream for our farmers and ranchers, it creates more local jobs, and it makes good environmental sense.

I don't write this kinda stuff or do research on it. Maybe something like this exists right now. But it's an idea...

Another ballot measure might be to require the state to develop a state-run pharmacy for its employees and for individuals on OHP.

This would allow insurance companies to drop the pharm benefit from the bids given for both OHP and state benefits negotiators. If the state could bulk purchase medications from pharm distributors on a large scale, there could be cost savings to the tax payer while containing costs for public employees (maybe) and keep more money in OHP.

Again. No I don't have any data but it seems like there could be significant savings for many involved parties. Maybe local governments would opt to join in the system?

One problem with a lot of initiatives -- they're drafted by a bunch of tunnel-vision idealogues who don't know anything about drafting law or policy. I'm talking mostly about Sizemore here, 'cause he'd be a lot more of a threat if he actually knew his ass from his elbow when it came to drafting, but grass-roots progressives do it to.

Maybe progressives can improve our measures by having the legislature do the drafting. Try to pass it in the legislature, and use the initiative as backup. What's the cause? Health care? Education funding? Kicker reform? Non-partisan legislature? Pesticide regulation? Ask some progressive Democrats to introduce a bill and push it through the process. Testify for it, work your legislators, write letters to the editor about it, try to build public support.

Even if the bill fails, it's been through a professional drafting process and a public vetting, and it hopefully got some supporters along the way. Anything that's short, simple and to the point can be a good ballot measure.

What progressives really need is funding if we're going to be proactive on initiatives. We've lost some great measures in the past because we were outspent 20-1. If we don't improve fundraising, our wins will be few and far between.

Here's a couple of ideas to modify constitutional ammendments. Of course these would have to be framed well enough to get by the skepticism of people I know who vote against all constitutional ammendments unless given strong reason to do otherwise.

1)Reform Measure 25 which was a legislative referral in May 1996 requiring the 3/5 majority to raise taxes. First, someone should research the actual measure and see if it is true or just GOP hype that ending tax breaks requires the same 60% vote as legislation like HB 2152 (balance the budget with tax surcharge last session). There is no current member of the House who was there in 1996--either went to the Senate or now doing something else. Many young people never had a chance to vote on this and should be given the opportunity.

2) Kicker reform. Ideas: a)Specify more clearly (esp. dep. on how the Supreme Court case comes down) whether "general funds" are only those dollars collected directly from Oregon taxpayers or include federal money. B) Does it say in the measure that checks must be mailed out in the fall? Can't we go back to the system of returning the money as part of the tax refund process, thereby saving the cost of printing and mailing? c)How about changing the 2% number? Maybe make it 3 or 4%, maybe put the money from 0-1.9999999% in a reserve account and only refund the money over 2% d)Separate the indiv. and corporate kicker. Returning the money to individuals is one thing. But with all their other tax advantages do businesses really need/ deserve this money?

Of course these would be fights, but they would be progressives (rather than regressives) framing the debate if done right.

Re taxes and education spending: Like many people, I’ve been wondering about how a better long-term system of state funding for education (and everything else) could be achieved in Oregon. This question, of course, relates to a whole range of tax issues, including: the mix of property vs. income vs. sales taxes, the balance between corporate and personal tax rates, the appropriateness of local levies, property tax limitations, supermajority requirements, state reserve accounts vs. “the kicker,” and I’m sure lots of others.

For more than a decade, the legislature has done nothing much, and the voters have continued to graft these new silk purses onto this pig’s ear, with no one very happy with the result.

In looking for a way out, it seems clear to me that there needs to be some sort of negotiated settlement. By that I mean, for instance, we would not be able to create a state sales tax unless voters were assured relief in property or income taxes; voters would not remove the Multnomah County levy without being assured that adequate education funding will come to the County from Salem; we would be unable to do away with the property tax limitation without some way of guaranteeing voters that property tax increases would be restrained. (Personal aside: I’m not necessarily advocating any of these particular changes, but am responding to things that have been suggested but which didn’t garner enough support.)

This sort of give and take is precisely what legislatures do, and precisely what the initiative and referendum can’t do. In Oregon, we have a requirement that initiatives and referenda “embrace one subject only.” Art. IV, sec 1(d).

This leads me to conclude that it is impossible for any initiative to give us the solution to this structural problem. Let’s face it: people will vote against taxes. If any serious change requires each element to be approved separately, there’s no chance of the package of changes being accepted as a whole, since every voter will revert to his or her particular preferences on each subject. (Indeed, the right of the voters to accept some and not others is precisely what is guaranteed by the constitution’s single subject rule.)

The bottom line: there’s no compromise possible through initiative/referendum, and --in my view --no real way out though that route. However, the constitution provides for two other methods that could address the problem: a constitutional “revision,” approved by 2/3 or each house of the legislature and then a public vote, or a constitutional convention, which would require an initiative to create the convention and another to approve the result. Art. XVII, sec 1.

These two ideas have their own pitfalls, of course, but I don’t think there’s any real solution otherwise. I’d love to hear some thoughts on this, and certainly if anybody disagrees with my conclusion, please have at it.

• • *

Regarding the question of campaign contribution limits on initiatives: If I’m not mistaken, the rationale for the US Supreme Court disallowing these limits is that there’s no issue of potential corruption. That is, there’s no quid pro quo, in appearance or reality, when someone donates money to a cause, rather than to a person. There’s no access being purchased, no special treatment expected once the election is over, and therefore there’s no sufficient state interest in regulating these donations. In any event, it’s certainly true that regulating these donations is unconstitutional... one of the few bright line rules in campaign financing.

Thanks for reading, John Mulvey Portland

civil unions...this actually is an easy question. If you have the cash for more than one, how about something that will help people. Progressives actually care about the people, right. So first, a measure to fund all education. Maybe tax credits for job creation (only good,sustainable jobs, no thanks walmart)

by the way, If even one state legislator sponsors your bill, state employed legislative lawyers draft it in a way that is constitutional. This is a pretty useful part. It doesn't matter if the legislature actually ever passes it.

Dear Joel and Charlie,

Hi guys, I’ve known you for quite some time, we go pretty far back. We have good mutual friends and have worked together on campaigns.

On this web page you have called me a “whore” and not a true progressive. You have done this because we disagreed about medical mal practice reform / tort reform. And because you are angry at me for putting the issue on the ballot last year.

We could argue about the issue, about its merits. I could explain my position and you could explain yours. You could even try to convince that I was mistaken. And maybe I would change my mind.

But you didn’t do that. You didn’t act like adults. Instead you took cheap shots at me.

You took a rare public opportunity to somehow punish me for not being in complete agreement with your political views. You called me a whore.

Tell me was I a good whore when I

Built shanties and staged sit-ins to get companies to divest from South Africa?

Or when I gathered the signatures to raise the minimum wage in Oregon?

Or when I marched and staged demonstrations to disarm nuclear weapons?

Or when I was arrested and Rocky Flats Nuclear facility protesting the burning of plutonium by products?

Or when I volunteered at Jobs with Justice, KBOO, Sierra Club, Loaves and Fishes?

Or when I helped organize workers in their union campaign?

Or when I worked on Diane Rosenbaum’s campaign, Tom Harkin’s, Charlie Ringo’s, Tom Potter’s, or Howard Deans?

And who have been my clients since I’ve started my business:

Save the Library, Save the Forest, American Cancer Society, American Diabetes Association, Back ground Checks at Gun Shows, Publicly Funded Elections, SOLV

And am I a good whore when I pay my staff $10.50 an hour because I believe in a living wage even though I could get by paying much less.
Guys when you personally attacked me in a public fashion it was not trivial, it’s a very serious matter. Many of our mutual friends read this web page. You are attempting to shame me. I don’t take this matter lightly.

Perhaps you could do us both the dignity of at least talking to me directly personally to tell me how you judge my behavior before launching such a public and venomous personal attack. My phone number is 503-236-7208, I look forward to hearing from you both.

Respectfully, Ted Blaszak

Ted,

You committed the sin of bringing forward an issue that diverted (earmarked) money from trial attorneys during a presidential election.

Nevermind the argument that M35 would lead to better access to healthcare, "progressives" have to remember where their bread is buttered.

You went off the reservation.

You bit the hand that feeds you.

(insert betrayal cliche of choice)

Don't bother explaning what you did because you are not allowed to think for yourself AND consider yourself "progressive".

Benedict Arnold!

Folks:

One of the qualities of being progressive that I hold dear is tolerance for disparate opinions. The tort reform question is a profoundly complicated topic on which astute people can readily reach different conclusions.

Ted has done a lot for progressive causes. A fact I can attest to from 20 years of familiarity with his work.

The recent trend of this conversation threatens to obscure the initial, solid point about fielding progressive measures in Oregon. I'd be more interested in reading about that topic than a skirmish within the Blue camp - which mostly nourises the Reds.

As a recent immigrant from AR., I absolutely love the fact that I live not just in a blue state, but this particular state. It is wonderful, to say the least, to see so many people discussing (not just yaw-yawing from their soap boxes) politics on all the levels of government.

Having said that, this column has turned in to something on the order of what I would expect in AR. Making personal attacks in a political forum should be something left for the ignorant and/or Republicans.

Peace.

I initially jumped on this article to read about how Oregon Democrats Fail to Compete with Republican Ballot Measures and (in the fashion of Blue Oregon) read the intelligent commentary that follows.

Instead of the usual progressive discussion, I discover a few folks making personal attacks in lieu of logical remarks.

I have known Ted and his company off and on for several years now and find it appalling that any one who has met him or worked by his side would consider him a “whore” or that he would make a decision not lead by his heart

I find it a truly sad day when people who consider themselves “progressive” can’t look beyond the rank and file view points within the party. Let alone realize that by holding personal vendettas and not agreeing to disagree on these extremely complicated issues (whether it’s gay marriage, medical malpractice reform or the initiative process in general) we miss the ultimate problem, that every time we take these wedge issues on a personal level we are falling victim to “Roves” ultimate plan……………. to split the Democrats and galvanize the Republicans.

So lets get off the subject of school yard name calling and personal vendettas and get back to ways we are going to win up and down the ticket across Oregon.

I guess if Joel and Charlie are to be belived, progressives must tow Their line to be in the "in group" (thank you willie smith for pointing out to me how much politics is like high school.)

Ted-- I'm probably not part of the in-group either because even though I have years of progressive organizing (GBLT, pro-choice, economic justice), I'm working for Senator Westlund now (yes, working for an R and a good moderate one at that, hate me for it if you want Joel).

The problem in Oregon is that strict partisanship divides us. If we are going to effectively utilize initiatives to build our base, turn out our voters and elect progressives, we need to think about issues that unite people, not divide us. Perhaps there are some win-win issues and ways to cut the electorate differently.

Someone earlier wrote about tax reform and how tax increases get voted down. What if tax reform meant a tax cut for every working Oregonian?

Currently, Oregon relies on the income tax for over 80% of it's general fund and it's the most unstable form of revenue (and the reason we're experiencing budget cuts). The only way we are going to get a fair, adequate and stable tax system in Oregon will be to cut income and property taxes for individuals. Wouldn't it be great for us to be the ones handing out the cash to the voters for a change?

If it's coupled with a consumption, value added or business activity tax, and increase in coroporate minimums along with the elimination of some current tax breaks, we could improve the stability of our revenue and avoid these budget battles each session.

I think being a progressive should be more about solving problems and finding solutions and less about enforcing ideology. Left wing fundamentalism is not a lot prettier than right wing extremism when it resorts to intolerance and name-calling. Let's agree to respect the human dignity and ideas of every individual in this forum even, especially, when we disagree.

The arguement going on here is a perfect example of why we are losing ground in oregon. I mean the name calling, not the initiatives.

This is really silly. Someone is a "prostitute" because they disagree with you on one subject while supporting you on the vast majority?

Having known Ted for years I could defend him and tell you what a wonderful progressive he is, but honestly, i'm offended that I should have to.

Republicans are laughing at us now. Thank you. It wasn't loud enough before.

Hey, thanks for responding, William!

I guess my thought is this: I think part of the problem has been too many rigid rules that lock up funds in the state constitution --the kicker, mandatory minimum sentencing and the property tax limit come to mind, not to mention all the takings claims that will be coming through now. I’m inclined to strip more of that away, rather than add to it.

I’m assuming a 3.75% of gdp formula would represent an increase in spending from current levels? (Tell me if I’m wrong... I'm sure you've done the math.) Looking at the last few budget cycles, instituting a mandatory spending requirement for K-12 would create a nightmare for higher ed, health care, mental health... all the things left in the shrinking discretionary budget.

What would your initiative do to avoid this problem?

John Mulvey

I agree with John that there are serious concerns about setting mandated spending levels. According to the Quality Education Model, we already KNOW how much money SHOULD be going to schools.

One of the maiin reasons that it's not are other voter-passed measures with mandated spending eating up lots of money. We voters have spent $4.3 billion at the ballot box: Measure 11, mandatory minimum sentencing is now driving Oregon’s largest construction project- building prisons- it’s cost us a billion dollars. Other expensive measures include 44, requiring inmates to work, measure 66 state parks, and measure 99 in-home health care.

I'm sure many of us voted for these measures. Who doesn't want to put away bad guys and create more state parks? But, if each of those ballot titles had read “Voting yes may reduce payments to schools, human services and public safety,” would these measures have passed? Maybe.

Rather than address only one service: schools- Oregon needs to look at how it can provide all of the necessary services. We can't fund schools at the expense of people with disabilities, senior programs, OHP, etc. No matter how much we would like to.

To put forth a school-only proposal is creating instant divisions within the progressive community that includes advocates for other human services. Anyone who worked on Measure 30 saw what happened when seniors were split from the coalition becuase of the elimination of deduction for medical expenses.

The funny thing about tort reform is that it may be the most "progressive" reform the Bush Administration backs.

What a dilemma.

It is "progressive" because it employs limits and price controls in a market relationship, purportedly to achieve greater social utility.

The (mostly free) market transactions between tort victims and tort attorneys is sacrificed in order to de-incentivize the frivolous litigation burdening the cost of providing broad access to affordable healthcare.

Like any good "progressive" proposal, it seeks to remedy the symptoms (e.g., lawyers making huge profits; malpractice insurance skyrocketing) rather than deal with the root cause (i.e., lack of "loser pays" system providing no accountability for attorneys gambling on million dollar verdicts).

When viewed from 30,000 feet, it's downright amusing.

But just like the neo-cons realize they must throw a few bones to the religious right to keep the base energized, progressives can't afford to oppose a key funding partner in their drive to remain politically meaningful.