What is BlueOregon?

BlueOregon is a place for progressive Oregonians to gather 'round the water cooler and share news, commentary, and gossip. Learn more about BlueOregon and meet our contributors.

BlueOregon Sponsors

Advertise on BlueOregon

LEGAL STUFF

This site is published by Kari Chisholm at Mandate Media, but copyright to and responsibility for all posts and comments are owned by their respective authors.

Obviously, the posts and comments here are the views of their authors, and not of anyone else.

While we're strong believers in free speech, we reserve the right to delete comment spam or other offensive material. Our contributors, however, reserve the right to embarass themselves in public.

Sponsorship of BlueOregon (above) does not imply an endorsement of every post or comment on BlueOregon - and BlueOregon does not endorse the sponsors above. We do, however, reserve the right to reject ads for any reason.

Bill Sizemore's Ballot Initiatives For 2006 (So Far)
The One True bIX

Some time ago, I posted an item which compiled information about ballot initiatives which had been filed for 2006. At the time, there was only a handful. Currently, there are over thirty initiatives, referenda, and referrals listed with the Elections Division.

Not being up for putting together an item on all of them, I've decided instead to take a look at what Bill Sizemore has planned for the 2006 election cycle. Out of 37 initiatives listed through the Division's search form, a full 15 of them have been filed by Sizemore.

Initiative #10

  • Type: Statutory
  • Subject: Abolishes Public Sector Unions
    Complete Text Of Initiative (pdf)
  • Draft Ballot Title: Eliminates Public Employees' Right To Form Unions, Associations To Collectively Bargain, Resolve Grievances With Employers
    Complete Title Recieved (pdf) / Comments (pdf)
  • Certified Ballot Title: Eliminates Public Employees' Right To Form Unions, Associations To Collectively Bargain, Resolve Disputes With Employers
    Complete Title And Attorney General Letter (pdf)
  • Amended Ballot Title: No Appeal Filed

Initiative #15

  • Type: Constitutional
  • Subject: No Coerced Political Payroll Deductions
    Complete Text Of Initiative (pdf)
  • Draft Ballot Title: Amends Constitution: Prohibits Using Public Employees' Payroll Deductions For "Political Purposes" (Defined) Without Complying With Specified Requirements
    Complete Title Received (pdf) / Comments (pdf)
  • Certified Ballot Title: Amends Constitution: Restricts How Individuals And Organizations Receiving Public Employees' Payroll Deductions May Use, Manage Those Deductions
    Complete Title And Attorney General Letter (pdf>
  • Amended Ballot Title: Awaiting Supreme Court Opinion

Initiative #16

  • Type: Statutory
  • Subject: Public Employee Right To Vote On Union Representation
    Complete Text Of Initiative (pdf)
  • Draft Ballot Title: Prohibits Public Employer From Recognizing Employees' Labor Union Unless Majority Of Current Employees Elected Representation
    Complete Title Received (pdf) / Comments (pdf)
  • Certified Ballot Title: Requires New Election By Current Employees To Maintain Union Representation; Non-Voters Count As "No" Votes
    Complete Title And Attorney General Letter
  • Amended Ballot Title: No Appeal Filed

Initiative #17

  • Type: Constitutional
  • Subject: Government Employee Protection Act
    Complete Text Of Initiative (pdf)
  • Draft Ballot Title: Amends Constitution: Prohibits Using Any Employees' Payroll Deductions For "Political Purposes" (Defined) Without Complying With Specified Requirements
    Complete Title Received (pdf) / Comments (pdf)
  • Certified Ballot Title: Amends Constitution: Restricts How Individuals And Organizations Receiving Any Employee's Payroll Deductions May Use, Manage Those Deductions
    Complete Title And Attorney General Letter (pdf)
  • Amended Ballot Title: Awaiting Supreme Court Opinion

Initiative #19

  • Type: Statutory
  • Subject: Secretary Of State Must Check Every Signature
    Complete Text Of Initiative (pdf)
  • Draft Ballot Title: Limits Grounds For Rejecting Initiative, Referendum, Recall Petition Signatures; Requires Examination Of Each Submitted Signature
    Complete Title Received (pdf) / Comments (pdf)
  • Certified Ballot Title: Limits Grounds For Rejecting Initiative, Referendum, Recall Petition Signatures; Requires Examination Of Each Submitted Signature
    Complete Title And Attorney General Letter (pdf)
  • Amended Ballot Title: No Appeal Filed

Initiative #20

  • Type: Statutory
  • Subject: No Public Resources To Collect Political Funds
    Complete Text Of Initiative (pdf)
  • Draft Ballot Title: Amends Constitution: Government-Collected Money Cannot Be Used For "Political Purposes" (Defined) Or Commingled With Political Funds
    Complete Title Received (pdf) / Comments (pdf)
  • Certified Ballot Title: Restricts How Individuals, Organizations Receiving Money Collected With Public Resources May Use, Manage That Money
    Complete Title And Attorney General Letter (pdf)
  • Amended Ballot Title: Awaiting Supreme Court Opinion

Initiative #21

Initiative #22

Initiative #23

  • Type: Statutory
  • Subject: Ban On Discrimination In Insurance
    Complete Text Of Initiative (pdf)
  • Draft Ballot Title: Prohibits Insurance Companies From Using Credit Score Or "Credit Worthiness" In Calculating Rates Or Premiums
    Complete Title Received / No Comment Filed
  • Certified Ballot Title: Prohibits Insurance Companies From Using Credit Score Or "Credit Worthiness" In Calculating Rates Or Premiums
    Complete Title And Attorney General Letter (pdf)
  • Amended Ballot Title: No Appeal Filed

Initiative #25

  • Type: Constitutional
  • Subject: Private Property May Not Be Taken For Private Use
    Complete Text Of Initiative (pdf)
  • Draft Ballot Title: Amends Constitution: Prohibits Government Bodies From Condemning Private Property For Transfer To Another Private Entity's Use, Control
    Complete Title Received (pdf) / No Comments Filed
  • Certified Ballot Title: Amends Constitution: Prohibits Government Bodies From Condemning Private Property For Transfer To Another Private Entity's Use, Control
    Complete Title And Attorney General Letter (pdf)
  • Amended Ballot Title: Appeal Deadline March 25, 2005

Initiative #26

  • Type: Constitutional
  • Subject: Judicial Legislating Prohibition
    Complete Text Of Initiative (pdf)
  • Draft Ballot Title: Amends Constitution: Describes And Limits The Scope Of Judicial Authority; Specifies How Courts Must Construe, Interpret Laws
    Complete Title Received (pdf) / Comments (pdf)
  • Certified Ballot Title: Amends Constitution: Limits Courts' Authority To Construe Constitution And Statutory Provisions; Sets Standards For Interpreting Oregon Law
    Complete Title And Attorney General Letter (pdf)
  • Amended Ballot Title: Appeal Deadline April 4, 2005

Initiative #26

  • Type: Statutory
  • Subject: Limit On Bank Gouging
    Complete Text Of Initiative (pdf)
  • Draft Ballot Title: Establishes Limits On Bank Fees For Checking Account Items Presented For Payment Against Non-Sufficient Funds
    Complete Title Received / No Comments Filed
  • Certified Ballot Title: Establishes Limits On Bank Fees For Checking Account Items Presented For Payment Against Non-Sufficient Funds
    Complete Title And Attorney General Letter (pdf)
  • Amended Ballot Title: Appeal Deadline March 25, 2005

Initiative #28

Initiative #29

Initiative #30

March 22, 2005 | The One True bIX
Permalink: Bill Sizemore's Ballot Initiatives For 2006 (So Far)

Share on Facebook

Sponsored Advertising

Comments

Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Mar 22, 2005 1:43:32 PM

As a member of a public sector union, I'm delighted to see that Sizemore is interested in protecting me from my fellow workers' rapacious intentions.

Posted by: Pam | Mar 22, 2005 1:53:29 PM

Billy, holding a grudge against the teacher's union isn't nice.

Posted by: no one in particular | Mar 22, 2005 2:15:54 PM

I have to say the "no insurance discrimination based on credit score" and "no gouging consumer for NSF checks" items actually sound potentially non-crappy.

Posted by: JL | Mar 22, 2005 2:18:23 PM

Chalk up another 6 as Sizemore inits -- the Bobos are Sizemore's lackeys. Of course, Sizemore filed dozens last time around too, and couldn't get any on the ballot.

Posted by: Pam | Mar 22, 2005 2:34:36 PM

Why are Bobo's Sizemore lackey's?

Posted by: JL | Mar 22, 2005 2:43:57 PM

Carol was Oregon Taxpayers' United office manager and often files inits with or on behalf of Bill. Abner is Carol's husband.

Posted by: Rorovitz | Mar 22, 2005 2:46:13 PM

I thought the one on bank gouging and insurance looking at credit were interesting. Can I assume that since Bill's taken a financial turn for the worse, he's developed a view of other people out to get him?

I have an image of Bill not being able to get insurance, or paying a higher rate, then mumbling to himself about getting revenge.

I expect to see the next measure talking about people cutting him off in trafick, or not getting catsup at the drive through.

Is it just me, or is he getting more paranoid as time goes on?

Posted by: Charlie Burr | Mar 22, 2005 3:03:30 PM

Re: init #23: Bans Insurance Industry Discrimination

This seems to be legitimately pro-consumer- i really don't see the down side. Yes, I don't agree with Sizemore on much, but we're sympatico on this. Ive read it and can't really see any hidden agenda/obscure provisions that would lead to unintended consequences ect..

If someone thinks otherwise, would love to hear an opposing argument. Insurance companies have too much power in our state- & this is a reasonable reform to limit their gouging of consumers.

What would truly be a shame is if Sizemore is the only person to take on the insurance industry next cycle.

Other insurance reform ideas could include:

1) Open public hearings for insurance rate hikes.

Insurance cos should have to do more to justify rate increases, similiar to what our public utilities process. Open their books!

2) No Special Rights for Insurance Companies

End all state anti-monopoly exemptions.

3) Insurance Executive Compensation Disclosure

As rates continue to skyrocket, health insurance execs continue to make record bonuses. This would require prominent placement of CEO compensation on all bills mailed to consumers.

If tobacco companies can be forced to warn consumers about health risks, insurance companies can be forced to let consumers know where their money is going.

Posted by: David Wright | Mar 22, 2005 3:33:22 PM

Thanks for the summary recap, very interesting stuff.

Full disclosure: I'm a registered Republican (though of a distinctly bluish variety -- voted for Kerry last time around) and by no stretch a "progressive". But I'm also no fan of Bill Sizemore either. I am automatically suspicious of but not willing to reject out-of-hand any proposal he makes just because he's the author/sponsor.

Basically, I'm part of the "mushy middle" swing vote. ;-) And I've thoroughly enjoyed reading the discussions here at BlueOregon, as much as I may disagree with many of the posters here.

I was struck as I read through the list by the interesting titles used on these initiatives. The devil is in the details so I'll be looking very closely at each of these in the future, but based simply on the ballot titles themselves here's my "gut reaction" to them (for what it's worth -- may spark an interesting discussion?)

#10 - I'm personally no fan of unions, BUT what possible justification could there be for singling out public employees like this? Immediate NO.

#15 - Generally favorable depending on the details, but biased against constitutional changes, probable no.

#16 - Vaguely favorable concept with concerns about practicality, probable no.

#17 - Generally favorable depending on details, but again the constitutional thing, probable no.

#19 - Very suspicious, seems at first glance to be throwing up obstacles to reasonable rejection of spurious initiatives, very likely no.

#20 - Generally favorable depending on details, probable yes.

#21 & #22 - Favorable concepts, but I'm generally opposed to state mandates taking more control away from local school hiring and firing decisions, definite no.

#23 - Very favorable idea, probable yes.

#25 - Generally favorable idea, depending on details, might be worthy of constitutional change, tentative yes.

#26 (Judicial) - Immediate NO. Pet peeve of mine... confusing the legitimate function of the judicial branch with "judicial legislation/activism".

#26 (27? Bank gouging) - Generally favorable idea, depending on details, tentative yes.

#28 - Vaguely favorable idea, probably impractical, bad idea to make such a change to the overall tax system in isolation, immediate no.

#29 - Fairly favorable idea, absolutely impractical (where will all that lost tax revenue be made up?), immediate no.

#30 - Favorable idea, depending on details, likely yes.


These are just comments on immediate reactions based on general titles of the initiatives -- which, like it or not, is about as far as the "average" voter goes towards understanding a ballot measure (beyond the hype of political ads during the campaign).

Posted by: Steve Bucknum | Mar 22, 2005 4:46:14 PM

David - most of Sizemore's measures in the past that sounded reasonable had a poison pill inside sure to kill you.

Sizemore's measures remind me of a dog I once saw that had worms. The poor old dog ran around the lawn, scraping his butt on the ground trying to get rid of the worms. Dog = Oregon, I'll let you guess what I think of Sizemore.

Posted by: David Wright | Mar 22, 2005 5:57:32 PM

Steve - you're right, Sizemore does have a history of supporting some "almost OK" measures with something scary hidden inside. And I'll be looking carefully at those that seem OK at first glance, to find out if there's a "gotcha" in there somewhere.

But I'm willing to view each measure on its own merits and not hold Sizemore's authorship against it. ;-)

I do wonder, though, what process is in place for approving the official titles of these measures? Is there any sort of neutral (or at least multi-partisan) oversight to ensure that all the substantive impacts of a measure are reflected somehow in the title?

Given that many voters don't take the time to research the ballot measures and understand the details, I think it's important to at least make sure that the broad strokes are included in the title. How often do we hear from the losing side of any given measure that the voters "didn't understand the implications" of their vote? I'm generally suspicious of such claims, but I also know that some times the title of a ballot measure is misleading as to the true scope of that measure's impact, generally by omission rather than outright falsehood.

Posted by: ron ledbury | Mar 22, 2005 6:28:10 PM

Bill mis-identifies the current teachers union as a union rather than a political party.

If he would protect the right of tier-three teachers, the labor bargaining rights, as against their tier-one competitors he might then see the light to fixing PERS by enhancing real labor bargaining rights.

If Bill has got money to blow I would sure like a piece of it to organize.

Posted by: David Wright | Mar 22, 2005 6:37:18 PM

So, after reading the actual measures... setting aside the merits of the issues involved, WOW are these poorly written. Many of them seem to have been written by a 4th grade class... but perhaps that is insulting to 4th graders... ;-)

Anyhow, #23 and #30 still look OK to me. They'd probably get my vote.

I didn't see anything to change my mind on the "probable no" items. Many of them were laughable -- or would be if they weren't so scary.

#20 is one I'd have to think hard about. I question the exemption for "lobbying", but I'm generally sympathetic to the basic idea. Anybody have a comment on why this would be either good or bad?

#25 same as above, I don't see anything immediately wrong with it, what's the catch?

#27 is poorly written but perhaps not fatally so (the legislature can amend this act? No kidding, it's part of their job description... and they can even amend the inflation limit if they choose, so that part is meaningless...) Another sympathetic idea. No obvious catch that I can see, still a probable yes.

I'm very serious about asking if anyone can show me something that I'm missing with one of those measures that I'm inclined to support. Thanks!

Posted by: LT | Mar 22, 2005 8:42:08 PM

# 20 is "paycheck protection" favored by Grover Norquist and others who say the worst thing that can happen is healthy unions.

I had a very interesting discussion with a Republican staffer recently who said "you know, I spent some time with people from public employee unions, and they are just ordinary people trying to make a living".
Sizemore would consider that guy a union dupe. Make up your own mind on that one.

If you believe the anti-taxers deserve more rights than people who do the kind of work Sizemore et. al. could never successfully do (because the work involves being nice to others and a considerable attention to detail) then 20 is your measure.

If you believe like many of us that initiativemeisters should quit making money off the ballot measure "industry" and go out and get real work in the real world like the rest of us, run as far away from anything sponsored by Sizemore, McInitire, et. al. They are not interested in the public good, just their own good.

There are people who say that Christians believe in the concept of the common good. Sizemore says it is socialist for people to care for what happens to others. So why has he built a career on ballot measures instead of something more worthwhile?
And when was the last time he actually passed a measure? Before 2000, as I recall.

Posted by: David Wright | Mar 22, 2005 9:59:35 PM

LT -- I believe you may be confusing #20 (public funds not used to collect "political money") with #15/#17 (the actual "paycheck protection" that you mentioned).

Or am I missing something?

Anyhow, why would *any* of those measures give "anti-taxers" *more* rights than anyone else? What additional rights would they grant to the "anti-tax" forces (or conversely what rights would they take away from others)?

I'm very curious, because I'm generally in favor of "paycheck protection" -- my objections to #15/#17 are mostly technical and I don't like the idea of mucking up the constitution with badly written laws, however good the ideas behind them.

So why is "paycheck protection" a bad thing? How is it an infringement of workers' rights?

Thanks...

Posted by: Pedro | Mar 22, 2005 10:57:58 PM

Poor old Bill is doing a Lon Mabon melt down. Now that Bill is broke and most of of his big money contributors have died or left the state he won't be getting the required signatures to get many of these on the ballot. The insurance and bank measures are red herrings designed to lure people into signing the anti-union and anti-judge petions at the same time. McIntire is the one to watch out for. He still has the clout do real damage.

Posted by: Gavin Weld White | Mar 23, 2005 11:45:12 AM

Pedro: Thanks for pointing out the use of good measures to get people to sign a stack of measures. The good ones here may be designed to draw in enough support (from multi-page signers drawn in by the firs petition on the stack) to get the others on the ballot.

David:
By the numbers:


  • 19: There are three main problems here. The first is the concept — it prohibits the SoS from using statistical sampling to determine the number of valid signatures. The current sampling methods favor petitions, and need to be adjusted (I know a professor who is working on a Bayesian method), but the cost of checking every signature is prohibitive. The second problem is that this initiative would redefine the qualifications of an elector to sign a petition (previously defined by ORS 250.025(1), via ORS 250.005(2), and thus section 2, Article II, Oregon Constitution). The poison pill here, though, is section 1(b):
    No signature shall be rejected without the elections officer having first exhausted every reasonable means to determine whether the signature is valid, including directly contacting a voter whose signature is questioned.
    When faced with floods of voter registration cards, would you rather that our elections officials were calling people who might or might not exist to check if they have registered, or would you prefer that they spend their time registering new voters? If they can't check to make sure the signatures are valid, would you prefer that the initiative be thrown onto the ballot anyway? What happens when this passes, and someone starts bringing in stacks of fraudulent signature sheets? We have to accept as valid the ones we don't check! Absurd.

  • 20: the city of Portland is considering setting aside 0.2 percent of its budget to finance the campaigns of candidates who
    • gather, from at least 1000 people, a signature of support and a $5 contribution
    • agree to limit campaign spending
    • comply with strict administrative rules
    • reject private contributions

    Measure 20 would make that illegal.


  • 23 & 27: These appear to be either bait, self-defense, or both. Reading them, I have visions of a man unable to pay his bills or get reasonable insurance rates. Viscious cycle, that. Is he being compassionate? I'd love to believe it. I have to keep in mind the possibility that these are strategic, as mentioned above.

  • 25: I find this one suspicious. It changes the constitution, which practice I dislike as a rule. It is unclear as to what concerns this will address. Do we need this? What governmental entities are currently in the practice of taking private property for private use? This appears to be aimed at some body that transfers ownership of property to raise its tax base, but that seems like an absurd notion anyway. I would oppose this one on the grounds that needless legislation is bad government, and it isn't necessary to prohibit the government from doing something it has not been empowered to do in the first place.

    What good might we do with the power that would be prohibited by this measure, if we had that power? We might buy land from private entities, and sell it to (or create) a company for the construction and maintenance of some improvement that benefits those nearby (thus raising property values, and thus indirectly tax base). I personally would prefer to see us run such thing as public entities, but there might be an argument in some situation for a private structure.


  • 30: Appears to be okay — this is one of those bait measures. It would prohibit taxes on internet access, though it might not prohibit taxes on services provided over the internet. It specifically avoids prohibiting taxes on telecommunications services. That's good, because although it's great for 'net access to be free, more and more of our services (especially in the telecom sector) will be provided via the net, and thus we may face an ever-decreasing tax-base from telecom if we disallow its taxation online.

Posted by: David Wright | Mar 23, 2005 12:26:46 PM

Gavin - Granted that some of these seemingly OK measures may be strategically placed to help other measures gain signatures... would that be a reason not to support them if they really are OK by themselves?

Also, I think had a different interpretation than you did about #30's exemption for telecom/cable services. I agree that's an important element which makes the measure more palatable, however as I read the measure I interpret that to apply to the *connection* services (i.e., your phone line, DSL, or cable modem connection) which may be subject to regulatory taxes as is now the case, but not to any services that might be employed using TCP/IP or derivative protocols over that connection.

For example, if you use a cable modem to get to the internet, your cable connection (a telecom service) that is your conduit to the internet may be taxed as it is now; however any VoIP services that you utilize via that cable connection may *not* be taxed. Which, if I am correct in my interpretation, would mean a gradual loss of telecom taxation revenue (as you described) since under that scenario a person could cancel their regular (taxed) phone service and go strictly to VoIP.

That's how I read the measure, anyhow. Seems like there's some degree of ambiguity there as to the intent -- which would make me less likely to support the measure. I'd rather have no law at all than a poorly written law, unless there is some critical overriding concern (as does not seem to be the case here).

I see your point about the consequences of #20 for Portland; while I don't necessarily favor public campaign financing, that's really a separate issue and I'd rather see a thorough debate on that topic before cutting it off at the knees via this measure. Guess that's a no after all. ;-)

I completely agree on #19. The citizen initiative/referendum process is valuable but if anything we should be raising the bar for getting something on the ballot, not lowering it.

Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Mar 23, 2005 1:33:12 PM

holy crap. i agree with sizemore on two of these? something's gotta be wrong here!

i think back to M5, and how so many school supporters backed it. we now know the true outcomes of M5, and whatever good came out of it, overall it's been disatrous for oregon schools.

i can only think anything that seems "pro-consumer" from sizemore has to be trouble. and even if the measure is a good idea, and well written (these would be firsts for sizemore), the fact that he's as trustworthy as a cheyney smile makes you have to oppose the damn thing on principle alone.

besides, isn't he supposed to be in prison or something?

Posted by: Kai Jones | Mar 23, 2005 2:40:42 PM

T.A. Barnhart--nah, the judge never ordered jail time...not yet anyway.

Posted by: Marshall Runkel | Mar 23, 2005 2:46:45 PM

One correction to David's excellent post.

Internet services over cable lines are not now telecom services. The FCC classified Internet service over cable lines as an Information Service under the definitions of the 96 Telecom Act. Local governments don't receive any revenue from Information Services that travel over facilities in the public right of way.

Believe it or not, a debate about this very subject began here in Portland not too long ago. The Supreme Court is hearing a case that concerns this issue soon. Here's a link to ISP and consumer groups statements about the case: http://www.earthlink.net/about/press/pr_brandxpreview/

Posted by: David Wright | Mar 23, 2005 3:45:17 PM

Marshall -- thanks for the info. Being a DSL user myself, I didn't realize that cable internet is regulated differently from cable TV.

From the link you provided, it looks like the most recent court ruling actually overrode the FCC classification of cable broadband as an information service, thus reclassifying it as telecom? And, the current case before the Supreme Court is an appeal by the FCC of that court ruling (i.e., an attempt to re-establish cable internet to be an information service again)?

Quite confusing, and obviously nowhere near settled yet. And scary as well because of that bit where the FCC would like to reclassify DSL service if they win the Supreme Court case. Restricting consumer choice with all broadband options is a very bad thing.

By the way, you're obviously knowledgable about these issues, what's your take on the interpretation of #30 in this regard?

Thanks...

Posted by: Anne | Mar 23, 2005 3:59:07 PM

Quick tutorial on ballot titles, as requested by Mr. David Wright.

1. Chief petitioners file prospective petition with text, forms, and 25 signatures.

2. Prospective initiative is forwarded to the Attorney General's office for draft ballot titles.

3. Public comments are received on whether the proposed initiative meets procedural constitutional requirements. One of the leading cases on such requirements is Armatta.

4. Attorney General's office reviews public comments to determine whether procedural constitutional requirements are met.

5. Attorney General's office writes certified ballot title, taking comments into consideration.

6. Any registered voter who submitted public comments may challenge the certified ballot title in the Supreme Court.

You can get on a mailing list to receive all this info on each initiative as it happens.

Oregon law requires that a ballot title contain:

1. A caption not to exceed 15 words. For a constitutional amendment, the caption must begin "AMENDS CONSTITUTION;"

2. A simple and understandable statement not to exceed 25 words that describes the result if the measure is passed;

3. A simple and understandable statement not to exceed 25 words that describes the result if the measure is rejected; and

4. A concise and impartial summary of the measure and its major effect not to exceed 125 words.

All this and more in the State Initiative and Referendum Manual.

Hope that helps.

Posted by: David Wright | Mar 23, 2005 4:25:37 PM

Thanks very much Anne, great information -- that does indeed help!

Posted by: Marshall Runkel | Mar 23, 2005 6:27:39 PM

David's analysis of the issues in the Brand X case are spot on. The administration is schizophrenic in its approach to telecom, so have no useful prognostications about where this will go. The nine, Tolkien reference intended, are gonna have a rough time with this one. Wholeheartedly agree that restricting consumer choice in broadband is very bad policy.

Re: Sizemore's #30, my guess is that you are right; most if not all electronic information will migrate into some form of IP format. If the nine endorse the loosely defined, and that's a generous characterization, Information Service classification for Internet services over cable, the definition will hold for the next generation of telecom infrastructure. Verizon just, temporarily, pulled the plug on a massive fiber to the home build in WA County to put that prospect into perspective. It's a tough argument to make, but I'm generally against any class preemptions or safe harbors from taxation. Cue Tax Man.

Posted by: LT | Mar 23, 2005 7:37:39 PM

Here is why I oppose "paycheck protection" regardless of which ballot # it is this year (I didn't read carefully).

1) I oppose reruns, and that has been tried before.
2) It is part of Grover Norquist's national agenda (once I did some websearching for a friend on Norquist and have a disk with all the info). People like Norquist wouldn't know how to deal with getting a real job in the real world, but we are supposed to believe their anti-union, anti-tax, everyone for themselves agenda is in our best interests.
Sorry, I don't buy that.
3) As even some Republicans are beginning to admit, if unions totally went away, that won't solve all problems.
Businesses aren't required to get shareholder permission before political spending. Now, if they were, I would be more inclined to support the same thing for unions. But that is not what Norquist and crew are proposing. Do we even know the contibutors to such groups / individuals as Sizemore, McIntire, Norquist?
4) I was born in a large city where union/management attitudes were fossilized. I don't think either is infallible. I think unions (and for that matter caucuses and other organizations) should publish their criteria for endorsing candidates and their win / loss record because I think to much of it is a wink and a nod. But I don't think smashing unions by requiring them to do more paperwork (while groups like Swifties don't have to divulge contributors) is the answer.

Posted by: David Wright | Mar 23, 2005 11:45:18 PM

LT -- I agree that Norquist is an extremist, as is Sizemore. But surely the fact that either of them support or oppose a given measure should be irrelevant to a person who is capable of deciding for himself (or herself) the merits of the issue based on the details involved.

I realize my own anti-union position is unpopular here, so I'm not going to argue about whether unions are good or bad. It's not really relevant to this discussion anyhow. It's really a question of placing the burden on those who want to collect money as opposed to putting the burden on those who do not wish to contribute money.

Unions do exist, and they are able to collect money from their members for political purposes. Given that reality, what mechanism should be used to collect those funds? Should it be opt-in, or opt-out? I say it should be opt-in, and I don't see the harm in writing laws to enforce that premise. In either case the union may still engage in political activity with funds from its membership. But an opt-in system protects the employee against making unwanted (or unintentional) donations -- hence the term "paycheck protection", because that's exactly the idea.

Why should an employee have to take positive action to prevent doing something he never intended to do in the first place? Why is the presumption built into the system that just because the union represents the employee in matters of employment, the union also represents the employee in matters of politics? That just plain doesn't make any sense.

The comparison with shareholders approving political spending by business is a bit of a red herring for a number of reasons, not least of which is that an investor has an entirely voluntary relationship with the company in which he invests, while an employee has an involuntary relationship with the union that represents him (unless he's in a "Right to Work" state, which sadly Oregon is not).

So, bottom line, I understand that you're pro-union, anti-Norquist. But that still doesn't justify allowing unions to take political "contributions" from members by default and placing the burden on the employee to take action to stop such unwanted contributions and retrieve the funds that had been taken.

Posted by: Pliny | Mar 23, 2005 11:53:35 PM

Somebody should call up the people representing BRO's case to deal with #26. Depending on how you read it, the damn thing could gut judicial review.

I'm not talking about that pouty "no excercising legislative" powers bit either. The requirement that courts not depart from the text of law without an argument that the departure is what it's framers intended is the hinky bit.

If this isn't a revision of the Oregon Constituition, I don't know what is,

Posted by: The One True b!X | Mar 24, 2005 12:58:01 AM

Man, look what I started. What happened to all the conversation about cute butts?

Posted by: Becky | Mar 24, 2005 7:34:43 AM

I personally have very mixed feelings about the whole idea of paycheck protection. I believe people ought to be able to decide for themselves whether they want to be in a union and whether their money will go to support political activity. Also, I think unions at times need a reason to exist and because of that they seek wage and benefit increases when they're not called for. And union organizers burned down my grandfather's saw mill when I was a child, so I've always had that in the back of my mind. On the other hand, unions are necessary to keep corporate heavyweights from taking advantage of workers - and I think we're in a time like that right now (i.e. Wal-Mart, where I love to shop because of the low prices, but where workers are getting a tough deal).

The bottom line for me on ballot measures dealing with this issue is that there is only one reason why they are on the ballot. Republicans put them there in an effort to de-fund Democrats, not out of any kind of righteous concern for protecting people's political free speech rights. And Democrats, who are usually the best friends of political speech rights, don't address the problem because doing so would defund them.

I've come to the conclusion that the union political contribution problem is one that should be solved by union members, who should get more involved in their own union's political structure if they don't like what their union is doing. Government politicians need to leave them alone.

Posted by: asdf | Mar 24, 2005 9:00:13 AM

Looks like it is time for ballot measure reform.

How about one ballot measure per citizen.

How about no paid signature gatherers

How about the 5 measures with the most signatures get on the ballot.

How about we have an independant panel edit the language to 1) clarify the meaning of the bill, 2) highlight those portions of the ballot measure that are redundant to existing law, 3) list the largest private and commercial interests in favor of and against the measure.

Posted by: David Wright | Mar 24, 2005 9:19:59 AM

Becky -- I understand the concern about "paycheck protection" having the effect of de-funding union political activities, and by extension the Democratic party. It's an entirely reasonable concern for those who wish to support unions and Democrats.

But consider for a moment exactly why these measures would tend to de-fund union political activities. Unless a measure would somehow limit contributions or otherwise restrict a union's ability to collect voluntary donations (which these specific measures do not appear to do), then the funds that are "lost" to unions are simply those funds that have been taken in the past from employees who did not wish to donate them.

In other words, the anti-paycheck-protection position is basically, "But we'd lose money if we made it too easy for people to not give us money if they don't want to."

Which is a true statement. But not exactly the "moral high ground".

Posted by: David Wright | Mar 24, 2005 9:29:15 AM

"ASDF" -- Why build in arbitrary limits on measures, such as one per person or the top 5 measures make the ballot? Who's to say that in any given cycle one person might not have two good ideas, or there might be 6 worthy measures?

However, I agree that the system should be set up to make it more difficult to qualify. Citizen initiative is a good thing; special interest initiative not so much.

I do like the idea about no paid signature gatherers, though. If a measure really is a good idea, or people really do care enough about it, there should be enough volunteers available to get the job done. If not enough people will volunteer to gather signatures, that'd be a pretty decent indication that the measure isn't worthy of consideration in the first place.

Posted by: Becky | Mar 24, 2005 5:35:29 PM

David -

Perhaps you missed my point. I agree it's a problem, but I think the union members who don't like it ought to work their way into leadership positions and change the private organization to which they belong. The only reason for politicians to get involved is to sway political power one way or the other. That makes union members pawns.

Posted by: David Wright | Mar 24, 2005 6:18:13 PM

Becky --

I caught your point about union members working from within to change what they don't like. And that's fine as far as it goes.

But we aren't really talking about "politicians" getting involved with internal union business here, we're talking about establishing the law of the land that says a union must get express permission from each member before collecting funds from that member for political purposes.

Unions already enjoy protections enshrined in law, so I'm afraid the claim that government should just "leave them alone" as you suggested just doesn't fly. Unless you'd suggest *really* letting government leave unions alone by removing their legal protections?

Referring to a union as a "private organization" is an interesting spin. ;-) It almost sounds like an employee has a real choice as to whether or not he joins. And in a non-"Right to Work" state such as Oregon, while an employee is entitled to resign from the union, they still must pay an "agency fee" (which may not include funds for political activities) -- and they are not allowed to participate in union elections, etc.

Which means, if a union member doesn't like his union's political activities, he MUST continue to financially support those activities by remaining a full member in order to even have an opportunity to effect change from within.

It's really not much of a choice at all. In fact, worse still, if an employee opts out of the union, he's still bound by the collective agreement negotiated on his behalf by that union -- and paid for by his compulsory "agency fee" -- but is not allowed to vote on acceptance of that agreement.

Sorry, I really didn't for this to devolve into a bash against unions... just a discussion about how those in the minority within a union are effectively if not legally forced to support political activities with which they do not agree.

Now, some "paycheck protection" measures across the country have been more onerous than others -- for example, requiring express permission from each member before any given expenditure of political funds by the union. These measures however (#15 and #17) simply state that the funds may not be withheld from an employee's paycheck unless the union has express written permission to do so from the employee, renewed once each year. There's no restriction on how such funds, once employee permission has been obtained to collect them, can be spent. And it's an annual renewal process. In fact, I see no provision for an employee to change his mind within the year, so this is really about as watered-down as you'll find from those "anti-union" backers.

Anyway, my basic point in response to yours, Becky, is that since politicians wrote laws that created the framework within which unions operate, of course they need to get involved with maintaining and refining that framework, to make sure that the rights of all workers are fairly represented.

Posted by: Gavin Weld White | Mar 24, 2005 7:15:21 PM

Ah, Unions.

We are all members of at least one Union, and the argument for paying one is the same as for all the others.

For over two hundred years, these United States (and their citizens) have labored to create the nation in which we now live. We benefit, daily, from the efforts of others who have paid into the system with the products of their lives. Although I might, as some do, withhold the portion of my tax bill that would go to the Pentagon, I cannot do so in good conscience so long as I enjoy the benefits of citizenship. For this reason and others, so long as I live as a citizen of this country, I will work to transform the system and influence the government of these United Stated.

Union members, even those whose membership is unintentional, benefit from the Union to which they pay their dues. That Union represents its members' interests in every way that it is instructed, by its members, through its democratic governance structure. Often, the very reason some people think a Union is unecessary is because the Union has done such a good job.

For these reasons, I wholeheartedly agree with Becky when she says disgruntled Union members should work to change the Union.

Unless we are transgressing against humankind, or are incapable of conducting ourselves as a democracy, we should be allowed the respect of governing our own affairs. This is a matter of empowering communities for the purpose of self-determination.

Posted by: Becky | Mar 24, 2005 9:35:57 PM

While fully understanding David's views (I could have written them myself just a couple of years ago) I must say this to Gavin: Well said, and I absolutely agree.

Posted by: Todd Birch | Mar 24, 2005 10:59:47 PM

As even some Republicans are beginning to admit, if unions totally went away, that won't solve all problems.

But it's worth a shot, isn't it? I say let's encourage unions to do just that, to Totally Go Away - especially in the public sector - and see what happens. If it doesn't work out, we can always go back to the Old Ways.

Posted by: David Wright | Mar 25, 2005 12:58:34 AM

Gavin -- I agree with Becky. That was remarkably well said. Seriously. You managed to reframe the debate so that not only could I not oppose unions without appearing to spit on the graves of the Founding Fathers, but you completely changed the question from fairness for workers to making it a patriotic duty and moral obligation to pay every cent that a union demands of you regardless of your own views.

Outstanding!

So, I will concede the following:

  • IF one considers it a moral obligation to pay all union fees regardless of whether the union actually represents your own "best interests" (as you see them); AND furthermore one believes that this moral obligation should be codified as a legal obligation (which is not the case today), then any form of paycheck protection is a bad idea.

  • IF, however, one either does not consider this to be a moral obligation, or believes that even if it is a moral obligation is should not be made a legal obligation (as is the case today), then paycheck protection is a good idea.

So the question is not really whether paycheck protection is good or bad. My mistake, and thanks for pointing that out! ;-)

The question really is whether all of the money paid as union dues starts out as the union's money, or as the employee's money to give to the union, in the first place.

I must say, though, that if one takes the first position (such that the natural conclusion is that paycheck protection is bad), then one must logically favor a change to the current labor laws that make union dues at least partially voluntary. In other words, if paycheck protection is a bad idea, then current labor laws must also be intolerable as they do allow for something to protect in the first place.

Which is a perfectly consistent position to take. And I don't want to put words in your mouth, I don't know if you actually do take that position or not. I happen to vehemently disagree with the premise, and therefore the conclusion, but that is clearly not an argument that will be resolved here!

Nice move granting union dues the same moral legitimacy as federal taxes, by the way. Utter hogwash, but clever nonetheless. There may be some superficial parallels between the US Government and a labor union, but there are an awful lot of differences, such that your claim that "the argument for paying one [union] is the same as for all the others" is absurd.

But again, that leads us quite a bit off topic... which, as I recall, was supposed to be about the merits of the Sizemore initiatives. ;-) And, since the merits of the paycheck protection measures would depend entirely on one's subjective personal views about whose money is at stake, I guess there's no objective answer to that one.

But it's been an interesting discussion, anyhow...

Posted by: asdf | Mar 25, 2005 6:44:39 AM

David,

The system is getting seriously abused in Oregon and California. Most people don't know what they are voting for when they vote on ballot measures. The wording is often complex and misleading, and the implications are often not readily evident. There are too many ballot measure for people to pay attention to and research.

Why have an upper limit on the total number of ballot measures in a single election?
-- try asking anyone on the street that does not consider themself a political junkie. The more ballot measures the less people will be willing to actually read and research issues, let alone vote. Only voting on the top signature accumulating measures should give us a chance to vote on the issues that people care about (assuming no paid signature gatherers). Ones that don't make the cut can try again the next cycle.

Why limit the number of ballot measures an individual can submit?
-- If you can't be happy with submitting a single statewide ballot measure every election cycle, you're ego needs some running over by a Mac truck. Besides, maybe Sizemore would be able to proofread and prioritize his submissions.

I would add that non-constitutional ballot measures should pass a brief judicial review before we vote on them.

Posted by: Becky | Mar 25, 2005 7:20:29 AM

One other point for David. The same politicians that are clamoring to weaken union power and undermine union political influence from outside the union belong to a political party that is every bit as corrupt as the worst unions. Yet they vigorously resist any efforts to clean up their own organization because doing so would weaken their own power.

We might just as well face the fact that human beings like lording it over each other and we create intricate power structures, with rule systems filled with loopholes for the powerful, all to ensure we can do just that. It even happens in interpersonal or office relationships. It's rotten if you're not at the top, and it's treacherous if you are. I have never understood the pecking order kind of thinking so I don't play well in that kind of power structure, preferring rather to be more of a loner. But for those who don't like being on the bottom tier of a power structure to which they belong, it's got to be up to them to find a way to work up to the top where they have the power to change it to suit themselves. Outside meddling is really just another way of manipulating others to increase one's own power.

Regarding limits on the initiative process, I'll just say that I'm so sick of strict laws created to address abuses by a very few individuals with the result being a loss of freedom and rights for everyone else. I think Oregonians are wising up. We need to keep our initiative process workable so we have a chance to address problems that get caught up in a political quagmire in Salem.

Posted by: David Wright | Mar 25, 2005 9:43:27 AM

Asdf -- I agree there are too many spurious measures making it to the ballots here in Oregon. I simply disagree that the answer to this is placing arbitrary limits on the total number of measures allowed. I prefer simply to raise the bar for inclusion, and tweak the rules where necessary to help ensure that it really is a citizen initiative process and not just a "special interest group with enough money to buy signatures" initiative process.

I would very much favor some sort of judicial "pre-qualification" review for all measures as well. Why even put issues to a vote if the resulting changes will be unconstitutional?

Becky -- Welcome to the Dark Side! Here's your Libertarian club card... :-D

Screw the little guy, let him fend for himself and claw his own way to the top without government interference or assistance?

So, we can go ahead and dismantle Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the EEOC, the SBA, any and all education assistance programs... you know, anything where the government "meddles" with people at the "bottom tier of a power structure to which they belong" making their own way to the top?

I dunno, maybe you really are a Libertarian... but if so, then I really don't understand your position on the whole paycheck protection thing.

Also, I agree that the major political parties in this country (and, let's be honest, ANY country) suffer from some level of corruption. But if we had to wait for politicians to completely reform their own parties before allowing them to actually, you know, govern... we'd be waiting a long time...

Posted by: ron ledbury | Mar 25, 2005 2:20:50 PM

Becky -- I love it.

You might enjoy reading some of my memorandums opposing the Measure 29, HB 3659, bonding back in late 2003.

The laws to protect us from excess power are already on the books, in black and white in the Oregon Constitution.

If a judge can ignore the constitution when it suits them, in deference to the elected officials, then there is really no point anyway in actually passing any initiative.

The creeping trend in law has been about segmenting people and groups for special treatment rather than merely having laws that are equally applicable to all.

My favorite is the differential treatment for trustees of pensions that hold the assets of public employees from those that hold assets from the rest of us, if we have any. Eight percent returns for all or none . . it is the equal privileges and immunities thing to do.

The buzzwords that enable segmentation is the judicial acceptance, principally in economic regulation, for the legislature to posit "any rational" non prohibited reason for segmentation. It can even be presented ad hoc for the first time in a court action. Once the segmentation has occurred then it is open season for any and all disparate treatment between segments without regard to the the original narrow purpose for the segmentation in the first place.

At the extreme of analytical absurdity of the principal, in action, is when the guy from Welches proposes tacking on a fee to our mandatory auto insurance bills. He is merely looking at the convenience of using insurance companies as a tax collection agent rather than pegging the collections to anything remotely related to protecting people from the financial burden of uninsured drivers.

Go read Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois (88-1872), 497 U.S. 62 (1990) and then lets talk about whether mandatory participation in PERS or a state health plan is about respecting the freedom of association and unionism or instead whether it is more about political patronage. These are two radically different concepts.

Bill S. needs to forget whining about unions because unions are not the problem.

If I was a 22 year old government employee and the state said that the pension system costs 20 to 40 percent on top of my wage and the health care costs 900 hundred dollars per month that I would like that in the form of straight pay, thank you very much, so that I can go buy a house; with the extra 2 grand a month I could eliminate house payments from my monthly budget in less than ten years time. Go read the McIntire initiative (number 9), and see whether it conforms to this idea. Can anyone really look upon Don McIntire as an advocate of labor bargaining rights? I can.

The entire Pension Obligation Bond Frenzy is premised on political patronage and not on union rights, union free association rights. Suppose the union, the Oregon Education Association, had their own pension trustee for the benefit of their members. If they ran it into the ground they would likely be tossed into the pokey. Instead, our state treasurer, and state treasurers across the country, are rewarded with an opportunity to borrow money to play like they are Wall Street big wigs and make offers on PGE and such. It creates a strong disincentive to sound pension plan design. The more unsound the plan the bigger the opportunity to invest and to issue bonds. Now follow the money, not just to the public employees, but to the folks that get a piece of the bond money through investments and now you have a self-reinforcing recipe for perpetual fiscal chaos. Follow the money . . . follow it to voting blocks.

If Bill S. had a bit more insight he would draft an initiative to take on the actuaries and bond counsel and the bond-rating folks; to thereby get back at the OEA. Instead he spins his wheels in some myopic world.

Do not underestimate the level of dread and anger that the bond lawyers might feel when they look at number 9. It is rather daring.

(I was not paid by anyone for this endorsement of number 9, it is support out of my own free will, on behalf of fiscal sanity and all public employees hired after August 29, 2003.)

Posted by: afs | Mar 27, 2005 10:59:41 AM

Q: For someone who's fairly new to Oregon politics...How do we get out-of-state money thrown out of the Oregon State initiative process? Why is out-of-state money allowed to dominate this process?

David Wright... Bush is using federal government money for political purposes. He's having Social Security employees advocate for privatization. There's pro-privitization political info all over the government Social Security website. How do we opt out of our money being used for Bush's political agenda? Last I saw, participation in paying federal taxes isn't a voluntary act.

Posted by: David Wright | Mar 27, 2005 4:37:29 PM

Afs - A few comments for you:

First off, the point of government is to govern -- and to an extent, that will always involve some political activities as well as purely administrative ones. Whereas, the point of a union is to negotiate terms of employment with an employer on behalf of a collection of workers. Political activities have NOTHING to do with the primary function of the union, except to the extent that anything can be politicized. This is one of many reasons that it is incorrect to try to equate the federal government with unions (or vice versa...)

Even so, I am also uncomfortable with the lines that have been crossed by the Bush administration regarding the use of public funds for overtly political propaganda. To the extent that laws were broken in doing so, those responsible should be prosecuted. If there are no laws currently on the books about this, then there should be to prevent similar things from happening in the future. It's a slippery slope, however, because when you get right down to it whatever administration is in charge at the moment is going to try to implement policies that they favor, which will generally be at the expense of the opposition, hence the inherently political nature of government (per my first point). So any such regulation would need to be carefully constructed so as not to hamstring the legitimate functioning of the Executive Branch.

By the way, I wonder how much "political info" in the past has been posted on various agency websites. I imagine it's in the eye of the beholder... just for a random example, I just looked at the BLM web site, where there is clear advocation of solar power projects on public lands. Now, that obviously represents a political agenda as well... one you may or may not agree with... I happen to think it's a swell idea but I imagine some people might not. But, in that case, it DOES at least have to do with the legitimate function of BLM. And, whether or not you agree with the privatization policy (I happen to think Bush's plan -- to the extent he has one at all -- sucks) it DOES at least have to do with the function of Social Security.

Anyhow, perhaps you'd like to contact your representatives in Congress and urge them to introduce legislation at the national level that would be similar to the "paycheck protection" measures we're looking at in Oregon. Require the federal government to keep a strictly separate accounting of "political funds" as distinct from "administrative funds". And require that each taxpayer give express permission (the 1040 seems like a good place) every year for the federal government to use the "political" portion of their tax payments. It would be tricky, of course, because of the close integration between governing and politics (as opposed to the very easy distinction in the case of unions), but I'm confident it could be done.

I would support such a law, if properly written. I imagine many others would, too.

Just a thought...

Posted by: afs | Mar 27, 2005 10:42:08 PM

David Wright - So it's outside the role of a union to defend itself from govenment interference in it's role and abilty to function as a collective bargining entity, huh? It is most certainly within the direct role of a union to defend itself from the attacks of corporate interests in the government intended to destroy the ability of unions to bargin collectively for workers in the US.

Other private interest group associations don't have government interference in their activities. You claim unions are the only private associations you are required to join, and that gives government the right to interfere in their business. You haven't bought a condo recently, have you? Millions are required to partipate in mandated condo owner associations for the building/property they live in when they buy a condo in said properties. Nobody gets to pick an alternative condo owners group. They have to join the group the developer mandates, and pay significant fees to the mandated group. They also do not get to tell the developer she cannot use any of the money collected as required fees to lobby local government for zoning changes for the developers next project. Nope. No opt-outs in that mandatory membership situation.

Gee... you know what. I don't have an opt-out box on my airline tickets preventing the airline industry from using any of the money gotten from my airline ticket from use for lobbying Congress for more corporate welfare handouts, do I? Don't even tell me I have a choice not to fly a particular airline. You try to fly around on business only on the airlines you prefer to fly on. You can't. That's why every one of us has 967 different frequent flier miles program cards in our wallets.

Hey... where's my opt-out box on my Comcast cable bill? If I want my Fox Soccer Channel, I have one choice. Comcast. Where's my opt-out box on my PGE/Enron bill? Gee... I don't have one of those either? So Comcast and PGE/Enron get to hand my cable bill money and my electric bill money to GOP candidates in abundance without my permission. I tell you what, David. You create a bill that has an opt-out for all customers of corporations preventing the money corporations collect from customers going to political purposes, and we can throw union opt-out in with it.

Until you figure a way for us to opt-out from having the money from our PGE and Comcast bills from being handed directly and abundantly to the GOP, you can forget any union opt-out in Oregon.

Posted by: David Wright | Mar 28, 2005 12:35:04 AM

AFS: Other private interest group associations don't have government interference in their activities. You claim unions are the only private associations you are required to join, and that gives government the right to interfere in their business.

Well, first off, no I don't believe I ever did claim that unions are the only private associations you are required to join, nor did I claim that this gives government to right to interfere in their business. I honestly don't understand how you got that from what I've written here. Secondly, I'm not sure what you mean by "other private interest groups" that don't have to deal with meddlesome government oversight, but if you meant some of the various examples that you cited later in your post (airlines, cable companies, utilities), that's certainly not true.

But since you bring up the issue of "interference", I WILL now claim this: since unions enjoy government-granted legal protection of their monopoly status, THAT gives government the right to "interfere" in their business.

Though again, that's way off the topic of this original thread. ;-)

The rest of your rant is a bit ridiculous. Bad enough that people try to equate federal taxes with union dues, now you're trying to claim that mandatory union dues are the same as any number of consumer CHOICES that one makes?

Seriously, having to buy from Comcast in order to get a soccer channel is the same thing as being forced to pay union dues in order to earn a living to pay for cable in the first place? That must be a REALLY great channel...

And not that this was the point of your post, but I want to highlight your bit about the condo association fees. As a matter of fact, I have not purchased a condo recently -- or ever -- though it might make a great deal of sense for me financially. Do you know why?

Because I despise the idea of a condo association and the related fees. Likewise with various neighborhood housing developments that charge periodic fees. I know that sounds awfully convenient given this discussion, but it's absolutely true.

So, yeah, there IS a choice in that regard, I've made it.

Similarly, I've made very conscious decisions in my life to avoid working at any job that would require me to join a union. I happen to work in the kind of job that makes it very easy to do so, though the opportunity has come up in the past and I have rejected such offers.

But what about any number of people who work in industries that are virtually entirely unionized? Teachers, just to name one example with which I am familiar. If you want to be a school teacher, you are essentially doomed to belong to a union for your entire career whether you want to or not. And there is absolutely no good reason for that to be the case. But, again because unions enjoy protected monopoly status, there's no choice for the employee other than not working.

So in short, forcing people to pay for an "agent" they did not ask for in order to obtain employment and earn a living is NOT remotely like your choice to watch soccer on TV. But it was a nice attempt to utterly confuse the issue, though... ;-)

Posted by: afs | Mar 28, 2005 2:20:59 AM

David. You claim union dues are mandatory, but pat yourself on the back for never having paid union dues. That sure looks you should be proud of yourself for showing just how UNmandatory union dues are in the US. Oooops. Forgot that, huh?? Don't want to be a union techer, go work in a private teaching enterprise like Sylvan Learning Center. They are a nationwide chain. They are hard to miss, even for Republicans.

Having one choice for a cable TV is far more mandatory in nature than choosing one's employer. There's tens of thousands of different employers in the Portland area. You can work for any one of them. You proved nobody has to pay union dues. There's ONE cable provider. That's why it's called a monopoly, David. Cable and electric utilities truly do have govenment-granted legal protection of their monopoly status. Ah yes...PGE/Enron. Gee... you tried to get us to forget them, huh? I didn't forget PGE/Enron. My cable and electric bill money getting sent by Comcast and PGE/Enron to GOP candidates without my permission.

In short, your own post proved nobody has to work for anybody they don't want to and work in any situation they are uncomfortable with. You don't want to contribute to union, and you showed nobody has to contribute to a union if they do not wish to. You proved anyone can opt-out of union contributions already without any silly ballot propositions. On the other hand, I am forced to have my cable bill and electric bill money get sent by Comcast and PGE/Enron to GOP candidates. I want my corporate money opt-out. You write that corporate money opt-out ballot proposition now, David.

Posted by: David Wright | Mar 28, 2005 8:33:55 AM

AFS -- I had a nice long response ready to go for you here... and then I came to my senses.

You obviously don't care what I write, since you don't respond to what I write but rather what you want to read into it (for example, nowhere did I ever claim that all Americans are forced to pay union dues -- so claiming that I've contradicted myself because I don't pay union dues is rather silly). Of course, I'm hardly special in this regard... reading your posts elsewhere convinces me that you don't much read what anybody writes here. So it's really rather pointless for me to discuss this with you.

But hey, have fun in your little world... if and when you'd like to discuss what I've said and not what you've read, let me know...

Posted by: afs | Mar 28, 2005 12:52:45 PM

David Wright - Not hardly. What you are doing is running away from a discussion from someone who's somewhat informed about the subject matter. I'm no genius, but I do have responses to all talking points the GOP replays over and over again. You tried replaying your GOP talking ponts, and I met them with informed responses. When your GOP talking points ran out, you ran out of the thread at Warp 9. You know that nobody is forced to contribute to union anything, and that your entire argument for a union opt-out law in Oregon is without merit. On the other hand, I proved that there are many corporations that are guilty of forcing people to pay their good money involuntarily into corporate political efforts that promote the GOP.

You know you were wrong, and ran away. See ya.

More Comments »

Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.

Related Posts Widget for Blogs by LinkWithin

Connect

Get BlueOregon headlines by email

Support BlueOregon on Facebook

Follow BlueOregon on Twitter

BlueOregon Premium Sponsor

Sponsored Advertising

Google BlueOregon

Guest Columns

So, You Wanna Write? We want a diversity of voices 'round the water cooler. Submit your guest column here.

SUPPORT US

BlueOregon Gear
Advertise

Editors

Kari Chisholm
Jeff Alworth
Charlie Burr
Karol Collymore

Fellow

Carla Axtman

Contributors

Marc Abrams
Les AuCoin
Caitlin Baggot
T.A. Barnhart
Deborah Barnes
Jo Ann Bowman
Paulie Brading
Chris Bouneff
Steve Bucknum
Leslie Carlson
Jesse Cornett
Brendan Deiz
Kristin Flickinger
Bill Gallagher
Jeff Golden
Paul Gronke
Jenson Hagen
Cody Hoesly
Leigh Anne
  Jasheway-Bryant
Kevin Kamberg
Albert Kaufman
Randy Leonard
Chris Lowe
Caelan MacTavish
Anne Martens
Steve Novick
Jake Oken-Berg
Jon Perr
Patch Adam
  Perryman
Dan Petegorsky
Jonathan Poisner
Rich Rodgers
Pat Ryan
Chip Shields
Chuck Sheketoff
Kelly Steele
Kristin Teigen
Nick Wirth

More

[guest columns]
[open discussion]
[in the news]
[buzz polls]
[elsewhere]
[admin]

GET YOUR FIX