M46: the price is far too high
T.A. Barnhart
Text of Measure 46
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution, the people through the initiative process, or the Legislative Assembly by a three-fourths vote of both Houses, may enact and amend laws to prohibit or limit contributions and expenditures, of any type or description, to influence the outcome of any election.
When I first wrote about Measure 46 ("Steve Duin: Love is blind"), I simply stated that I trusted Ursula LeGuin's instincts more than Dan Meek's complex pair of ballot measures. But I did not pay strict attention to what it was Ursula was so against. Reading M46 one more time, I suddenly saw the danger the goes beyond trying to save us all from the evils of unlimited campaign financing. The danger has nothing to do with campaigns or funding and everything to do with unintended consequences — something I did warn about.
As Oregon authors, artists and performers we oppose Measure 46 as a threat to artistic freedom in Oregon because it would weaken Oregon's important free speech protections.Much more is at stake in this constitutional amendment than whether we should have campaign finance reform. This measure would eliminate freedom of speech protections as they relate to political campaign expenditures and contributions and would undermine the free speech rights of all Oregonians.
It would create the first exception to our Oregon Free Speech guarantee:
"No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever; but every person shall be responsible for the abuse of this right."
(from 2006 Voters' Pamphlet statement)
Now compare this to the language in M46: "prohibit or limit contributions and expenditures, of any type or description, to influence the outcome of any election." The Supreme Court has ruled that no one can be prohibited from spending his or her money in the pursuit of their right of free speech — and kids, bear this in mind: what the Supreme Court decides is the law of the land, whether you like it or not.
The usual, disparaging way of describing the Supreme Court's ruling on this matter is to sneer that "money is not speech". No, it isn't. Nor is the right to speech absolute. But in the United States, money is speech — the ability to spend money to publish one's speech. That's what the ruling is about: the right to buy access to speech "media". It's not enough that one be allowed to speak, any more than the right to vote was enough without the removal of poll taxes, protection of voters at the polls, and so on. Being able to actually have your say out loud, where you can be heard, is a fundamental aspect of free speech. Laws that block that ability are impediments on free speech.
A law attempting to restrict free speech is bad enough, but to change the Oregon Constitution to allow such laws is a mortal crime against our democracy.
"...prohibit or limit contributions and expenditures, of any type or description, to influence the outcome of any election."
No, this does not stop me from publishing my pornographic novel wherein Satanic abortionists perform human sacrifices in pursuit of the violent overthrow of our constitutional form of government and the forcible 24-hour-a-day broadcasting of easy listening jazz. I can also perform heinous songs (Kenny G covers of Air Supply songs) and do my "Death to anyone who has ever had a good thought about America" interpretative dance (wearing a loin cloth made of the American flag printed in purple and black).
But M46 would allow the people of Oregon to pass a law that prohibits any of these activities. Read it again: "prohibit or limit contributions and expenditures, of any type or description, to influence the outcome of any election." If I wanted to rent a small theatre space to perform my poem about why democracy is yucky, I could be blocked by a law that says no one can spend money to speak against democracy. If I want to broadcast my screed on radio or television, I could be blocked. If I wanted to spend $1,000,000 to play over and over, during Wheel of Fortune, my 30-second song ditty against any Libertarian running for anything (a thought that has crossed my mind more than once), the people of Oregon could pass a law to block that.
If my union wanted to spend $100,000 to elect a pro-labor Govenor, we could be blocked by law with the passage of M46. In fact, that law could prevent us from spening $1 — with M46 eviscerating the right to free speech, the good and wise people of Oregon could forbid that as well.
Read it again: "of any type or description."
Sweet Jesus, and I triple-dog-dare anyone to say "Oh but that would never happen." Neither would a Presidential election be stolen right from under our noses.
In my original post, I spoke against the complexity of M47. But compared to a few "simple" lines added to the Constitution, M47's problems are mere blips on the radar. We are dealing with the Oregon Constitution's Free Speech clause. This is a stupid thing to do. We need to fix campaign finance, but at what price? Can we come up with no better solution than 20-pages of rules that can only be enacted by gutting free speech rights? Are we so desperate for a solution — for any solution — that we'll piss away this most fundamental right?
Saxton and Minnis' ads suck bilgewater, but they are sweet nectar compared to this.
NO NO NO on 46. (And YES to Ursula LeGuin for clarity of vision and boldness of word.)
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
9:38 p.m.
Oct 29, '06
The Meek measures are a bizarre pairing. #47 is exceedingly complex and bizarre. #46 is so simple that it's overwhelmingly powerful. Too powerful.
The worst possible outcome would be if #47 failed and #46 passed. That would be handing a blank check to Loren Parks, Howard Rich, and Bill Sizemore -- empowering them to run a measure forbidding unions and membership organizations from creating political committees; while allowing corporations and individuals free rein.
Rather than going for something simple, limited, and yet sufficient to change the theft of our democracy by moneyed interests - they went for a Rube Goldbergian mess in an attempt to fix every woe.
Why not a simple one-sentence constitutional amendment roughly along these lines: "Corporations shall be prohibited from expending corporate assets to influence elections of candidates; or to donate funds to candidate committees."
I'm sure it could stand some tweaking, but you get my drift - simple, clean, and effective. Not an end-all, be-all, but a damn good start.
(And I triple-dog-dare anyone to say, "the unions never wanted to try that." Their opposition didn't stop #46 & 47 from qualifying, so suggesting it would stopped a 'reasonable' measure is a fallacy.)
10:01 p.m.
Oct 29, '06
The worst possible outcome would be if #47 failed and #46 passed. That would be handing a blank check to Loren Parks, Howard Rich, and Bill Sizemore -- empowering them to run a measure forbidding unions and membership organizations from creating political committees; while allowing corporations and individuals free rein.
Aren't the unholy trinity you mentioned free to run such a measure whether or not measure 46 passes?
10:42 p.m.
Oct 29, '06
It would have to be a constitutional one. Passing 46 means that they can do it with a simple statute.
Oct 29, '06
Before the "Fair Elections" zealots weigh in about our ignorance and betrayal of progressivism, as evidenced by our suspicions of their own, I'd like to say that M 46 has given me nightmares because of its extremely broad language. It is made worse by being paired with a highly technical implementation measure that draws people's attention away from consideration of the broader issues which are to be enshrined in the State Constitution.
The worst for me is the judgement that the legislature as an institution is not to be trusted to deal forthrightly with these issues, so an unprecedented bar of 3/4 assent is to be imposed on it. Despite the appearance of corruption within it, I still have faith that the institution is still our best hope for well-considered solutions for community problems to be worked out. I disagee on a visceral level with these measures' framers intention that these issues are best left to the vicissitudes of the initiative petition.
Oct 29, '06
Every time we go poking about in the matter of campaign contributions we ignore the very obvious, 7% of voters contribute. This is a massive statement of disinterest. 93% of voters don't care enough about a political campaign to cough up a few bucks. Of course somebody fills the void. So the quick and dirty solution is to pass legislation. This is legislation regarding the free exercise of speech. "Oh but we have a problem with..." No kidding, we've got all kinds of problems and some of the solutions have to do with kicking around the Bill Of Rights. If it's GWB we tantrum, if it's Chuck Schumer and the 2nd do we throw a fit? So now it's Weyerhauser (or etc) that piss us off, so, let's address the symptom instead of the disease. Sure the symptom can be addressed by fiat (SCOTUS won't like it) and the disease will take all kinds of work, especially by political parties and candidates so, lets take the easy way out. Never mind that those 93% are sending you a real clear message, "I don't like your damn candidate," let's legislate the very thing they're disgusted with into perpetuality. Some people do contribute, so let's take that responsibilty away from them as well, I'm just plain astonished.
How do you propose to legally separate people who join together to increase their political effect from other associations of people? Every time somebody mucks about in the open arena of contributions something unintended happens. Some very good and very expensive lawyers will assure that, every time.
I speak as one who put together a campaign on the nickle and dime mom and pop contributions, it was tough and it didn't amount to much and Greg Walden is going to plow Carol Voisin under with mega-bucks, that's our fault. We promote the feelings of helplessness and futility every time we play this game. We could put that energy into educating the public about their ability to plow big money under with small contributions, think what $20-500 would mean if it was coming from 93% of the voters instead of the reverse. You might start seeing representative government and no public scheme does any more than encourage the abandonment of that public responsibility and thus, political abandonment of the public. Not much different than what's going on with mega-bucks now.
11:48 p.m.
Oct 29, '06
think what $20-500 would mean if it was coming from 93% of the voters instead of the reverse.
Chuck, you're on to something. In Oregon, we already give everyone a $50 tax credit (real cash!) that they can donate to a campaign. But very few people do.
I have suggested - as has former Umatilla County DA Joe Smith - that we should send every adult Oregonian a $50 democracy voucher. They couldn't spend it, and they couldn't trade it for cash. But they could give it to a candidate. And that candidate would trade it in to the state for $50. Better yet, they could give it to an organization that they trust -- and that organization would bundle 'em and give 'em to candidates they've endorsed.
You want to see big money power slammed? If just 15% of adult Oregonians participated (400,000 people), you'd have over $20 million donated to candidates.
Not only that, but there would be a real value to doing door-to-door canvassing. Talk to a voter, pick up their voucher. Many voters would take it seriously - choosing carefully who would get their democracy voucher.
And btw, this could all happen without sacrificing free speech. And the benefits would be huge - at a small cost of just $20 million. (Some of which is already being "spent" via the Oregon political tax credit.)
Oct 30, '06
The hysteria continues to grow.
T.A.'s imagination is out of control. Read the text of Fair Elections Measure 46 again, please. M46 refers to "contributions and expenditures, of any type or description, to influence the outcome of any election."
The only artistic expression that is going to be affected by laws that M 46 allows are political jingles and lawn signs. If Ursula LeGuin decides to go into writing Voters Pamphlet statements, she might be affected.
And T.A. can rest assured that the mighty US Constitution still applies in Oregon.
As exhalted Fair Elections opponent Peter Buckley wrote, there really is no other way to allow campaign contribution limits in Oregon. I'd extend that to - there's no other way to recover democracy in Oregon.
If Kari had been following the conversation in other posts, he would have come across reasons that his idea on CFR would not work. Here's one: if the only limitation is on corporate contributions, corporations could disperse mega-bonuses to execs, who could then contribute every dime the corporations would have anyway. Plug that loophole, and the next one, and the next one, and you'll get something very like Measure 47. I don't see anything "bizarre" about it.
Fellows, if this were thirty years ago, I'd suspect there was bad weed going around. I know you are all sober though, so I suspect the problem might be political consultant induced paranoia and mass hysteria. Whatever the cause, you all sound pretty silly.
12:37 a.m.
Oct 30, '06
and Tom, where is this neat, clean black-and-white line you see that clearly and absolutely defines where politics begins and ends? if my artistic statement is deemed to have an effect on politics -- and by god, as a fan of Kurt Vonnegut, among others, i hope i can be both artistic and politically influential -- then M46 does exactly what you say my over-active imagination fears.
more to the point, how can you possibly justify screwing with the Constitution and especially the Free Speech clause? as i said in my post, is there no other solution? to me, and to millions of Americans (and more people around the world), an attack on free speech is even worse than the attack on habeas corpus rights. free speech is the alpha and omega of democracy. fix campaign finance another way.
Oct 30, '06
kari is right on, here.
the problem with political donations is not too much money, it's too little money. political money is relatively scarce, and when there is scarcity of a resource, those in need go to the known sources--the big donors. this creates the other problem, which is that politicians know too much about their big donors. so the $50 tax credit in the form of a voucher would need to be combined with requiring donations above a certain amount ($100? $500?) to be anonymous. this would really flatten the donor pool.
it's interesting, the current regulatory mechanism for political donations was implemented at a time when the federal government was experimenting with wage and price controls; it is a relic of as bygone era. 46/47 is a regulatory nightmare, it'll be bad for the voters, but good for the lawyers who monitor the activity. money may not be speech, but you can't effectively eliminate, or even really limit, private money in politics without severely restricting that freedom, so i say stay away from that slippery slope.
1:20 a.m.
Oct 30, '06
In response to Kari's post
Our problem is too much money, not a lack thereof. The amount of money being spent on politics in this state alone could eradicate hunger in a small African nation. Now Kari wants to add a minimum of $20m to that? Considering the aversion to raising taxes exhibited by so many, how are we going to pay for this? Wouldn't $20m be better spent providing supplies for classrooms or making Oregon's school year the as long national average?
The real answer is taxing political contributions. Allow a candidate or initiative campaign to raise X amount (indexed to inflation) per registered voter. Beyond that point, everything raised would be taxed at X rate. We can argue about what the best numbers are but, right now I think a good amount is $6 per voter and the tax rate should be 80%.
So hypothetically with the $6 number, an average State Rep candidate in a district with 25,000 registered voters could could raise 150k. Everything after that would be taxed at 80%.
Benefits to this plan include getting around the money = speech issues and if politicians want to be ridiculous, most of the extra money goes to the State so that maybe we could fund the Ethics Commission. Without the exorbitant sums spent on political consultants and direct mail, I think campaigns would move back to the grassroots, where knocking on doors, talking to voters, and the things progressives do best win races.
P.S. as a perpetual volunteer, there needs to be an exemption to allow as much spending on volunteer pizza as possible ;-)
1:30 a.m.
Oct 30, '06
Considering the aversion to raising taxes exhibited by so many, how are we going to pay for this?
I know that $20 million sounds like a lot of money, but it's out of a $4.1 billion budget. That's less than half of one percent.
Small price to pay to clean up our democracy.
Revenue sources are good, but we lefties have a tendency to scream "how will you pay for it?" before examining whether the program is a good idea. If it's at least a better idea than the worst $20 million we're spending now, then the money is there. It's just priorities.
The amount of money being spent on politics in this state alone could eradicate hunger in a small African nation.
Not really. We're spending about $30 million on politics this two-year cycle (I think; didn't look it up.) At $1 a meal, that's just three meals for a nation of 10 million people.
Let's examine the idea on its merits - not get into hyperbolic silliness.
As for the idea of anonymous donations -- that's interesting. Same for taxing big donations; also interesting. I'll have to ponder those.
1:36 a.m.
Oct 30, '06
Here's one: if the only limitation is on corporate contributions, corporations could disperse mega-bonuses to execs, who could then contribute every dime the corporations would have anyway.
Tom, that behavior is already illegal. Now, if you want to argue that people will break the law, then you're talking about an enforcement issue. Does Measure 47 include an enforcement mechanism?
Plug that loophole, and the next one, and the next one, and you'll get something very like Measure 47.
And that's just the problem with Measure 47. It's like a bunch of guys got together and tried to come up with the end-all, be-all, all-in-one-shot fix-it measure. But it's going to fall short. And it's going to fail. Promising people a magic solution and then failing to deliver hurts our democracy.
Instead, I'd suggest two things: Incremental, but substantial, change that makes sense to regular people and builds our democratic institutions. And, chase out the bad money with good money. That's the only thing that will drive bad money out.
Make it easier to rely on good money than on bad money - and campaigns will gravitate there.
Oct 30, '06
Well - this certainly makes the case for the Supreme Court's decision that "money is speech." I think the question one has to ask is at what point does allowing someone to spend as much money as they like amplifying their speed, drown out the speech of others. Because, effectively, I think that is what has happened.
The problem here is not Meek's measure or its wording. You can't stop the flow of money into politics from those who have it without some kind of change to the Oregon constitution. So you either vote for measure 46 or accept that the current role of money in politics is here to stay.
Oct 30, '06
That is a totally spurious ultimatum, to vote 'for' the current measures or give up!
They are poorly crafted and got inadequate assent from constituencies concerned about the issue.
We have the will and the mechanisms in place to hammer out a practicable solution.
Oct 30, '06
I couldn't agree with T.A. more. I don't like it when my right to free speech gets meddled with--where does it end? Do we ban money-making blogs next because they are so similar to advocacy PACs? When it comes to giving up your rights, every inch becomes a mile once people get used to the precedent.
Chuck's put his finger on it: the problem is apathy, not money.
9:00 a.m.
Oct 30, '06
Revenue sources are good, but we lefties have a tendency to scream "how will you pay for it?" before examining whether the program is a good idea.
No we don't. We have a tendency to scream "Don't worry about the money, it's only a tiny percentage of the budget." We also have a tendency to add "It's a small price to pay for..."
Cue the drumroll...
I know that $20 million sounds like a lot of money, but it's out of a $4.1 billion budget. That's less than half of one percent.
Small price to pay to clean up our democracy.
You will never convince more than a tiny percentage of voters that $20 million is an insignificant amount of money. They could not care less what percentage of the budget it is. They care about how many teachers or state troopers you can buy with it or how many potholes you can fix and they can do enough arithmetic to know that the answer to those questions is "quite a few".
If it's at least a better idea than the worst $20 million we're spending now, then the money is there. It's just priorities.
Absolutely true, of course. So we've now joined the ranks of those who are going to pay for our new programs by cutting those existing wasteful government programs? Somehow I thought our approach was heaping well-deserved derision on that position.
We've gotten to where we are now--clueless neocons running the country, right wing ideologues hamstringing the Oregon legislature and education and other vital services held hostage by initiatives like measure 5--in large measure because we've managed to give people the impression that we think they have an infinite capacity to pay taxes and our solution to every problem is another $20M of their money--which we will then throw away on things like over-lavish pension formulas or more bureaucracy.
I'm begging you, please permanently retire the "it's only X% of the budget", "it's a small price to pay" and "no problem, we'll just cut something unimportant to pay for it" arguments.
Sorry about the digression--we now return you to your regularly scheduled rants.
9:06 a.m.
Oct 30, '06
Is there anywhere the anonymous donor thing is in place and working?
Somehow I think Loren Parks or Grover Norquist would find a way to let the right people know exactly where the money came from.
Oct 30, '06
"the problem is apathy, not money."
The problem is subverted democratic government. The blame can be placed in several places, but not all are approachable through legislation. We did consider an initiative to ban apathy in Oregon, but it polled badly,and Peter Buckley said he didn't think he could get it through the Legislature as a referendum.
Controlling campaign contributions is approachable through legislation, though. We chose that route to resurrecting democracy.
Actually, I like the $50 voucher idea. It has been around a while, though. I wonder why AFL/CIO, OLCV, and Stand for Children never got it on the ballot. I'm sure Joe Smith would have written it up for them.
And some more: Kari wrote:
'Here's one: if the only limitation is on corporate contributions, corporations could disperse mega-bonuses to execs, who could then contribute every dime the corporations would have anyway.'
Tom, that behavior is already illegal. Now, if you want to argue that people will break the law, then you're talking about an enforcement issue. Does Measure 47 include an enforcement mechanism?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That would be illegal, but unenforcable, unless the execs blow the whistle, which they don't. This sort of thing goes on all the time. Presently it is illegal for corporations to make contributions to federal candidates [I expect a post from T.A. on this free speech outrage any day now], but Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in Nebraska, Pete Ricketts, retired with huge bonuses from Ameritrade and has so far spent $9.6 million of his personal money on the race against Ben Nelson. In Washington, a stockholder is suing Republican U.S. Senate candidate Mike McGavick, after he took a huge retirement bonus from SAFECO after he begun his campaign.
Hell, when I ran for the Oreogn House, I was offered illegal contributions. I refused them, but they were there to take. Corporations will get away with what they can, and illegal deals between the company and its executives are not likely to become public.
Measure 47 has strong sanctions against cheating [you can read them]. Of course, opponents have criticized them, claiming they are too strong. A reformer can't win for losing with the professional political class.
Oct 30, '06
I think the question one has to ask is at what point does allowing someone to spend as much money as they like amplifying their speed, drown out the speech of others. Because, effectively, I think that is what has happened.
Ding, ding, ding!! We have a winner!
That, my friends, is the crux around which everyone seems to be dancing.
Oct 30, '06
T.A.,
Maybe you have a point. Actually, I wrote a great play with a political theme a little while ago. The point of dramatic peak was when an actor, sitting in the audience, would rise from his seat, point at the stage, and yell, "it's on fire; run!" This, of course, was an metaphor for our political situation under the Bush administration. It was Pulitzer Prize material, better than Shakespeare, believe me.
Imagine my outrage and anguish when every lawyer I spoke with told me I couldn't produce the play. They all muttered something about reasonable limits to to free speech and public safety. what?! This was artistic expression, and politically themed artistic expression at that. I called ACLU, the Library Association, and Ursula LeGuinn for help. I haven't heard back from them yet, but I'm sure I will.
10:13 a.m.
Oct 30, '06
Hmmm. Interesting.
Unlike Dan, I agree with Kari that Measure 47 was a serious mistake. Unlike Kari, I agree with Dan that, in principal, spending money to influence politics is not the same as free speech. So Measure 46 passed muster with me.
The flaw in the "if Measure 46 passes, Loren Parks can fund a horrible anti-union initiative" argument, is that he can fund that kind of initiative anyway. In the face of the paid signature gathering industry, the number of signatures needed to get a Constitutional Initiative on the ballot in Oregon is an absolute joke. It's only like an extra couple million.
Again, however, I really think both these measures completely miss the point. The real problem Oregon has is the initiative system.
How about this for a Constitutional Amendment? No paid signature gathering at all, combined with a modest reduction in the number of signatures required? If politicians can't sell their votes, why should anyone else be allowed to sell them?
Oct 30, '06
"No we don't. We have a tendency to scream "Don't worry about the money, it's only a tiny percentage of the budget." We also have a tendency to add "It's a small price to pay for..."
Cue the drumroll..."
DRUMROLL.
"... we've managed to give people the impression that we think they have an infinite capacity to pay taxes and our solution to every problem is another $20M of their money--which we will then throw away on things like over-lavish pension formulas or more bureaucracy."
Repeat DRUMROLL.
Oct 30, '06
Monday morning quarterbacks all. M47 has been at least ten years in the crafting, mostly by one of the most brilliant, uncorruptible, altruistic attorneys in the country. Look at the millions Meek just got returned from PGE to Multnomah country ratepayers. For a flock of non-attorneys to conjure up all these "certain" dire outcomes is just embarrassing. Remember how "impossible" it was that the Oregon supreme court would even allow M46 on the ballot? The fact is, it is the SIMPLE things that can have the direst consequences: that first puff of meth, pulling the trigger, unprotected sex, etc. My body, my vehicle, my computer all work very well exactly because of their complexities. M47 is necessarily complex. I feel like I'm debating people sinking in quicksand who don't want to get out because there's a cold wind.
10:44 a.m.
Oct 30, '06
I wonder why AFL/CIO, OLCV, and Stand for Children never got it on the ballot. I'm sure Joe Smith would have written it up for them.
Damn fine question.
A better one: Given that Dan and Harry and the gang were going to fund and organize a ballot measure, why didn't they do the $50 democracy voucher idea?
Oct 30, '06
Kari wrote:
"A better one: Given that Dan and Harry and the gang were going to fund and organize a ballot measure, why didn't they do the $50 democracy voucher idea?"
My guess is that this proposal would be attacked in the same way that public financing was defeated here in Oregon, by calling it "welfare for politicians." Contribution limits, on the other hand, have a winning track record.
By the way, the polls indicate that public financing Prop 89 will lose in California next week. Of course, things have been tough for the proponents. Besides the same "welfare for politicians" slam, they must contend with the unions complaints that public campaign financing:
Hmmm, where have I heard all that before? On second thought, maybe Harry and Dan realized the unions would oppose the $50 voucher idea by complaining it:
That seems to be the standard union response to campaign finance reform, doesn't it?
11:11 a.m.
Oct 30, '06
This is absurd. If Measure 46 passes, Oregonians will have no less artistic freedom than Californians or Washingtonians or the people living in every other state. I do not see artists fleeing Cailfornia, merely because California's constitution allows limits and prohibitions on political contributions.
No state constitution, other than Oregon's has been interpreted as giving free reign to money in elections. Meaures 46 returns Oregon to the status of every other state, in which the role of money in elections is governed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Opponents better get on the phone and call up all those authors and actors and artists in California and let them know that they have no artistic freedom down there, because the California Constitution allows limits on campaign contributions and expenditures.
11:27 a.m.
Oct 30, '06
Steven, not to be rude but i think you're are 0-for-2 here. first, despite Dan's understandably strident denials, the language of M46 couldn't be plainer. it is a limitation on free speech. it allows the banning of speech that would have political implications -- unless you think our society is going to start publishing and broadcasting all art for free.
second, this is not an issue that needs a constitutional fix. haven't we done enough damage to that poor thing? what we need is to get rid of Minnis next week and then Oregon's liberals and progressives, and conservatives, who care about quality elections need to make this a top priority and force the Dems in Salem to begin making real changes in our laws. if Merkley and Brown and other leading Dems resist campaign finance reform, they better have a damn good reason. let's hope with a Dem majority, they won't. but we need to work with them to fix this in law, not in our poor, battered constitution.
and given that the nation has done better following Oregon in democratic practices than vice versa, Dan's advice to trade our real freedom of speech for anyone else's watered-down version is about the worst advice he could give. this must be desperation time.
11:39 a.m.
Oct 30, '06
TA, why do you not respond to my point?
Also, the Ds have never enacted limits on political contributions in Oregon, even when they controlled both houses of the Legislature and the Governorship.
The people enacted limits by initiative in 1908, which stood until the Legislature repealed them in 1973, replacing them with an absurd system of "overall expenditure limits" that the Oregon Supreme Court quickly invalidated.
11:42 a.m.
Oct 30, '06
Also, the Legislature cannot limit contributions or expenditures without first having the Oregon Constitution amended. The Oregon Supreme Court in 1997 ruled that the Oregon Constitution does not allow any limits on political contributions or expenditures, period. The Legislature cannot amend the Constitution, except by referral of an amendment to the people. Is that what TA is now suggesting? Of course not.
Oct 30, '06
M47 limits contributions in candidate races, not initiatives. Kari, you apparently want FairElections Oregon to play by rules no one else has to. I suspect many here, like me, have criticized candidates who voluntarily limited contributions to themselves when they didn't have to. Why the double-standard?
M46 simply allows M47 to be constitutional. For anyone to say they support taking money out of politics while opposing M46 is "strange" at best. Legislative supporters of M46 (and not M47) include: State Sen. Ryan Deckert, State Rep. Dave Hunt, and State Rep. Dennis Richardson. They realize that M46 is needed for any additional changes to bring a fair playing field in elections.
When I read between the lines of opponent's writings, I can't help but see that they'd support changes that strengthened them and their allies and hurt opponents. But that, in itself, would cause Courts to overturn the law since I'd be "unequal." The Statesman Journal said it best in their endorsement, linked from here.
They said:
"However, it's not surprising that so many other groups and individuals are opposed: They'd lose their clout.
They want campaign-finance 'reform' that restricts the other guy, not them.
If these opponents have a better solution -- one that is fair, specific and restrictive to everyone -- they should say so. The Legislature has shown little inclination to adopt stringent limits, so it's up to the people to take action."
Oct 30, '06
Hmmm...
If 46/47 are so bad, why have the following organizations (among others) endorsed them?
Sierra Club of Oregon OSPIRG (Oregon State Public Interest Research Group) Oregon Gray Panthers Pacific Green Party Democratic Party of Clackamas County Health Care for All Oregon Native Forest Council Don't Waste Oregon Eastside Democratic Club First Unitarian Church Action Groups Women's International League for Peace and Freedom Physicians for Social Responsibility Universal Health Care for Oregon
Also, my sig on Democratic Underground seems relevant here:
Capitalism: One dollar = One vote Democracy: One person = One vote
Democracy, anyone?
Oct 30, '06
Jaybeat, you forgot Injured Workers' Alliance in your list of supporters ;-).
As it's leader, I've seen first-hand how powerful special interests prevent good public policy. As an example:
It was known in the legislature and elsewhere for at least 15 years that Independent Medical Examiners, hired by insurers so they could deny workers' comp. claims, were committing perjury, falsifying documents, etc. Heck, we gave official irrefutable proof in the late 1990's. There were also accusations of sexual boundary violations - that's rape - (we have documents between government agencies acknowledging it) that were never investigated.
Yet no oversight or reforms were done until 2005 and then what passed is inadequate. Why? Insurance company and employer contributions and their lobbyist, including Neil Goldschmidt.
Read our voter pamphlet statement under M46 (last one).
12:23 p.m.
Oct 30, '06
Dan, as author of this post, i get every comment emailed to me. and i've got one or two other things going on in life. i didn't respond to Kari; he's cool with that (Kari?)
but i did respond to you: i called your assertions "strident". your attitude towards the Oregon Constitution is, in my opinion, cavalier and naive. your only solution to campaign finance problems is a monster set of rules and a constitutional amendment. you are so deep into your own solution, you can't see the dangers raised. i don't care how many groups line up to endorse 46/47; it doesn't make it right.
you are trying to legislate morality. that never works. if 46/47 pass, guess what? we'll need new and improved rules to deal with whatever else comes along -- and it will. M47 is a monster band-aid, but M46 uses a tourniquet first. surely you can do better than this. from what i know of your past work, i think so.
12:32 p.m.
Oct 30, '06
What about the fact that we will have no less artistic freedom here than in california, and that artists are not fleeing California?
Oct 30, '06
T.A.,
It seems you are so worked up into a froth that you don't recognize the holes in your arguments.
TA: "you are trying to legislate morality. that never works."
What the heck? Statutes against murder are legislating morality. Shall we repeal them because they don't work? How about rape? Breaking and entry? Try thinking before you type.
TA: "you can't see the dangers raised."
Dan made it clear that Measure 46 puts us where every other state is concerning free speech and politcal campaigns. Can you supply several examples of how the other 49 states have stifled artistic expression because they limit campaign contributions? No, I didn't think so. Your rhetoric is as empty as a campaign office the Tuesday after election day.
TA: 'but i did respond to you: i called your assertions "strident". '
Ya, you did, and that was it. Kari is the only Fair Elections opponent in this and most other strings willing to at least attempt to address points made by supporters with ideas that are more than characterizations. I characterize too, as in noting that you sound hysterical, but I add that to my ideas, not replace them with it.
Oct 30, '06
TA,
Apparently you also don't care how many groups line up to OPPOSE 46 and 47. One of the myths in the entire opposition campaign is that only progressive groups, unions and artists oppose these measures. And sure enough, back when voter pamphlet statements were filed, the only prominent right wing organizations public opposed were Associated Oregon Industries, Right to Life and the Oregon Family Council.
But now a new group is providing the BIG MONEY behind the the opposition. Its the 'If You Lose Your Voice This Time, You'll Never Get It Back Committee' and its primarily bankrolled by right wing, corporate, resource extraction, anti-union groups, with some money also from a couple of unions who are selling out their own membership on this issue.
As of last week, this committee had been funded with $330,000, 2/3 of which was from corporate and anti-union groups, prominently including
Associated Oregon Industries $25,000 Associated Oregon Loggers $10,000 Oregon Forest Industry Council $25,000 Oregon Restaurant Assn $25,000 Association of Builders & Contractors $12,000 Association of General Contractors $15,000 Oregon Assoc Realtors $25,000 Oregon Committee for Food and Shelter(pesticide users, agribusiness and timber) $10,000
This committee has been spending on direct mail, radio ads and consultants in order to defeat Measures 46 and 47. Its so sad to watch bloggers on Blue Oregon play right into the hands of these corporate right wingers to help make sure their 'voice' and 'rights' are protected in Oregon.
Oct 30, '06
It's no wonder the labor movement has been in decline for decades. Between short-sighted thinking and professionals more concerned with their own financial well-being than that of members, it's tough to compete with anti-worker corporate interests who care about profit and nothing else.
Sometimes sticking up for the interests of workers means opposing what their union leadership does. That's unfortunate, and it's not comfortable for a progressive, but doing what's right is often uncomfortable.
1:16 p.m.
Oct 30, '06
I sure wish Dan, Ernie, and Tom wouldn't be so alarmist about opposition to their cause. It's clear to me that Peter and the Unions, and Kari, and TJ and the DPO and all of the anonymous experts are going to be all over this problem bright and early on the morning of November 8th.
Just read the thread carefully, and you will easily see that they are opposed only to your naivete and ignorance, not to the probable diminution of their power or the necessity to reorganize their methods of fund acquisition.
All seem to agree that there is a correct solution out there, and they will, by gum, be hot on its trail.....It's morning in America.
I mean no sane person would argue that citizen A,who upon changing pants finds millions to donate in his right front pocket and citizen B donating a dollar that she garnered from returning soda cans to Freddy's are offsetting examples of Free Speech in action.
Would they?
Oct 30, '06
Ed -
"We have the will and the mechanisms in place to hammer out a practicable solution."
All evidence to the contrary? This issue has been out there for close to 50 years and the only solutions to it have all been "poorly crafted".
The question isn't whether this is a perfect solution, its whether it is a better starting point than the current situation. If it passes, you can still get together with whoever you like and "hammer out a practicable solution."
I suspect that fixing whatever poor craftsmanship there is in measure 46 will take a lot less than 50 years.
1:26 p.m.
Oct 30, '06
i'll be ultra-clear.
we need campaign finance reform.
i don't want reform that puts labor/unions even further behind corporations, which will find ways to get around M47.
i want finance reform to be part of a bigger picture of electoral rehab (i don't like the word "reform" -- it rarely is). instant runoff voting, voter owned elections, vote by mail -- these are all some of the possible means of democratizing elections.
i utterly oppose unnecessary constitutional amendments that fix nothing and break free speech.
i'm not simply spouting off here. i work in my community to fix things; i spent 9 hours at Reser Stadium on Saturday (for the 5th of 7 total times) overseeing Corvallis High School Band's fundraiser effort at concessions; 20 kids and half-a-dozen parents giving up a big chunk of their day to make up a tiny portion of the music "budget" M5 and the recession have cost our school. i put my money, my heart and my sweat behind my words every day.
M46 stinks. that opinion does not align me with AOI and it does not make me opposed to the Sierra Club. the groups funding the defeat of M47 don't give a rats ass about M46 other than it enables M47. those listed above in support of both have an insufficient understanding, imo, of what M46 would do.
the Benton County Democrats oppose 46/47. i triple-dog-dare anyone to call us anti-union, anti-labor, anti-free elections.
Oct 30, '06
Let's talk Wal-mart who recently become a huge contributor to campaigns. Since Oregon is one of a handful of states that don't limit contributions, it makes sense they'll give BIG here.
Wake-Up Wal-mart says:
"Wal-Mart has recently become a key player in "pay-to-play" politics. Wal-Mart’s corporate PAC donated more than $2.7 million to federal and state candidates in 2004, with nearly 80% of Wal-Mart’s campaign contributions going to Republican candidates.
Wal-Mart's radical right wing agenda hurts America. Only a corrupt, right-wing politician like Tom Delay could support Wal-Mart’s political agenda of poverty-level wages, poor health care, weaker child labor protections and an acceleration of shipping good-paying U.S. jobs overseas."
That was written over one year ago. Early 2006 C&E results indicate that 2004's $2.7 million was pocket change.
The simple trth is that Wal-Mart could own Oregon government by simply giving massive money to Oregon R's.
Oct 30, '06
T.A. - why do you insist on bad punctuation (you never capitalize at the start of a sentence)?
Hope you've read the Salem S-J editorial from Sunday. It says it all.
If progs like you (and I generally admire many of your positions & political work) can't get behind these measures, because of manufactured concerns about free speech, trumped up by self-interested political operatives, I am truly worried about the future of Oregon.
And no, Pat, I don't see anybody rolling up their sleeves to get anything done on this come Nov. 8th. The same people lambasting 46 & 47 are the same people who have sat on their hands pushing 101 other issues besides CFR for the past decade.
This is our last, best chance for awhile to reign in big spending in Oregon politics. We can go from worst to first.
But I doubt Ursula LeGuin is moving away from Cannon Beach either way...
Oct 30, '06
Ooh yeah, really deep analysis by the S-J:
"The corrupting influence of money in politics... outweighs everything"
That's it? All reason and deliberation must shut down because (gasp) money is corrupting politicians! Stop the presses! Invade Iraq! Suspend habeus corpus! Swallow whole whatever finance reform is offered!
If you all are so anxious for and sure of the support for campaign finance reform, then you are being dishonest in saying we won't be able to get down to it and do better than these poor efforts.
Oct 30, '06
Oh, and to a nameless commenter:
The question isn't whether this pair of measures is a perfect solution, but why I would acquiesce to a bill that does such damage to the institution it is supposed to reform and takes away much of the mechanism for redress of it?
8:43 p.m.
Oct 30, '06
Tom Civiletti wrote:
Between short-sighted thinking and professionals more concerned with their own financial well-being....
Tom, now you're being insulting.
You'll recall that I spent substantial time and energy fighting FOR the Portland clean-money campaign finance reform system. I defended it, I testified for it (the only time I've testified for anything), I participated in in-depth meetings with city staff about it.
And you know what else? I took a substantial financial hit because of it. My company's potential billables from the Erik Sten and Dan Saltzman campaign were necessarily limited, substantially, by the fact that those two gentlemen had $150,000 to work with -- not the $300,000 to $500,000 that one would have expected under the old system.
It's taken me a lot of thought, and a lot of deliberation, to come around to opposing 46 and 47. (This is the first week I've taken a public position on these two measures.) I support campaign finance reform. Just not this kind.
Show me a statewide clean money system, and I'll support it. Show me a democracy vouchers system, and I'll support it. Show me any other kind of public financing system, and I'll consider supporting it.
More speech, not less. Good money drives out bad money.
Oct 30, '06
Kari,
My statement was meant to be insulting, but not to you. I was writing about the labor union political and leadership who convinced their membership that Fair Elections would "take away their voice."
Although you have adopted their position, you are not in the position of responsibility in informing union membres of the facts of the situation.
Oct 30, '06
Ed wrote:
"If you all are so anxious for and sure of the support for campaign finance reform, then you are being dishonest in saying we won't be able to get down to it and do better than these poor efforts."
Is this supposed to mean something in the English language, or were you just exercising your fingers?
Oct 30, '06
As another commenter whom you have insulted personally, I allow one last lesson in the native language:
I am sick of you delivering the ultimatum that we must submit to the brand of CFR you are peddling or burn forever in the hell of unrestrained plutocracy.
If there is the political will to pass CFR, then there is every opportunity to go back to the drawing board and work out measures that will unite progressives as your measures have obviously failed to do.
If your need further clarification, seek professional help.
10:20 p.m.
Oct 30, '06
Tom, i said legislating against morality doesn't work, and you oppose that with murder? our laws against immoral murder work just how well?
Kaza, i'm not sure why you are becoming increasingly vicious. i had you pegged as better than that. is this measure so important to you that you have to attack people at a personal level on multiple websites?
come Wednesday morning next, i'm willing to take to the streets if the bastards try to steal this election like they did in 2000 & 2004. and i'm prepared every day to fight for the sanctity -- yes, the sanctity -- of free speech. read J.S. Mills' "On Liberty" and understand where i'm coming from. we either have free speech, or it's the property of those in power. in a world with precious few absolutes (thank god), that is one of them.
Oct 30, '06
Thank you Ed and TA.
As my friends know, one of the WORST ways to get my support is to say "We agree there is a problem, but unless you accept this particular solution without question, you on't really understand the problem".
Come Wednesday next, the election will be over (unless there are recounts--always a possibility) and we will be able to see which arguments were persuasive and which were not.
As I was saying on the phone today, anyone in politics could benefit from sales training. Anyone who has been in retail especially realizes that if a sales person gets too gung ho saying Brand A is infinitely better than Brand B, the customer can choose to walk out of the store and not buy either one.
If we don't have that right when it comes to ballot measures or candidates, this is not a free country and we have lost the right of free speech.
Oct 31, '06
Gee, whiz, this is getting tedious. You know, I have no personal problem with any of you. I'm sure you're all nice folk. But this is a public political discussion. We are sparing intellectually. If you use faulty arguments, I need to call you on them. I've read a lot of faulty arguments. After they begin to pile up, it's hard not to point out the consistent faultiness.
Perhaps you believe my concern is to convert you to my way of thinking, at least you've made comments suggesting you don't like that I insist you accept my views.
There, see, you are over personalizing the discussion. I'd like you to Support Fair Elections Measure 46 & 47, but my main concern is with all the voters reading this blog. I'm refuting your arguments for their sake, not yours. I'm not going to allow unfounded criticism about the measures go unanswered, especially if that criticism is based on clearly false information. So, here I go.
T.A., One more time: you wrote that legislating morality doesn't work. I ask if you'd suggest repealing laws against murder, rape, and breaking and entry, which is something that someone, who doesn't think legislating morality works, might support. My point was that we should have rules against buying elections like we have rules against murder, rape, and breaking and entry. See now?
Ed, I hope you feel less insulted now that you know I wasn't really talking to you, just about you.
Lt, you also sound put upon. Did you also think I was insisting that you think my way? Rest assured, it's okay. You vote your conscience.
Perhaps I misjudge why people come to BlueOreogn. I thought it was for political debate. Some others may look at it as a friendly chat where we all agree that the Republicans are dastardly, but don't delve to deeply into any points of disagreement.
I'll admit I'm disappointed. But I still won't let you get away with writing whack in a well-followed public forum while votes are being cast. Because Fair Elections is worthwhile and important. And you are putting it down without anything sound to back up your criticism.
I notice you largely ignore Ernie Delmazzo's well-researched posts. His data dismembers your arguments quite effectively. You do notice, don't you?
Just about everyone favoring Fair Elections on BlueOregon has added useful information, or made a relevant connection. After Dan Meek joins the discussion your tone is that of people holding out crosses at arms length, as if ward off a vampire.
I'm sorry if we have disturbed your water cooler conversation, but it is election season, and the future of Oreogn is at stake.
Oct 31, '06
To the people who have emailed me that you've decided to vote for Measures 46 & 47: thank you. It's good to know someone is paying attention to the discussion. Please talk with your family, friends, coworkers, and neighbors about Fair Elections.
2:54 a.m.
Oct 31, '06
To the people who have emailed me that you've decided to vote for Measures 46 & 47: thank you. It's good to know someone is paying attention to the discussion.
I didn't email you, Tom. But having been accused of destroying democracy by Ed --who doesn't know me from Adam-- and, as a card-carrying member of the ACLU AND a fan of Ursula LeGuinn...this is an interesting discussion for Blue Oregon, and for me, who doesn't always pay attention. I'm voting for 46 & 47.
Reading the NY Times this morning and last, listening to NPR, how the Democratic Party is in so many places "moving right" (oh, sorry, moving to the "reasonable center" or some such thing)...anti-gay marriage Democrats, anti-abortion Democrats. (Ah, but The Party will be "taking back the government"...to what end?)
Maybe I'm just a flaming friggin' liberal...who, when they get mailers attacking "Fair Elections" sponsored and paid for by corporations and lobbyists, well...
It's been interesting. Thanks, Kari, for having this forum. Thanks Dan, and Tom, and Ed and all the rest...it's OK to disagree. And its OK to try stuff that isn't guaranteed to solve all the problems of the world, end baldness, and cure cancer. Isn't it? You want guarantees...shop at Les Schwab. Or maybe those employees running to show you they "care" freak you out a little.
Anyway, it's politics, that's all. Whatever happens, we'll deal with it. That's what grown-ups do...they deal with it. The sky isn't falling.
Oct 31, '06
Frank,
My wife and I have belonged to ACLU for several decades. I appreciate their work defending civil liberties, but I have never agreed with them that contribution limits infringe free speech, and I've told them so. Media reports from a while ago suggest that a substantial part of the national ACLU board also believes their campaign finance reform position is wrongheaded.
9:41 a.m.
Oct 31, '06
Tom, when an artist is banned from purchasing airtime to broadcast a political work -- say, "Angels in America" or "The Band Played On" "Wasting Away in Saxtonville" -- tell me that M46 isn't an infringement of free speech. Meek's measure allows the banning of "any" political work. just because the bar may be set high doesn't mean it's not there. M46 allows the banning of speech -- the infringement of free speech -- because if you don't have access to an audience, you got shit.
Oct 31, '06
T.A.,
You seem to have a problem remembering what has already been written in this thread, so I'll remind you.
Measure 46 would put Oregon in the same position as the other states in the ability to make law that regulates political contribution. You are concerned that Measure 46 will lead to censorship of political art, such as the three plays you mention above. You have a wonderful opportunity to offer supporting evidence for your concern. With 49 states to choose from, it should be easy for you to cite several examples of such artistic censorship having happened. You haven't provided these examples yet. If you can't or won't, I don't see why anyone would take your concern seriously.
Your concern is very much like Peter Buckley's concern that M47 will make things worse. I've asked that he supply a hypothetical campaign cycle budget that shows the provisions he questions overwhelming the advantage of eleminating corporate campaign contributions. He should have done this before going public with his concern. I doubt he did, or if he did that he found his concern is not realistic. Anyway, I've no numbers to back up his concern either.
The opposition to Fair Elections has been this way consistently. Lots of concerns and predictions, very little supporting information.
Oct 31, '06
"Good money drives out bad money."
Is this claim science, or is it religion? Nothing personal, but is it anything other than an article of faith?
2:12 p.m.
Oct 31, '06
Tom, 56 comments to this point. no, i don't remember everything. i do remember why i wrote this post: M46 is a reduction of free speech in Oregon. i don't have to show where the other 49 states have or have not reduced anyone's actual free speech opportunity. i simply have to read M46, and it says speech can be denied -- if my opportunity to speak 1) requires that i pay for the platform and 2) has political influence. the onus is on Dan and his supporters to tell me how "may enact and amend laws to prohibit or limit contributions and expenditures, of any type or description, to influence the outcome of any election" is not a reduction of free speech in the constitution. ...any type or description ... influence the outcome of any election.... i have a dictionary; i know what "any" means. you prove to me no law restricting free speech would ever be passed; prove to me that Oregon would never pass any such law in the any future.
Oct 31, '06
Kari,
I really like the $50 democracy voucher idea at first blush. I think this would be just the shot in the arm that democracy needs to evolve past this era of big-money politics, by returning the power back to the people, voting in masse. Sure, your vote counts, but then to be able to back up your vote with a voucher -- that seems meaningful.
However, I am curious: With politics, they always say "follow the money." Where does all this money flow? You toss out a $20 million figure, so let's use that. Into whose pockets will that $20 million ultimately flow? Will this create a larger political consultant class? Will it just enrich the bottom line of media outlets? Where does it ultimately wind up, after it gets "spent" as a popolitical contribution?
Oct 31, '06
True, T.A., you need no evidence whatsoever to believe what you want to believe. That is my problem with what you have written. It is faith-based politics. That's fine for the person with the faith, but not too persuasive for the rest of the world.
I prefer to believe what is supported by the evidence. The rest of the US has not stifled artistic expression because they limit political contributions. I conclude that it will not be likely to be a problem here either.
If you knew anything about logic, you would also know that proving a negative is impossible. Since you are asking the impossible of Fair Elections supporters, I shall ignore your demand. You really have blown your wad on this topic, T.A.. Believe what you will, but I think the longer you go on, the more readers will see the weakness of your position.
3:02 p.m.
Oct 31, '06
i am absolutely flabbergasted. i present Meek's words, which are clear and concise, completely non-ambiguous; and you assure me nothing bad will happen just cuz it ain't happened yet. and i'm faithed-based?
you cannot tell me that M46 would not lead to free speech limitations, so i'm the one who needs to prove it would happen. well, look at the history of this country: free speech has been limited, habaes corpus has been diminished, we've imprisoned people because of where their parents and grandparents were born, and we make things illegal just because we want to. this nation is 200-plus years of violations of rights, and i'm supposed to trust M46 won't add to that? are you kidding me?
Oct 31, '06
T.A.,
It's a matter of comparing risks and gains. I don't know if the other staes have allowed contribution limits since their statehood, so I'll use a compromise number of 100 years. that means we've had 100 years x 49 [states] = 4,900 years experience with no example of artistic expression limited because of contribution limits. On the other hand we have the well documented corruption of the political process by big contributors. I'd say your position looks like an irrational obsession. Of course, you have a right to any irrational obsession that appeals to you. I prefer to attach a huge problem that is undeniable and risk a smaller problem that has never been observed.
4:40 p.m.
Oct 31, '06
Tom, you have yet to tell me i'm wrong. you've only told me it hasn't happened yet. and that's not good enough, not when we know there are other options to gutting the constitution. not when we've not tried those other options.
have you read "On Liberty"? there's a reason Mills is so important to democratic, and particularly liberal, thought: he laid groundwork for some of our most fundamental liberties. you say the risk is worth what we gain, but we gain nothing when we place basic freedoms on the line.
and you've not disproved that one iota. all you've done is given me greater confidence -- ironically because you are so confident nothing bad could ever happen.
Oct 31, '06
T.A.,
If I refused to do anything that did not come with an ironclad assurance of no negative repercussions, I would never get into an automobile, or leave my front door, for that matter. And I suppose you didn't understand the comment about he impossibility of proving negatives. That is not a talking point, it is an immutable rule of logic, the sort of thing that doesn't seem to mean much to you - or the anti-Fair Elections campaign.
The sun has come up in the east for many days now. Following your thinking, one should put no value on that and expect that the chances of it coming up in the west are about even. So, excuse my bluntness, but I believe your ability to reason has melted into a puddle on the floor.
Oct 31, '06
Steve Duin wrote:
A Last Glance at Measures 46 & 47 Posted by Steve Duin October 31, 2006 16:00 Steve Duin Index
If you are still undecided about Measures 46 and 47 -- Dan Meek's campaign finance reform initiatives -- I would encourage you to check out the tantrums against them by the union loyalists at BlueOregon and the temporarily insane bloggers at Loaded Orygun.
Check out the postings here and here, especially the long comment trails in which Dan Meek and Tom Civiletti confront the hysterical and (frequently) disingenuous attacks upon the measures. As you read, take note of which side seems more diligent, more rational, and more committed to dealing with the corrosive effect of money on Oregon politics.
Oct 31, '06
Tom said: "I'm sure you're all nice folk. But this is a public political discussion. We are sparring intellectually."
And now: "So, excuse my bluntness, but I believe your ability to reason has melted into a puddle on the floor."
Your argumentation has as much to do with intellectual debate as the World Wrestling Federation has to do with the ideals of intramural sports. I hope Steve is proud of your work.
7:41 p.m.
Oct 31, '06
Ed,
I read today that $160 million has been spent so far opposing congressional candidates. $17 million extolling them.
Locally, I've been subjected to a barrage of ads just this evening that are almost univerally negative, opposing things and people.
All this money, spent to spread all this ugliness. There's got to be a better way. And I think a start is cutting down on how much get's spent on this nonsense. Curtailing free speech...or clearing the air?
Let's focus on policies, not on bashing people.
Oct 31, '06
Let's focus on policies, not on bashing people.
My point to Tom exactly.
Oct 31, '06
Ed,
You seem to operate from the junior high school "let's build self-esteem" guidelines for persuasive discussion. I'm ready to discuss the issue nonpersonally with someone who is making reasonable arguments - which is not the same thing as agreeing with me,by the way. But in this thread I've read one silly comment after another from you, T.A., and LT. After a point, not commenting on the weakness of your argumentation would be an insult in itself. When I write that T.A.'s ability to reason has melted on the floor, my metaphor stands in for a less polite thought. I'm not going to pretend that this is a reasonable debate, because I've seen little reason from the opponents of Fair Elections Measures 46 & 47. I am no longer patient. My only function here is to point out the lack of facts, perspective, and rationality in your statements. I'd rather be doing something else, but I will continue to rebut you. when I think your statements are silly, I will say so. When I see that you are irrational, I will point that out. Get used to it.
Oct 31, '06
Well, at least Tom has dropped the pretense of reasonable debate. I am used to his vitriol. I wonder from how many people that is winning support for the measures.
Nov 1, '06
Again, Ed, your ability to understand written English is no stronger than your ability to write it. Your side has refused to offer anything reasonable. Supporters of Fair Elections Measures 46 & 47 have been more than reasonable in this discussion.
Again, this is not personal, Ed. If I were trying to argue your side of this debate, I'd sound pretty silly myself. Defending a position with no data to back you up is a no-win situation.
Nov 1, '06
Trying to suppress debate by the personal attacks such as your last one (denying it only emphasizes it) is the very definition of being a troll, and does nothing to advance the cause you reputedly embrace, which would be "fair elections". What about that is "fair" or concerned with "elections"?
Nov 1, '06
Ed,
That your language skills are lacking is the charitable interpretation for what you've written here. You think I'm being too rough? Show a copy of this thread to an English composition teacher, as she what she thinks.
Nov 5, '06
t.a., way back when you said:
and Tom, where is this neat, clean black-and-white line you see that clearly and absolutely defines where politics begins and ends? if my artistic statement is deemed to have an effect on politics -- and by god, as a fan of Kurt Vonnegut, among others, i hope i can be both artistic and politically influential -- then M46 does exactly what you say my over-active imagination fears.
I think you confused a couple of terms. You want your art to INFLUENCE POLITICS, to apply a shaping pressure on our community life.
The proposed ban would be on art intended to INFLUENCE ELECTIONS, to persuade voters to fill in an oval and leave another one empty.
Mind you, I'm sure it would snare the Squirrel Nut Zippers' "Had Enough" -- but that's going to be nothing more than a nostalgia trivia quiz by next week.
Nov 5, '06
Suzzi,
Of course, "ban" would only apply to art paid for by a corporation or labor union treasury. Otherwise, the art would be treated as any other in-kind contribution and subject to the appropriate limit.
<h2>The most likely standard [this would be worked out by the Secretary of State and the courts] for determining whether something is regulated or not would be whether or not the art asked people to vote for or not vote for a candidate.</h2>