Why Meek Should Not Inherit the Earth
Like Steve Duin and the Willamette Week staff, I respect Dan Meek for his years of work on progressive causes. But that doesn’t make him right on Measures 46 and 47.
Dan’s background in the progressive movement is in lawsuits and initiatives. He has not – at least not visibly -- sullied his hands with any involvement in the legislative process or in candidate campaigns. And, frankly, even when it comes to initiatives, he has not joined the rest of the progressive movement in our endless battles against the likes of Sizemore and McIntire. In fact, he has opposed modest changes to the initiative process that would have hurt Sizemore without hurting democracy.
Stand for Children, Ecumenical Ministries, Oregon Action, Basic Rights Oregon, NARAL and Planned Parenthood have been involved in the legislative process, and some have been involved in candidate campaigns. They have concluded that these measures will chill the participation of small and mid-sized donors, and muzzle politically active non-profits, while the final result will be wealthy individuals continuing on unfettered ... because, as every lawyer other than Dan has concluded, the measure’s own provisions on wealthy donors will inevitably be struck down by the Scalito Court.
These groups are in a position to know what they are talking about. More so than Dan, who has not fought in the same trenches.
The incomparable Steve Duin thinks Meek is incorruptible. But as I told Steve the other day, nobody should underestimate the self-righteous feeling of incorruptibility (and desire for recognition of same) as a source of corruption in its own right. I myself sometimes have to ask myself, "Am I saying this because it is right and true to say it and it needs to be said and I'm the only one who will and damn the consequences -- or am I saying it because I want Steve Duin [for example] to give me CREDIT for being the only one to say something that is right and true and needs to be said?" I don't always know the real answer. I suspect that Dan, like me, is often tempted by the poisonous fruit of self-righteousness into alienating his allies, not necessarily because we are right, but because it feels so good to be seen as Diogenes’ one honest man. I suspect that is what has happened in this case.
Personally, I have serious doubts about any campaign finance reform that does not include a public financing component. “Get the money out of politics”? How do you communicate, without money? You can’t knock on a million doors. Try it sometime. And I can give you a pretty good argument that there ISN’T very much money in politics. General Motors spends two billion dollars a year on ads, nationwide. I’d guess the Oregon portion of that (we’re a bit over 1% of the population) is over $20 million. Annually. That’s a lot more than is spent on the Governor’s race every FOUR years. Why aren’t we trying to “get the money out of cars”?
Erik Sten understands this. Which is why, unlike Dan Meek, whose quixotic, uncompromising “get the money out of politics” stance has alienated his friends, Erik Sten was willing to fight the powers that be, and take a serious risk with the public, by trying to get the fund-raising out of politics – a cause I can agree with wholeheartedly – through public financing.
|
October 19, 2006 |
Steve Novick | Comments (88 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: TM | Oct 19, 2006 2:01:59 PM
The following is likely the lamest excuse for inaction that I have ever read.
"“Get the money out of politics”? How do you communicate, without money? You can’t knock on a million doors. Try it sometime. And I can give you a pretty good argument that there ISN’T very much money in politics. General Motors spends two billion dollars a year on ads, nationwide. I’d guess the Oregon portion of that (we’re a bit over 1% of the population) is over $20 million. Annually. That’s a lot more than is spent on the Governor’s race every FOUR years. Why aren’t we trying to “get the money out of cars”?"
Posted by: Former Salem Staffer | Oct 19, 2006 2:13:45 PM
Measure 47 strikes me as a very well-intentioned, but deeply flawed, attempt to straighten out a very complex problem.
Even reading the voter's pamphlet is very revealing. The actual text of Measure 47 goes on for several pages, well beyond any of the other ones.
I talked with Rep. Peter Buckley about this a few weeks ago. He was originally one of the proponents of the measure, but has since stopped supporting it. I think that says a lot.
Posted by: David | Oct 19, 2006 2:20:41 PM
I would like to support campaign finance reform, I really would. I think we need to do something to get rid of the ability of Loren Parks or an equivilent to provide obscene amounts of funding for people they support. However, this measure goes too far and that is why I am voting NO.
I agree, btw, with Steven up above. The legislators who do win often are the ones who knock on the most doors, not have the most $. Witness Larry Galizio two years ago. I can't tell you an exact count but being peripherally involved in that campaign (I was volutneering for Hass, who worked out of the same office) I can certainly say that the number was at least several thousand.
Posted by: Jesse O | Oct 19, 2006 2:35:59 PM
We're all sick of money buying favors (or being a threat against good people). Yes, there is a better way, but knocking on doors isn't the answer.
There are two ways to fix money in politics:
(1) Limit speech to free time on airways, which isn't constitutional yet
(2) Give people adequate public funds
Everything else is a mess. And M46 creates a situation where only major money -- people who can run initiatives -- will be able to change the law (at least for major changes, as getting 3/4s of both houses is almost impossible).
Yes, there's a problem (even though there's not a huge amount of money in politics, there are clear problems with that which exists). M46 and M47 aren't the fix.
Thinking people who are about good government -- Common Cause, the League of Women Voters -- haven't endorsed these measures for a reason..
Posted by: activist kaza | Oct 19, 2006 2:54:21 PM
So now - having failed at every other attempt (free speech, equating Lonsdale to Sizemore, prepostorous reaches on theoretical future court decisions), the opponents of 46/47 have decided to take pot shots at Dan Meek???
This is unconscionable...and ridiculous.
I guess it's an obvious sign of desperation that Oregonians can see through all the flaccid and ludicrous arguments of the self-serving opposition. So it's time to shoot the messenger!
Fortunately, it just won't work. This campaign isn't about Dan Meek (and Dan Meek is the first to say so). It isn't about Harry Lonsdale either. It's about the thousands of Oregonians who gave small donations (relative to other campaigns) collected signatures (280k of them) and see the outright flaws in Oregon's election system - flaws that political operatives (like Novick?) are too myopic to recognize any more.
I can respect those (like the LWV) who have abstained from endorsing this version of CFR. But those who oppose it are clearly speaking with forked tongues. Those who would smear the backers of it are just plain...sick.
BTW, the vast majority of 46/47 supporters love the idea of clean elections also. But we're pragmatists and realists...and when you look at the polls to the south (on prop 89), you know that we are a long ways off from having any public financing of campaigns throughout our great state.
Posted by: Steve Duin | Oct 19, 2006 2:56:43 PM
Once more with feeling:
Steve, ol' chum: You were not hired for your brains, you hippopotamic land mass.
Over the last several years, there have been at least a half dozen times when Meek begged me not to put his name in the column if I elected to write about PGE, TPG, 408 or campaign finance. If I thought he was in it for the publicity, I'd avoid him like the plague ... or Len Bergstein.
Posted by: Dan Meek | Oct 19, 2006 3:10:18 PM
Just a few comments, as I also have to run my law practice.
Public funding of campaigns would be great. I was a donor to that cause in 2000, when it was defeated 58-42%. It was also defeated in Oregon by over 70% "no" vote in 1976. It will likely go down to defeat in California on November 7. Polls showed that the Portland system would have been repealed by the voters, had the referendum qualified for the ballot.
And limits on private contributions are a prerequisite to a permanently workable system of public funding. If the developers has gotten together and really supported Ginny, she could have overwhelmed the Portland public funding system with private contributions that the public system could not have matched, due to lack of appropriations. Public funding systems work in Maine and Arizona, where they are accompanied by limits on private contributions.
As for some of the other ideas, the U.S. Supreme Court has never allowed limits on contributions or expenditures regarding ballot measures and instead has always invalidated themn. It struck them down in Massachusetts (1978), Berkeley (1981). The Ninth Circuit struck down Montana's limits in about 2003. In 2000 and 2002, we circulated statewide measures that also limited contributions on ballot measures. Can't say we got support from any of those on this thread who now advocate that, but I encourage those who wish to limit contributions on measures to collect the signatures and put it on the ballot. I will help.
Re the suggestions about free media, etc., regulation of broadcasting and even cable TV is preempted by federal law. In other words, a state or locality cannot require free time on any station for any purpose.
As for who wins, the legislative candidate spending the most money wins over 90% of the time.
As for endorsements, we have Sierra Club, OSPIRG, Gray Panthers, Physicians for Social Responsibility, etc. As for the LWV and Common Cause, both are neutral. If your arguments against the measures are so great, why are they not opposed?
Anyway, I have to get back to work to make more money to contribute to the campaign.
Posted by: J. Smalls | Oct 19, 2006 3:22:46 PM
Duin:
Meek isn't doing this for the publicity but because no matter how many smart people tell him otherwise, he does it because it's the perfect plan, because Harry Lonsdale says so, by golly.
Posted by: John Napolitano | Oct 19, 2006 3:23:55 PM
In the US Congress, those who accept thousands of dollars in gifts from lobbyists end up in jail. Republican congressman Bon Ney is the latest one to admit to the practice. But in Oregon, paying elected representatives with lavish trips is considered constitutionally protected speech. Without a change to the state constitution, we are not going to get rid of a system that is corrupt. Measure 46 is a step in the right direction.
Posted by: Dan Meek | Oct 19, 2006 3:35:40 PM
Check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAXsIs5ouX8
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Oct 19, 2006 3:36:34 PM
Steve Duin is a columnist. Columnists often look for a personal angle on issues, hence Duin's piece on Dan Meek.
Let's be honest. The Fair Elections Measures 46 & 47 are not about Dan Meek. The campaign in favor of them hardly mentions Meek. Opponents first tried to discredit the measures by attacking one of its main supporters, Harry Lonsdale, trying to conflate him with conservative deep pockets Loren Parks and Howard Rich. That approach has failed to gain traction. Now they are after Meek. When you don't have much of substance to argue, ad hominem attacks become tempting.
I had dinner with Dan Meek last night. Besides talking about campaign finance reform, we discussed the disingenuous campaign for Measure 48, the military draft, and protesting the Vietnam War. We talked about how teens in the early seventies were much freer of parental control than they are today. I've also been in many meetings with Dan Meek. I heard him to being wrong about many things [the effectiveness of the Fair Elections measures was not among them]. Frankly, the guy is too busy to wait around for Diogenes to shine a lamp in his face. If he's not working on campaign finance reform, he's trying to prevent the "public" utilities from robbing us of hundreds of millions of dollars.
On Steve Novick's points that are not ad hominem:
The prediction by Steve and "every lawyer other than Dan" that limits on wealthy donors will be struck down has not stopped Alaska, Colorado, Delaware, D.C., Hawaii, Illinois (judicial races only), Michigan, Nevada, Tennessee, Washington (last 21 days before the election only), and West Virginia from enacting such limits enacting such limits. Pardon me if I don't roll over and give up because of such predictions, predictions just like the ones that many McCain/Feingold provisions would be overruled. Those predictions proved wrong.
As to public financing of campaigns...Steve loves it, I love it, Dan Meek loves it, Oregon's voters do not love it. Polls suggest that Portland system [we all love that as well] would be overturned if it faced the voters. Oregonians are cheap, are "welfare for politicians" is a powerful message with them.
Again, I need to mention for the umpteenth time that EVERY state that has public campaign financing also has contribution limits. The two are synergistic.
As to the progressive groups who complain that Fair Elections would put a crimp in their fundraising, the more I hear from them, the more they sound like political professionals trying to protect their cash flow, and the less they sound like effective advocates for their issues and for democracy in general. Limits In Fair Elections apply only to their work for and against candidates in the period before the election. There is no effect on their work on measures, communication with members, are whatever else they do.
Librarian and artist groups are taking their cue from ACLU on this issue. ACLU has always believed contribution limits are unconstitutional. I've been a member of ACLU for many decades, and I don't agree with their position. Either has the US Supreme Court. Money has enough power in this world with being equated with speech and protected by the First Amendment.
People who make money from the political process [like many who gather here] are just about the ONLY people who believe that money is not a problem in politics. Face reality: most money spent on campaigns goes to TV and radio ads that have close to zero useful content. I think Oregon's voters can make better decisions based only on what is in the Voters Pamphlet than they can based on the totality of television, radio, and mail political ads.
The string of recent stories on political money makes Steve's dismissal of its corrupting influence ring untrue.
- Legislators fly to luxurious junkets in Hawaii to pick up big contribution checks from the alcohol lobby [by the way, tax on beer and wine has not increased in 30 years].
- The legislature bowed to lobbyist pressure and repealed a program that saved Oregon millions [$400,000/month] on prescription drugs.
- The forest products industry pours $1.1 million [so far] into Saxton's campaign after Kulongoski tries to protect roadless areas.
Money in politics is not a problem? Sure, Steve. Whatever you say.
Posted by: Dan Meek | Oct 19, 2006 3:37:48 PM
That did not produce a clickable link, so here is a clickable link:
Prop 89 ad
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Oct 19, 2006 3:43:46 PM
Sentence in third paragraph should read:
"I've heard him admit to being wrong about many things [the effectiveness of the Fair Elections measures was not among them]."
also: "enacting such limits" should not be repeated.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Oct 19, 2006 3:46:49 PM
Steven Maurer wrote:
"I've said it once, I'll say it again. A 10K personal limit to all campaigns and initiatives would take a few sentences, and solve more real problems in this State than Meek's entire Rube Goldberg legal contraption."
Unfortunately, Steve, it would leave gaping holes for most contributions and runs counter to preexisting federal court decisons.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Oct 19, 2006 3:53:29 PM
OK, Tom, how about this one-sentence measure -- that WOULD stand up to a federal court decision:
"Corporations shall be prohibited from donating money to any candidate or candidate committee."
Done. Just like the federal rules.
Posted by: doretta | Oct 19, 2006 3:54:16 PM
Speaking as someone who hasn't yet formed an opinion about the measures and doesn't know any of the personalities involved, I have to say I'm not favorably impressed by the attempt to make this about the person rather than the measures themselves.
Posted by: Damiana | Oct 19, 2006 3:58:38 PM
John Napolitano wrote:
"But in Oregon, paying elected representatives with lavish trips is considered constitutionally protected speech."
To clarify, these measures would do nothing to reduce trips to Maui or other lavish gifts. That is a completely different part of the law.
If anything, passage of these measures will likely increase such gifts. If corporate big spenders are limited in what they can give during the election cycle, they will be even more motivated to curry favor through meals, trips, etc. directly to legislators.
Posted by: Dan Meek | Oct 19, 2006 4:07:24 PM
Sorry, Kari, that would not work. The corporations would simply do independent ads themselves instead of the contributions to the candidates. That is why McCain-Feingold bans corporate independent expenditures, and so does Measure 47.
Yes, our measures would have an impact on the Hawaii trips. Several of the legislators did not accept the trips as gifts (as that would look bad) and instead used their campaign funds (conveniently provided by the beer and wine lobbyist himself) to "pay" for the trips. Under Measure 47, no corporation can contribute to any candidate. Thus, no corporate money for trips to Hawaii.
If you want to do a ballot measure banning all gifts to officeholders, sign me up.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Oct 19, 2006 4:11:24 PM
Kari wrote,
"Corporations shall be prohibited from donating money to any candidate or candidate committee."
-that would stand up only if non-profit corporations [501c3] were included. The OurOregon, protectourVoices opposition complains that Fair Elections Measures 46 & 47 apply to nonprofits, even though federal court rulings make this mandatory.
Also, it is common practice for corporations to give massive bonuses to their executives with the understanding that they will make massive contributions to political campaigns. This is a gaping loophole. I can supply specifics if desired.
Damiana wrote:
"To clarify, these measures would do nothing to reduce trips to Maui or other lavish gifts. That is a completely different part of the law."
- Fair Elections Measures 46 & 47 would effect the reason Wayne Scott flew to Hawaii - to pick up a $30,000 contribution check, an amount worth way more than the value of the junket itself.
Posted by: Gary Duell | Oct 19, 2006 5:33:42 PM
RE:
Political nonprofits- and others -worried about their funding when M46 & 47 pass. Currently the $50 political contribution tax credit costs the Oregon Dept. of Revenue approx. $10 mil. per year. There are about 2.6 mil. eligible voters in Oregon. If they all made an average $50 annual political contribution that would add up to $130 mil. So that PROVES that there is $120 mil. in slack for politicians to pursue, slack that would be TOTALLY unaffected by M46 & M47. It also PROVES that- if indeed money is speech -there is a huge amount of "free speech" that is not even being being used, much less being threatened by Meas. 47. Or else taxpayers are making contributions and forgetting to ask for the credit, which is highly unlikely on such a large scale.
RE:
Attacking Dan Meek. Dan is the last person in Oregon whose character or intelligence could justifiably be questioned. Hence, a person attacking him must be stupid, or ignorant, or ethically challenged, or all of the above. Doing so is a fool's errand.
RE:
Publicly financed elections. Yes, of course this is the best solution. But do you think it will ever happen as long as the brothel in Salem is in operation? An unusually rare convergence of intelligence and character on the Portland City Council, coupled with Potter's populist victory, is what made Portland's publicly financed campaigns possible. But that will NEVER occur in Salem as long as the love of legislators, and the media that elects them, can be bought.
Posted by: anon | Oct 19, 2006 5:35:05 PM
I keep reading references on Blue Oregon to Dan Meek as a "progressive". I don't get that.
The guy worked to try and deliver Oregon for George W. Bush, twice (Nader 00 and 04)! Gee thanks! No doubt Alito and Roberts will be vital in helping to make America a better place for working families, the environment, and our civil liberties in the coming years.
Further, he appeared in ads w/ Don McIntire in 2002 to support that judicial redistricting measure (similar to BM 40 on this year's ballot). Mr. Meek has claimed that this was in fact the progressive position. Of course, Loren Parks, Kevin Mannix, Russ Walker, Don McIntire and the rest of the right wing of the Oregon Republican Party didn't see it that way. Nor do they see it that way this time. See, Mr. Meek was just working his special Jedi mind tricks on those silly Republicans - jokes on them!
But, I guess Mr. Meek and his actions are just too brilliant for the rest of us peons to understand. How dare anyone criticize him!?!
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Oct 19, 2006 5:44:53 PM
anon,
As a confirmed Democrat, I don't see the upside of progressive third party runs under the current election system. That doesn't mean that someone who supported Ralph Nader for president is not a progressive. It's a matter of strategy, not values. If we throw everyone off the progressive boat who doesn't agree with us completely, we're going to be pretty lonely.
A Green is a Democrat who has been disappointed one too many times.
Posted by: lin qiao | Oct 19, 2006 7:38:23 PM
"The incomparable Steve Duin thinks Meek is incorruptible. But as I told Steve the other day, nobody should underestimate the self-righteous feeling of incorruptibility (and desire for recognition of same) as a source of corruption in its own right."
Hello? Does anyone actually read Steve Duin? The man has no equal for self-righteousness. Is it really any wonder he would promote someone else of the same mindset?
Posted by: Adam | Oct 19, 2006 7:46:11 PM
Trying to limit campaign SPENDING is a waste of time and an unconstitutional infringement of free speech.
The goal of campaign finance reform laws should not be about trying to limit the ability of candidates to get their message out. It's pretty hard to do that if you have artificially low limits on what you can spend.
The goal of campaign finance reform should be:
1) Maximize full disclosure and prompt disclosure so that everyone knows who has paid for any kind of political ad or mailer, and who is funding which campaigns.
2) Put realistic limits on campaign DONATIONS, so that a few rich individuals can't single handedly finance campaigns themselves. A realistic limit would be much more than $100 or $500. Maybe 10 or 20 times that much. The goal being to put a limit on the extreme cases, not put a rediculously low limit on everyone.
3) Maximize alternative ways for candidates to get their message out.
The thing I can't stand about these ballot measures and others is that it seems like what they really want to do it limit the ability as much as possible for candidates to run any ads at all, or mail out any flyers at all. So all we are left with is free media in the newspapers and on TV news broadcasts. If you're running a statewide campaign, going door to door isn't realistic.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Oct 19, 2006 7:54:41 PM
Adam,
You haven't read the Fair Elections measures, have you? If you would, you'd learn that Fair Elections IS about limiting campaign contributions to candidates. Limits on campaign spending are unconstitutional. That's why Fair Elections doesn't try to do that.
I don't believe that Fair Elections is going to stifle politcal campaigns. It will change them, that's for sure. But if Oregonians perceive a lack of political advertising, maybe they will vote for public funding [Clean Elections], and then all progressives will be happy.
Posted by: Tenskwatawa | Oct 19, 2006 8:00:44 PM
#
Tom Civiletti sees, "People who make money from the political process [like many who gather here] are just about the ONLY people who believe that money is not a problem in politics. Face reality: most money spent on campaigns goes to TV and radio ads that have close to zero useful content. I think Oregon's voters can make better decisions based only on what is in the Voters Pamphlet than they can based on the totality of television, radio, and mail political ads." [emphasis added]
I read and re-read the Constitutions and could not find anywhere that self-governance, liberty, and justice, are skilled career paths for those who have no science, art, tradecraft, commercial propriety, or agricultural skills to capitalize on.
A person whose consciousness grasps no more of political activity than the nick of money they can pocket from public transactions, being the only type of person in politics these days, explains how open, informed, and just government has been removed from the laws of this land -- by the profiteers selling those illusions -- and everything written and enacted is more autocratic and authoritarian oppression of citizens. Seems that the death of American democracy coincides with the creations (1945-48) of militarized industry and manufacturing, the Pentagon, the CIA, and television. As implements of the the extensions of human powers in nuclear science, digital control, and genetic biology -- the absolute powers of the atom, the mind, and DNA design.
Now, within 5 generations, every American political involvement is corrupted absolutely. Our nation is become a slave camp.
Simply because, common knowledge is infected to think of politics as wage work. So is suck-up assistant killer guard jobs at a dictator's prison camps.
--
Probably Steve Novick did not consider his ideas about campaign reforms as implicitly and inherently involved with democracy or autocracy powers and understanding. I just think that the discussion in terms of contribution limits, or dollars per candidate, shows none of it can effect liberty and justice for citizens in this land while nationalisms goes on, and now 60 years on, murdering humanisms.
All these discussions -- campaign finance, jobs creation, ecology preservation, health care, police brutality, transportation, etc., etc. -- mostly seem to me to be wastes of time. American democracy, that good old body of liberty and justice intangible conceptual fuzzy stuff again -- although every human brain has an innate and inborn sense of those, (sociality, liberty and justice), and no human brain is born with hardwired comprehension of what are called 'issues,' (jobs, economy, war, etc.) -- is a body rotted inside from power-madness's cancerous corruption, much as sex-madness's cancerous syphilis rots a body from within, and the discussions that go on to treat and cure the dying body politick all amount to physicians arguing whether the bandaid goes on the left toe or the right toe.
Anyway, in campaign finance, I understand it works this way. A candidate goes campaigning for office by getting some money and spending it. (Instead of publishing social and political thoughts.)
Now, the lawmakers seem set on autocratic power over where a candidate can get money, and maybe, how much money.
I always want to ask what about regulating where a candidate can spend it.
Just enact that campaigns for public office are prohibited to spend money to buy broadcast time on radio and television.
Only because those temporal media are known to impair and damage human conscious coherence, cogency and values.
...TV viewing may trigger autism, data analysis suggests
Same reason statecraft enacted the prohibition on buying broadcast tobacco sales campaigns.
For what it's worth, in personal conversations with Dan Meek, Steve Duin, and likely Steve Novick without knowing his name, (but if not in conversations, at least in reading his written thoughts), I appreciate each of them as kind and dear, intelligent human beings. I understand we are not supposed to say anything substantive or creatively original in the blogworld of words and wisecracks, and I ask your forgiveness if I have broken the ruler rules.
#
Posted by: Ed Bickford | Oct 19, 2006 9:14:24 PM
The identity and putative sainthood of the authors is ultimately immaterial. Please let us not waste space on personal attacks which blockade debate of issues.
The purpose of Measures 46 & 47 is to place controls on campaign finance so that large donors can't buy a contolling interest in choosing our representatives. The question is what the measures will deliver if passed.
Measure 46 is a Constitutional Amendment, so it would be the most enduring accomplishment. Careful consideration is due to the conditions it sets for campain finance reform beyond Nov. 7, 2006.
In an attempt to forestall opposition in the State Legislature, M 46 imposes the "superdupermajority" requirement of three-quarters assent in both Houses to write or amend campaign finance law. I judge that an unacceptable diminishment of the power of the institution of representational democracy. It would allow as few as seven State Senators to blockade campaign finance reform legislation.
If there is popular support for campaign finance reform, then we should take measures to hold legislators to account for attempted subversion of it. If they are beyond popular censure, attempts to control their finances are utterly inadequate to the problem we face.
Leaving the only practicable means of passing campaign finance law to be the initiative petition puts it in the arena of unfettered financing. As Mr. Meek noted: "the U.S. Supreme Court has never allowed limits on contributions or expenditures regarding ballot measures".
M 47 seems unlikely to last long under those conditions. Big donors aren't aren't going to surrender after losing one skirmish.
Posted by: Travis Diskin | Oct 19, 2006 9:55:54 PM
ED states
If they are beyond popular censure, attempts to control their finances are utterly inadequate to the problem we face.
The problem is that great and there is overwhelming popular support for campaign finance reform in Oregon. If at any time the legislature finds a provision a problem, they can always refer it to the voters where simple majority decides.
Oregonians on the whole have no confidence in their representatives because of this perceived corruption issue. The question that voters need to ask is, "Is this current system working," (I have yet to hear one person, even the opposition say yes to that,) and follow up that question with, "Will this new system be better for Oregonians?"
The answer without question is, Yes, the system will be healthier by passing these measures.
Posted by: Chuck Sheketoff | Oct 19, 2006 10:08:27 PM
As I read Measure 46, 16 rogue legislators in the House or 8 rogue members of the Senate could stop legislation that:*
1. Fixes a drafting error or improves Measure 47.
2. Applies tighter limits than Measure 47
3. Closes a loophole that some crafty corporate lawyer figured out or that the folks implementing the statute create.
Certainly Dan Meek isn’t so arrogant to think that his measure is perfectly written and will never need to be amended. And does anyone really believe that corporate Oregon won’t find any loopholes in the Measure 47 scheme that will need to be closed?
Heck, if the alleged purpose of the measure will bring about better legislators, or at least legislators able to act in the public interest free of monied interests, we shouldn’t be writing a constitutional provision that undermines the ability of the new and better Legislature to act.
There’s certainly good reason to be concerned that the Legislature might make some changes in the future that today’s drafters of Measures 46 and 47 won’t like, but tying the hands of the “cleaner, money free” Legislature from making positive changes, as well, makes no sense. The proponents of Measures 46 and 47 should have the strength of their convictions that the Legislature will be improved.
The drafters of Measure 46 could have protected the right of citizens to refer negative changes to Measure 47 just like it is preserved for tax issues by prohibiting emergency clauses on campaign finance legislation. ** Instead, they chose to tie the hands of the very body they claim they are freeing from corporate money influence.
In 1994, Oregon voters approved campaign finance reform. The 1995 Legislature, controlled in both houses by the Republicans, did not amend or repeal the law (it was struck down by the Supreme Court in early 1997). In addition, the effort to repeal Death With Dignity taught folks that trying to repeal a voter-enacted law is fruitless – the law was re-affirmed by an even larger margin while tarnishing the reputation of legislators and the institution who tried to repeal it (one of the reasons the Ds took over the Senate).
The rules of the legislative process are designed to not pass bills – which is a good thing. That helps protect against initiatives from being undermined. Measure 46 puts clunky handcuffs on the Legislature; the ¾ requirement is more extreme than the power-to-the-minority requirements the Oregon GOP and their anti-government friends put in place on the kicker and measures to raise revenues. It would set a new standard for undermining the authority of the Legislature to act. “If its good enough for progressive Dan Meek on campaign finance reform, why isn’t it good enough on this spending or tax measure?”
Some say “don’t let the perfect get in the way of improvement.” I’m not holding out for the perfect. I am, however, holding out for a measure that does not undermine the authority of the Legislature to act to improve the law and fix problems as they arise.
The proponents of Measures 46 and 47 are so angry at the Legislature they don’t think their reforms will work. Why else would they tie the hands of the body they are claiming to be fixing” through campaign finance reform with a 75 percent threshold to make any changes?
Giving power to ¼+1 of the Legislature is a thinly veiled effort by the proponents of M46 to write-off the Legislature that they claim they are trying to fix!. I want it improved through campaign finance reform, and I want it to be able to do its job.
I find Measure 47 confusing. It is a statutory scheme that cries out for clarification and simplicity. Unfortunately, because a small group of rogue legislators can stop any reforms of the statute under Measure 46, any reforms would likely have to go through the referendum-initiative process. Under Measure 46, a simple majority in the Legislature can only refer measures to voters for changes, good or bad. That’s not a very efficient way of fixing any problems identified in Measure 47’s scheme. That is expensive, untimely, and silly.
--------
*The Legislature will always have some rogues, and this measure gives them power. The ¾ of the Legislature test in M 46 is bad public policy. Remember that fully 19 House members and 8 Senators voted against placing limits on payday loan lenders in an election year special session even though polling found 80 percent of Oregonians wanted the controls; with term limits (something possibly on the horizon) the number of rogues could go higher.
** If legislation has an emergency clause Oregonians cannot petition to refer the legislation to the voters.
Posted by: Jeremiah Baumann | Oct 19, 2006 10:48:33 PM
I'm out of town (on the East Coast) and wish I'd weighed in earlier, but here goes anyway:
1. I'm kind of surprised by the amount of guilt-by-personality that goes on in our community sometimes. Arguments that Dan Meek is looking for attention or, as the Willamette Week editorial board was told, is an intellectual looking to control the world, are ridiculous. And, more importantly, have nothing to do with the substance of the measure. (Another example is those oppose Measure 42 for the sole fact that it's a Sizemore measure even though it was a progressive bill in the Legislature.
2. I can't personally testify to whether Dan hasn't been "in the trenches" enough, but I have personally spent 5 years lobbying Congress, worked in 2 state legislatures and several ballot measures, and I personally believe quite strongly that when it comes to reforming our current political system, a) campaign finance is of utmost importance, b) contribution limits are a foundation for public financing, c) if I had to choose one, I'd take contribution limits, and d) measure 47 is one of the strongest campaign finance proposals I've seen in recent years in any state.
3. More relevantly, OSPIRG spent quite a bit of time analyzing these measures, looking at opponents' arguments, at our broader campaign finance reform platform (which includes public financing as well as low contribution limits), at our experience of how elected officials get elected and make decisions, at our experience raising money for legislative advocacy and ballot measures, and at other states' experiences electoral campaigns under similar policies. I can tell you that after going through it all several times, we had no doubt that measures 46 and 47 are very good public policy.
4. My view on the problem often paraphrased as "money in politics" is that it's "BIG money in politics" that's the problem.
5. My view is not that the big money corrupts individuals, like a legalized bribe. The problem with a big money system is that a) the candidate with the most money usually wins (not always of course), and b) with no limits or too-high limits, a person has to know a lot of people who can afford to write very large checks in order to really be in the running for public office (assuming the race is contested).
That basically means you have to know rich people to run for office. (I'm talking in extremes to make a point here; of course in a state with a relatively accessible process with a relatively small legislature, there are exceptions) And the reality is that pro-big-business candidates will tend to know or have connections to more rich people than candidates whose priority is the environment, income inequality, health care, or other issues that have no inherent relationship to wealth.
6. As long as there's no limit (or, for that matter, a $2,000 limit like we have at the federal level), the average person who can give $50 knows full well that their contribution is ultimately not that helpful. The candidates spend more time looking for big money and less time talking to voters, and meanwhile voters spend less time paying attention to candidates who they know aren't paying attention to them. And they start voting a little less time. On the positive side, if a candidate can only raise contributions of $100 or $500, they've got a reason to focus more on how many people they can talk to rather than finding the people who can give the big checks.
7. By the way, I agree fully with Steve (Novick) that it's silly to try and rid politics of money. In fact, I think money in politics is a good thing. As long as contributions are limited so that the most people can at least get into the ballpark of a meaningful contribution, fundraising success is actually an indicator of popular support rather than a cause for suspicion.
8. One of the reasons I'm passionate about this issue is that after a year and a half in Oregon politics, one of my strongest frustrations is this:
a) we have a population that is progressive and populist and independent. And not just in Portland, but all over the state.
b) we have a relatively accessible legislative & political process
c) despite those two factors, we have a legislature that does not act in the public interest and does not act according to the popular will. Look at bills that failed to move last session: prescription drug purchasing pool, payday loans. Look at bills that were actively voted against: clean air standards for cars, global warming (3 House votes to block global warming solutions even though a majorty of Republican voters in Oregon agree that global warming is a serious problem). The few real success stories were passed in cases where opposition was negotiated away by weakening a bill or where the corporate coalition was split on a bill.
Oregon needs campaign finance reform. Measures 46 and 47 are a very good start.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Oct 20, 2006 1:04:57 AM
Chuck,
I'll agree with your points 1,2, and 3. It's a question of the greatest risk in requiring a supermajority of the legislature to change Fair Elections reforms passed by the people. Based on recent experience in other states, such as Massachusetts and Colorado, it's likely that the legislature would try to gut Fair Elections. If the legislature can't bring its "rogues" under control, we can go back to the people for tweaks. The legislature could always, by a simple majority, refer such tweaks to the voters at the next election.
Fair Elections supporters DO believe the reforms will yield a better legislature, but this will take time. No one in the next legislature will have been elected under Fair Elections, and that is when the risk of legislative scuttle will be greatest. If Fair Elections never has a chance to work, we'll never get that better legislature.
I don't know about other reformers, but I'm not angry at the Legislature. I am seriously disappointed in the weak, sold-out legislature that our present funding system has given us. If we pass Fair Elections, not only will incumbents fear that their campaign finance advantage is about to end, they will be heavily pressured by their big funders who don't want to see their influence over politics compromised by effective reforms. That is a powerful confluence, one that warrants Measure 46's supermajority provision, by my reckoning.
Posted by: Ed Bickford | Oct 20, 2006 6:45:18 AM
Tom shows so little confidence in popular support for campaign finance reform that right after passage legislators could just dispose of it without outraging their constituents.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Oct 20, 2006 9:23:52 AM
Tom has little confidence in the ability of legislators to resist the lure of the big campaign contributions that got them elected.
I bet there was plenty of popular support for the program that was saving the state $400,000 a month on drug costs. I bet there was plenty of popular support for having legislators report junkets to Hawaii. I bet there's plenty of popular support for making corporations pay more than 4% of income taxes. None of that matters when legislators must face the possibility of displeasing their big funders. Add to this the prospect of losing the ability to take any of those fat contribution checks, and the temptation to subvert voter passed Fair Elections reform is great indeed.
There's plenty of popular support for campaign finance reform, just as there's plenty of popular support for good government. It's money that matters, though.
Posted by: Steven Maurer | Oct 20, 2006 9:44:41 AM
Tom, you're echoing a particular form of right wing bias that is overwhelmingly present in today's media: when a Democrat does something bad, trumpet loudly "DEMOCRAT DOING BAD THINGS!!!!" When Republicans do bad things, genericize it as "Congress" or "the Legislature" or "Lawmakers".
Everything you mentioned, saving money on drug costs, making corporations pay more than 4% of income taxes, the (already in place) gift reporting requirements, have been CHAMPIONED by Democrats. The very same Democrats who say your initiative isn't going to help, it'll likely hurt.
Posted by: Chuck Sheketoff | Oct 20, 2006 9:47:15 AM
This is Oregon - where it passed before and was not gutted by the Legislature, and where the political powers that be learned a lesson with Death With Dignity.
Massachusetts has a history of overturning at least one other voter-passed initiative - a 1992 initiative to disclose corporate taxes and profits.
Sending tweaks to the voters is inefficient, untimely, and a waste of money.
And setting a bar higher than the Right has done on taxes and the kicker is, well, . . . . [expletive deleted].
I believe in representative democracy and the simple majority to pass laws. Mis-named supermajorities give power to the minority, and Measure 46, if it passes, would give power to the smallest minority.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Oct 20, 2006 10:04:29 AM
Steven,
Democrats take big bucks from the same corporations as Republicans do. They aren't as sold out as the Republicans, not quite. This being close to election time, I won't post a list of Democratic votes for sordid bills in the Oregon Legislature. and there is a big difference between one Democrat proposing a progressive bill and the entire Democratic caucus making a progressive a priority. There's lots of the former, not much of the latter, at least not when wealthy toes would be stepped on.
Chuck,
We disagree on how much faith to put in the present Oregon Legislature. How have they been doing on your issues?
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Oct 20, 2006 10:09:21 AM
The ad hominem attacks continue. Following is a transcript of a radio ad now playing on Eugene radio. The buy was made for a consultant who works with progressive groups, often the Oregon Education Association. So much for high-minded progressives. By the way, Harry Lonsdale lives in Bend.
Teach your children well?
Radio ad transcript:
Announcer: With all the money being poured into ballot initiatives this year, we'd like to introduce you to the big campaign spenders . . . like Mr. Rich of New York.
Groaning, wheezing, loud footsteps getting closer.
Announcer: Wait a second . . . you're not Mr. Rich!
Peevish voice: No, I'm the guy who holds Mr. Rich's checkbook. He let's the money do the talking.
Announcer: For years, a few rich guys from out-of-state - like Howard Rich and Lauren Parks - have bank-rolled campaigns. Now Harry Lonsdale wants to re-write our Constitutional free-speech protections. Don't let him . . . vote no on Measures 46 & 47.
Announcer #2: Paid for by the "If You Loose Your Voice This Time, You'll Never Get It Back Coalition".
Posted by: Steven Maurer | Oct 20, 2006 10:35:42 AM
What precisely do you mean by "sold out"?
Yes, Democrats listen to Corporations. They should. Corporations and the Business community are what provide the jobs in Oregon and America, if you haven't noticed. The only issue is whether Corporations have an undue influence.
While I agree that they do, that is nearly entirely due to the Republican party. Despite your foresworn attempt to cherry-pick a handful of anecdotes, it is rather clear that overall, Democrats do what is best for the State as a whole - labor, corporations, poor, middle class, and rich.
The Democratic party is NOT the Socialist party, people who hate corporations and capitalism as much as Republicans worship it. We are centrists, and side with the business community when they're right.
And that is not "selling out".
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Oct 20, 2006 10:37:50 AM
of all the comments i've read on this & my post, including the stupid bits of nastiness between people who i thought were on the same general side of things, the one argument that hasn't been made is that a large, complex ballot measure is a good thing. even the small ones go boom in our face. laws are tough buggers to write. the more they try to cover, or the more detailed they are, the more opportunity for them to fail.
as i said, Dan Meek has picked the right issue: campaign finance reform is needed. he's just gone about it the wrong way, and that's why i will vote no. and if it does fail, maybe a good next step is to organize a confab of progressives early next year to talk about this issue and try to find a proposal we can take to the Legislature. we need to do something, and i don't think any of us want to wait for the Leg to act. they may not happen.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Oct 20, 2006 11:28:26 AM
Steven,
If only the world were so black and white. I don't have time to go through decades of legislative acitivity to document each time the Dems let the people down, but here's one from the last session that made the Oregonian this week. In order for the legislature to do the drug industry's bidding and gut the Prescription Drug Buying Pool, the Democratic controlled Senate had to go along. Undue influence? Looks like it to me.
Posted by: Steven Maurer | Oct 20, 2006 11:51:24 AM
The Democratic controlled Senate "had to go along" because Minnis made it clear that the choice was between a watered down law that didn't address the problem anywhere near to what it should have been, and no law at all.
And this experience was hardly unique. She killed dozens of good bills that had significant bipartisan support by holding the threat of an extremist campaign over her own caucus.
Again, Tom, you are doing exactly what our right wing media loves to see: blaming Democratic victims of Republican extremist governing. And quite frankly, I see that as extremely counterproductive towards the very goals you are trying to achieve.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Oct 20, 2006 11:54:38 AM
T.A.,
You don't mention in your last message that you've finally read the Fair Elections Measures 46 & 47. If you have not, your opinion is based on someone else's reading, or, for all I know, the on opinion of someone else who has not read the measures either. Do you expect to be persuasive on this matter?
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Oct 20, 2006 12:01:14 PM
Steven,
The Prescription Drug Buying Pool was establised in 2003. The gutting happened in 2005. Did the Senate really have to "go along" with this, or is this a handy excuse?
Since the legislative houses are co-equal, it's hard to blame every bad bill passed and every good one dumped because of Mrs. Minnis. She's a bad one for sure, but she's not a queen - unless Democrats let her be one.
Posted by: Steven Maurer | Oct 20, 2006 1:25:11 PM
Oh please, Tom. Prescription Drug Buying Pool was (slightly) expanded in 2005, not gutted. And if you look at Senate Bill 329, the one Minnis bottled up on committee, you can see it is just about everything the people of Oregon needed.
We can both honorably disagree about strategy and whether your Initiative is good or bad, but don't try to rewrite history to match your preconceptions. It's unworthy of you.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Oct 20, 2006 2:08:25 PM
Steven,
It's likely that whatever example I mention from recent times will lead to you excusing Democrats because the Republicans controlled one or both chambers. I could go back in time to when Democrats controlled the Legislature, but you'd probably argue that was ancient history, or that they needed to compromise with a Republican governor.
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.
Post a comment
Posted by: Steven Maurer | Oct 19, 2006 1:37:58 PM
You can't knock on a million doors, but you can knock on ten thousand. And the State legislators who do it consistently win, even under our current system.
There are only two places where vast wads of campaign cash really do drown out shoeleather candidacies in Oregon politics: the Governor's race and the Initiative system.
The greatest irony of Meek's proposals is that he's attempting to "fix" just about the only thing that isn't broken in Oregon, and has pointedly refused to address the Initiative demogaugery, the real reason this state seems always stuck in neutral.
I've said it once, I'll say it again. A 10K personal limit to all campaigns and initiatives would take a few sentences, and solve more real problems in this State than Meek's entire Rube Goldberg legal contraption.