First off, Damiana calls it a "complicated system." If it wasn't thorough and detailed, special interests, like corporations, would find loopholes like they have with McCain-Feingold.

Then she says, "...legal analysis shows that key parts of the measure are unconstitutional." You later say "experts agree" that parts will get struck down." You folks were wrong about Measure 46. The Oregon Supreme Court ruled this year that Measure 46 is constitutional and "not a complicated measure." I've asked Rep. Buckley and other opponents who these "experts" are and what their specific statements were yet no one will say. Apparently, Oregonians are supposed to take opponents at their word. Sorry, as a degreed paralegal and a legal researcher, that just isn't something I will do for anyone. So I ask once again, provide me these details. I’m easy to find.

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld limits similar to those in Measure 47 (the Missouri limits in 2000).

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld bans on corporate contributions and corporate independent expenditures.

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld bans on labor union contributions and independent expenditures.

You say "Anyone can allege a violation against anyone else that automatically triggers a hearing, regardless of the merit of the claim." It’s the same situation now with an investigation. Measure 47 requires an expediated judgment, a huge improvement. My complaint against Kevin Mannix is 11 months old next week and I'm still waiting for a decision and penalty (should be $10k to the state).

A contested state senate race now typically costs the winner about $500,000. A house seat half of that. (Karen Minnis had spent $870,000 as of last week) How many wealthy people are going to take time away from "making money" to seek election and be a legislator? Heck, they're only paid $15,396 a year plus diem. Currently, it’s easier for them to simply make large contributions to get what they want legislatively.

Of the $18 million spent on legislative races in 2004, 75% of the money came from 1% of contributors. Only 3% of total contributions were $50 or less. Meanwhile, Loren Parks has given candidates about $1.9 million since 2000. He and other fat-cats, like corporations, have a bullhorn to our collective whisper. These statistical facts make opponent’s “don’t end our free speech on political contributions” a highly lame argument.

Let's also get it straight that Measure 47 does not require individual donors to know which non profits, candidates, political action committees and organizations they can give to and how much is legally acceptable. It rightfully rests with the campaigns.

Measure 47 contains an automatic adjustment provision so that if the United States Supreme Court ever finds the limits too low, they're adjusted accordingly. Furthermore, if a candidate for whatever reason spends more than the stated limits, then all limits on contributions to that candidate's opponent are adjusted upwards in proportion.

I only went so far as home page content or I could go on.

What it really comes down to is that Measure 46/47 opponents are running a highly deceptive campaign. People should visit www.FairElections or the Secretary of State Web site and actually read the language of 46 and 47.

To add to Meek's comment, Our Oregon went on Thom Hartmann's show and spewed the same garbage I've read here. Hartmann said he opposed 46/47 based on what they told him. Once he studied the measures, he reversed course and supports Measures 46 and 47.

I'm guessing that Our Oregon will be non-grata on future Hartmann shows. Our Oregon has done some excellent work in the past but they're obliterating their reputation in this campaign. Perhaps that's why they're keeping a low profile lately while actually funding Protect Our Voice.

Oh! And before I'm accused of vicious character assassinations, remember who's been doing it for months. Am I next? Bring it on...

P.S. Protect Our Voice is an oxymoronic name in itself considering they support the status-quo where huge campaign contributors get what they want from Oregon government - while our voices go unheard too often. And political operatives pull in serious money running campaigns. So who is Protect Our Voice protecting? Themselves perhaps? they're "protecting themselves."

you people are so self righteous it makes me sick. Every progressive Organization that i care about and work for oposses these mesures. there are obvious problems with them and yet you all mighty dan meek and other guy plus annoying people seem to simply know what is best for them and everyone else in this state and anyone who disagrees with you seems to be by default somehow an evil dellusioned hack in need a savior who they will simply thank later once they see your ultimae wisdom. i am so tired of this crap. i have to deal this and john kerry appologizing all in the same day what the hell. here is the deal, 1) dan what was the largest contribution taken by 46 and 47 from a single donor 2) what if you are wrong and destroy NARAL BRO and the Democrati cparty of oregon what will you do? 3) if you are wrong what will you do to correct the situation? will take responsibility or will you just wash your hands of responsibility and say ooppps sorry. how much money will you dedicated to fixing your screw up if it is a screw up. 4) can you promise that we could even fix the situtation if you are wrong. 5) will you also fix all the organizations that you damage if you are wrong. 6)why couldn't you have spent all thsi time money and effert to pass publicly finnanced campaigns. 7) if all these powerful rich moneyed people are going to lose thier ability to influence oregon politics why aren't they dumping millions of dollars into the no on 46 and 47 campaigns they spent millions to get rid of publicly financed camapigns in portland that scared the crap out of them but on this supposedly devastating law to moneyed people i hear not a peep. what does that say... 8) Dan wake up you are not my savior or oregons savior.
9) The road to hell is paved with good intentions. 10) there is nothing more annoying or dangerous than a person who KNOWS they are right. DAN IF YOU and HARRY ARE WRONG WHAT THEN?????????

Welcome to BlueOregon, Damiana. Too bad you come with more of the same misinformation [Eugene Weekly] that the anti-Fair Elections campaign has made its stock in trade.

As you can see from the diagram that Dan Meek linked to above, the measure 47 system is not much different than the present situation in complexity, except that limits are placed on the amounts moving between the boxes. That is, after all, what contribution limits are all about.

There IS a reason that 26 of the 28 groups and individuals that actively supported the Clean Money Campaign – Measure 6 in 2000 – don’t support these measures. They don't want any reduction in the amount of money moving through their treasuries, even if that means opposing an end to corporate dominance of Oregon's elections and Oregon's government. We have, as the Oregonian put it, "the best Legislature money can buy."

Possibly most disingenuous of all is your campaign's distortion of Measure 46. It would do nothing but put Oregon on equal footing with the 49 other states in the ability to limit political contributions. I've asked other Fair elections critics, and I ask you - to tell us about all times, in those 49 states, that the ability to limit campaign contributions has had a "devastating impact" on the right to free speech. Please tell us; we really want to know. If things really are so bad elsewhere in America, then certainly, we don't want to limit campaign contributions here in Oregon. But something tells me that your list is going to be quite short, so maybe we don't really need to worry about any "devastating impact" to our free speech rights.

You continue to refer to "attorneys", "experts" and "legal analysis", but you provide no documentation whatsoever. What attorneys? What legal analysis? Who are the experts? We have asked repeatedly for these opinions. We have asked to speak with these expert attorneys. You expect Oregonians to accept on your word that these unchallenged opinions of these unnamed attorneys should scare them away from ending big money's death grip on Oregon politics. You ask a lot without giving very much, Damiana.

Some of your claims fall apart under even cursory examination. You claim that limits on self-financing by candidates is sure to be struck down. Why then, do limits on use of personal money by candidates in their own campaigns already exist in Alaska, Colorado, Delaware, D.C., Hawaii, Illinois (judicial races only), Michigan, Nevada, Tennessee, Washington (last 21 days before the election only), and West Virginia. [Federal Election Commission]. What other important information do you leave out? Of course, too much information reduces the impact of a scary tale. The best ghost stories are told in the dark to children who are easily spooked.

It would be difficult to make our present campaign funding system "WORSE" than it is. This is especially true for a reform that eliminates corporate money from candidate campaigns completely. I've ask opponents already, and I ask you here: show us a hypothetical budget, a projection of total election cycle spending under Fair Elections in which limiting corporate contributions to $0 does not produce a net benefit to progressive interests. It's easy to claim things will be worse. Back up your claim with numbers, Damiana. Readers can judge if your projections look realistic. Readers can judge if your warnings are nothing but hot air meant to blow away a rare opportunity to give us more democratic elections and government that cares more about people than about lobbyists.

You profess to be concerned about Oregon's hijacked political process, but you propose to do less than nothing to improve our situation. Instead, you want to prevent something being done to thwart the hijackers. There's lots of that going on, unfortunately. Here's another enemy of campaign finance reform:

“It’s poorly crafted and full of unintended consequences”

“Experts believe it could give more power to corporations while limiting the unions’ participation in politics”

“Legal experts believe that the initiative’s restrictions on corporations are illegal and could be thrown out, leaving the unions with the restrictions”

It could “unfairly limit our voices on critical issues.”

Sounds familiar, I know, but the spokesman is Mike Myslinski of the California Teachers Association, and he's campaigning against Proposition 89, the California initiative for voluntary public campaign funding. Prop 89 has attracted much of the same opposition that Fair Elections Measures 46 & 47 have attracted in Oregon: unions, big corporations and their trade organizations, and political nonprofits.

Funny how the anti-89 talking points are so similar to the anti-Fair Elections talking points, even though these are very different approaches to campaign finance reform. Or is it funny? Could it be that in both cases opposition is using language less based on an honest reading of the proposed legislation than on polling data and focus group results groomed by political consultants to do the best job of raising fears and sowing confusion? I'd say the chances of that are good. All the earmarks are present:

• Generalizations with little supporting evidence

• Efforts to make voters fearful

• Suggesting that voters should be confused [have you seen the no on 46 & 47 mailer with the anguished voter in whirligig glasses? Message: be confused, very confused!]

It's quite a cynical campaign, and, contrary to Damiana's progressive nonprofit aura, it's funded mostly by the corporate interests that would be brought under control by Fair Elections. Whoever suggested following the money knew his stuff.

It's all very sad, Damiana, that groups who are supposed to fight for a more progressive Oregon are more interested in protecting their cash flow than in resurrecting democratic governance, and more interested in protecting the status quo than in promoting change that will strengthen all progressive interests. It's very sad indeed.

Sorry Damiana if you assumed you would have an open forum here to debate the issues. Tom Civiletti has set himself up as sole arbiter of what is allowed as valid argumentation here, and if he disapproves he will shut you down with off-topic, personalizing attacks, as happened most recently on T. A.'s post "M46: the price is far too high".

Kari's solution, "Don't Feed the Trolls" won't work here, as I'm not donating to the R's just to discourage a fellow progressive from operating as a troll. What's a mother to do?

Ed -

The only one I have seen acting as a troll here is you. As far as I can tell you haven't made a single substantive comment on measures 46 or 47, you have only attacked its proponents.

There is plenty of reason to be sceptical here. But it does not seem to me that measure 46 changes the Oregon constitution in a way that would reduce free speech. In fact, it frees the speech of most people by not letting those with lots of money simply shout them down. Or at least allowing legislation in Oregon that would accomplish that purpose.

I'll admit some of my comments have tended to the snarky, but it has not been I who have attempted to shut down debate.

I came to the discussion with specific concerns about M 46 and what its construction revealed about the intent of the framers. I feel that its unprecedented attack on the powers of the State Legislature in the form of a practically unreachable bar of 3/4 assent for amending or writing campaign finance law is misguided and counterproductive.

The institution of representational democracy has not led legislators to believe that corruption can be encouraged without having to take responsibility for it. It is the apathy of voters which has done that; the institution is not the right target.

The intent of the framers to effectively throw campaign finance law-writing into the arena of the initiative petition where no limits CAN be passed at state level seems ill-advised to me, and unlikely to assure honest campaign finance. It is the framers' intent to forestall a defeat in the Legislature by condemning the institution to ineffectiveness. I can't go along with that.

I don't see how my position is unsoundly or inadequately reasoned, but I have had to suffer the most outlandish ad hominem attacks here and on Loaded Orygun for expressing my views.

I'm rather amazed to see yet another vicious attack on measures 46 & 47 on BlueOR in the closing days of the election season. I would have thought that the various merits (or risks) of 39, 41, 43, 45 or 48 would warrant much greater and vitriolic opposition.

But no, I'm wrong. So why is this? I think it can be explained in a brief sentence: the "professional" class of progressives foresee a great threat to their livelihoods...

Yes friends, passage of measures 46 & 47 WILL upset your apple carts. It will put an end to "business as usual" in Oregon political circles. And in a state that has lurched from economic crisis to economic crisis, without adequate funding for schools, health care etc. and continued handouts to big business and an increasingly regressive tax system, some of us will say: IT'S ABOUT TIME!

Self-interest and greed...well, they are about as American as apple pie. However, I have long held that are people on the left side of the political spectrum who had some greater ideals they put into practice.

At the end of the day, everyone voting on these measures should ask this question: are the opponents of measures 46/47 really looking out for Oregon - or are they busy looking out for themselves???

Steven Maurer,

You misread Fair Elections Measures 46 & 47. You can buy all the damned bumper stickers you want from whomever you wish, no registration necessary.

I've been looking into this on my program. Of course it's unconstitutional on its face because it limits expenditures by the candidate, which is, of course, a limitation on free speech. Look ALL of these kinds of laws are limitations on free speech and outrageous. But there's something MORE that this does. Now I realize that a lot of you don't like my political point of view but recognize that having a marketplace of ideas out there is a good thing. Measures 46 and 47 could result in the muzzling of your favorite talk show hosts, me, and BLOGGERS. Why? Because speaking in favor of a measure, candidate, etc, could be construed as an in-kind donation. A lawsuit could be brought against any campaign for non reporting of these donations and the talk hosts and bloggers could be silenced. Essentially it's a SLAPP lawsuit. How do I know that? Because this very thing happened in Washington State. I've had the attorney for the Institute for Justice in Seattle look at these measures. This organization is the one which represents the two KVI radio talk show hosts who were muzzled by four local governments for 'giving' in-kind donations to the repeal the I 912 campaign. As much as I respect Dan Meek he's wrong that his exemption of the media in his measure will really result in the exemption of talk shows hosts, bloggers, and any pamphleteer. The attorney says Oregon's proposed measures aren't like Washington's, they're WORSE than Washington's.

Victoria,

You are correct that courts have struck down limits on candidate campaign expenditures. That's why Fair Elections Measures 46 & 47 limit campaign contributions. This approach has been upheld by the US Supreme Court numerous times.

I'll let Dan address the media exemption issue you raise.

You said "buy" a bumper sticker, Steven.

Less than 1% of Oregonians contribute more than $500. This politically active very small minority are politically engaged and savy. They [including you] should have no problem complying with Fair Elections' disclosure requirements. You do now supply the required identifying information when you make a contribution, don't you? Do you grumble about the outrage of it? Even Republicans support campaign finance disclosure, Steven. It seems such a small inconvenience in the effort to bring money in politics under control. Just think, your small effort at reporting contributions will mean every US corporation will have their political influence in Oregon sliced off at the knees.

Imagine the increasingly fair tax structure. Imagine the solvent Oregon Health Plan. Imagine schools that meet the quality assurance benchmarks. Imagine rivers without pollutants. Imagine forests with trees. Imagine injured workers compensated fairly. Imagine school districts able to charge SDCs. Imagine utility companies paying their taxes. Imagine, Steven.

A few clarifications seem to be in order here. Civiletti and Meek are quick to tell you that Protect Our Voice has it all wrong. So I would like to hit some of the high (or low, depending on your perspective) points.

I linked the text of both measures in my entry. Don’t take anyone’s word on what they say. I encourage you to read them for yourself.

<h2>Then ask yourself, why would the choice community want to be involved in this fight when they have M43 to deal with? Why would education, labor and human services groups want this fight when they have M41 and 48? We didn’t ask for this fight. The proponents did when they insisted on pursuing legislation that takes aim squarely at politically active non-profits.</h2>

Civiletti and Meek say that this puts us in step with other states. Here is what Janice Thompson of the Money in Politics Research Action Project said in Ed Walsh’s Oregonian article this morning. http://www.oregonlive.com/elections/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/116244150290360.xml&coll=7&thispage=2

<h2>"This package goes farther than essentially any other state has."</h2> <h2>Civiletti cites other states where candidates are supposedly limited in their ability to contribute to their own races. These are misrepresentations. Some of these states have limits linked to accepting public funding (Hawaii, Michigan) or have voluntary limits (Colorado). Others have limits on what can be spent in a specific time limit, but not on what candidates can give themselves before or after those time frames, meaning they aren’t really limits at all (Alaska, Washington).</h2>

Finally, I would appreciate if Civiletti would stop posting statements with quotes around them, said by people in other states about other issues unrelated to us, and implying that I or anyone else from Protect Our Voice has said them.

<hr/>

As far as the personal attacks go. I think the factual discussion about these measures should be enough to keep us busy.

Kari said: "Well, you could donate to Protect Our Voice."

True, but I wish to remain independent of organizations that oppose the measures for reasons that may not jibe with my own.

Defeat of these CFR measures is not my motivation here, but the free debate in this forum is. When I stood on my convictions, I was denigrated personally and informed that it would continue as long as I voiced criticism of the measures under discussion in these public venues.

There is indeed a hostility to dissenting opinion that is being defended here. The proponents of these measures have demonstrated a lack of respect for freedom of speech that bodes ill for our Constitution's protection of it.

Look ALL of these kinds of laws are limitations on free speech and outrageous.

Which I think it the real debate isn't it? All the stuff about how it is written is a side issue. The real question is whether limiting the ability of people to spend money is also limiting their speech.

The discussion here may be interesting for those of us participating. But the real public debate on this issue is taking place with competing media advertisements and mailings costing thousands of dollars. Only those with large sums of money can participate.

After studying both sides of this issue, I've been truly stunned that Protectourvoice and other opponents of M's 46 and 47 have blinders on to the fact that they are also working to protect the voices of right wing, anti-union, anti-environmental groups that also oppose Measures 46 and 47.

These right wing and industry groups oppose 46 and 47 because their huge contributions in politics (mainly to Republicans) would largely be eliminated. They fear the playing field will be leveled between their Republican candidates and Democratic/progressive candidates. Right wing groups have good reason to fear M's 46 and 47.

Right wing opponents (some of whom have put up tens of thousands of dollars to the opposition campaign) include Associated Oregon Industries, Oregon Right to Life, the Oregon Family Council, Associated Oregon Loggers, Oregonians for Food and Shelter, Oregon Restaurant Association, Oregon Association of Realtors, Oregon Forest Industries Council, the Oregon Association of Builders and Contractors, the Oregon Farm Bureau, and AGPAC. This list reads like a whose who of major right wing political contributors.

If lefty political insiders succeed in killing M's 46 and 47 they will have destroyed a rare opportunity to put some real limits on the right wing interest groups that dominate political giving in Oregon politics, leaving our elections an out-of-control arms race between whoever can raise more money. This arms race s currently muzzling the voices of average Oregonians and harming our democratic process.

Heck yeah I am voting yes on 46 and 47! Let's kick the bucks out of politics and get the game back to the people where it should be.

I guess there are some so called progressives (the ones earning the paychecks from lefty political organizations) that are only interested in being a player in the game - not actually winning. Hmmm...job security???

Get the money out of politics and campaigning in the hands of the grassroots. Level the playing field so progressive values actually have a chance at winning.

Vote YES on M46 &47!

Damiana now is into bait-and switch mode. Janice Thompson's remark was on both measures. My critique was of Damiana's silly claim that Measure 46 will lead to heinous limits on our free speech. Thompson is correct that that Fair Elections will take us to the lead in controlling money in politics. That's why its such a great plan, Damiana!

And that's why you, the corporations, the professional lobbyists, and the professional political consultants are against it.

As to limits on self-financing by candidates: there are different provisions in different states, Damiana. The point is that they are ALL in force; they have not been struck down. Oregon's limits will be in good company.

Damiana doesn't want Oregon voters to know that the anti-Prop 89 folks in California are using the same arguments that she is against Fair Elections. I think the comparison is most illuminating, Damiana. I made it clear who the speaker was. It is true that if I hadn't, readers might conclude it was you or one of your co-workers speaking. That was my point, Damiana. Try to follow the conversation.

What about the free expression of ideas on the airwaves??? Helloooooooooo????? This means Thom Hartman's hours long democrat commercials in the morning....

anybody?

anybody?

Guys.....there is no person who is going to post to this thread, nor any meaningful number of people who are going to read this, who have not already made up their minds about this one.

Drop the subject and do something useful with the last 4 days of the election season.

Either these will pass, or they won't. And either way we'll make the best of a bad situation.

It's time to move on and stop poisoning the community with these arguments

lestatdelc's comments reflect the positions of the Cato and Heritage Institutes. Progressive, indeed!

To Anon,

If Damiana and others stop obfuscating, I won't need to expose their fallacies and lack of facts. I'd rather be working. My daughter's at U of O in the architecture program. She wants to study in Rome this summer.

I find it amusing that Victoria Taft is posting on here, and complaining about Thom Hartmann. Ms. Taft is a paid commentator, not a political activist. You are an ENTERTAINER honey, not a statesperson. You are one of those "conservative" talkers that keep coming back uplike a bad meal. And when nobody would respond to you, you turn troll!

Hartmann has presented both sides on every measure he has talked about on his show, and then stated his thoughts on it. He is a paid commentator and an ENTERTAINER as well. Both of your jobs are to sell advertising.

Too bad you have a larger opinion of yourself than is realistic. It must be all of that liberal talk radio we are subjected to in Portland.

and PS

How are your ratings Victoria? I thought so. And who owns your station? What would his opinion be on this topic, same as yours?

I don't want to impugn the motives of anyone who posts here, or of the organizations opposing 46 and 47. But over the past few decades--or maybe forever--progressives have lost more than they have won in Oregon elections because they were outspent (and, yes, outsleazed). So why would any progressive want to continue a system that guarantees losing the vast majority of the time?

heck yeah i am voting NO on 46 and 47! you can't kick the bucks out of politics, money flows and those with money will find a way around.

i guess that makes me a so called progressive (though i have no connection to any lefty political organization). i am not interested in being a player in the game - but i am interested in winning. Hmmm... principle???

you can't get the money out of politics and no one is keeping campaigning from being in the hands of the grassroots. run actual progressives so progressive values actually have a chance at winning.

Vote NO on M46 &47!

uh Kari, what about the TA Barnhart piece the week before...and the link to "Really" Loaded Orygun's "investigative journalism" (rolled eyes backatcha, TJ!), insuating that FEO is exhibiting some hypocrisy in its campaign affairs?

I think that's 4 to 1 against...fair? Hardly...but then, you're part of the "professional progressive" class I was referring to!

Ultimately, I'm with Anon on this one. This "debate" just seems to get more and more destructive but it's hard for some of us to sit by and watch the left eat its young.

PS Torrid, I think Buckley's agenda has been explored before; with 7 out of 8 of his largest contributors being union organizations (opposed to 47 & 48), he did his deal with the devil by switching sides, sadly!

Then ask yourself, why would the choice community want to be involved in this fight when they have M43 to deal with?

Look at their contribution and expenditure reports. Planned Parenthood is dependent on Win McCormack's checkbook for more than half of the $67,000 they raised during the 2006 primary and for a third of their total receipts.

Political non-profits are complaining about Measure 47 because they want to engage in electioneering to influence candidate races and Measure 47 will make it more difficult for them to do it. In other words, they are fighting Measure 47 because they want to continue to have undue influence over our political process.

Which is exactly the same reason why the OEA, SEIU, AFSCME, and other labor organizations oppose is the same reason why Big Timber, Big Tobacco, the home builders, the pharmaceutical industry, and AOI oppose -- they don't want to see their influence limited in Salem.

"Protect Our Voices" is not out to protect the voices of small contributors in Oregon. If they were, they wouldn't be complaining about a contribution limit set at $2500 -- far more than a working family can afford to give to political candidates.

All of this vehemence is about protecting fewer than 300-400 individuals and organizations who give substantially more than $2500 per election cycle and who dominate the political process in this state.

Measure 47 will dramatically strengthen the hand of candidates who run grassroots political campaigns, and it will dramatically diminish the culture of fear that currently exists in Salem, where the lobby can take out any legislator who refuses to play ball.

These measures are Oregon citizens last, best hope to begin reclaiming our legislative process from special interest control.

Of course the special interests on the left and right have banded together to fight against it.

Because the system under 46/47 stands to make it even worse, restricting what abilities we have now, and leaving individuals free to spend in as profligate a manner as they wish.

That's a great talking point, Torrid. The reality is that Measure 47 limits individual contributions to political campaigns at $2500 in aggregate.

Dan Meek and Damiana will be at City Club tomorrow, 1230p at the Governor's Hotel ballroom debating 46/47. Should be pretty interesting!

I feel sorry for Damiana after the spankings that Meek has delivered to Kevin Looper and others who have tried to take him on in public debate on this issue.

Only if it survives the US Constitution, which is a very open question.

There are plenty of states with similar limits, torridjoe.

Maine, Maryland, Massachussetts, Minnesota, New York, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and Wyoming all have aggregate limits on contributions.

Montana, Florida, Colorado, and Massachussetts all have comparable limits on contributions directly to candidates as the ones outlined in Measure 47.

You do understand the difference between contributions to political candidates and individual independent expenditures on candidate races, don't you?

it reflects poorly if you can't be bothered to file your own finance information on time

... kinda like it reflects poorly on a blogger when they can't be bothered to acknowledge the fact that the committee did file its report on time, nor the fact that the complete list of donors was provided to said blogger within a few hours of being asked for the list.

Anon,

Thanks for your concern, but I will be fine.

Instead spend your energy looking at what non-affiliated groups like the Oregon’s Money in Politics Action Research Project, the national Brennen Center for Justice and respected attorneys like Margaret Olney have to say about which limits will stick and which will get struck down. (I am no good at this linking stuff, but we have links on our web site to these materials protectourvoice.org)

After the court challenges, individuals wealthy enough to finance their own independent expenditures or campaigns will retain that right. At the same time, non-profits will face aggregate limits to contributors that are vague enough to impact donations to 501c4 for all of their activities. That means there will be fewer resources to fight Loren Parks, Howard Rich, etc. next time around.

And regardless of what happens to 47, we will all loose some of our rights to political speech in Oregon under Amendment 46.

Even if I thought 47 were perfect (which it isn’t) the price of giving up such a broad portion of protection under the Oregon Constitution is too high of a price to pay.

Another example where the proponents could have drafted something simpler and more specific if they had really wanted to.

Instead spend your energy looking at what non-affiliated groups like the Oregon’s Money in Politics Action Research Project, the national Brennen Center for Justice and respected attorneys like Margaret Olney have to say about which limits will stick and which will get struck down.

Margaret Olney is a labor attorney, not a campaign finance expert. And though Janice Thompson is a very respected voice in the campaign finance field, she is not an attorney, nor does MIPRAP have an attorney on staff.

After the court challenges, individuals wealthy enough to finance their own independent expenditures or campaigns will retain that right.

That's one possibility. If that happens, Oregon's campaign finance laws will look a great deal like the laws currently on the books in Montana and Colorado in terms of limits. The small donor committees provision of the statute will provide groups that rely on small contributions from a large number of individuals with an increased voice on a smaller field of play.

Have a look at what's happened in both of those two states: Democrats are winning elections, and the power of special interests to influence the legislative process is greatly diminished.

I believe that it's important that we continue to challenge Federal law with regard to independent expenditures. The 2004 election gave us a series of examples that did not exist previously with regard to the corrupting influence of independent expenditure campaigns on our democratic process, which in turn will give the courts new information to parse when intepreting previous case law.

IS BLUE OREGON FREE? OR HAS IT ALREADY BEEN PURCHASED?

Why doesnt BlueOregon invite Dan or other supporter of 46/47 campaign finance reform to write an article?

Seriously. Why do I keep finding these vitriolic and unfounded slander pieces against, even in the so-called "progressive" blog of BlueOregon? Why do the overwhelming number of independent responses show me that this whole system here is skewed? I am tired of reading self-appointed political elites with vested interests present arguments any freshman philosophy major could cut to shreds (they are after all STRAWMEN).

A really interesting question is whether FREE SPEECH = FREE MONEY I dont think so, and most reasonable people (typically not endowed with large amounts of surplus cash) agree: These are not the same thing. But for those of you who think it is the same, well come on, convince me.

But Blue Oregon, if you have any integrity at all, you are going to start letting different view points be heard. As it is, you continue to play the mouthpiece of dying Democratic Party and it attempts to hold on to the few scraps the current corporate oligarchy leaves you.

If I am wrong, prove it. Show me some real diversity in opinion - starting with this issue of Campaign Finance Reform.

I believe that this is an issue on which reasonable people can agree to disagree, and I am sorry that I was not able to help broker a compromise on these measures that would have enabled us all to move forward together.

I'm a strong no vote on 47, undecided on 46, but think your reasoned response to this is something we could use more of in Salem. Good luck next few days.

Wow, if you are new to this conversation and have actually read through it all and made it to my comment, I commend you. I am a new commenter to this particular blog stream, or whatever the heck it is called.

I am a union activist in SEIU (Service Employees International). Though I may be wedged into activist kaza’s “professional class of progressives,” I am not on the union’s payroll. but rather am a volunteer leader and have been active in many matters union for over 10 years.

I have cast my ballot, and I voted no on both 46 and 47. Nothing I have read in this blog has given me reason for regret. Here are some of my observations and thoughts on the allegedly fair elections version of campaign finance reform in Oregon (particularly in regards to Measure 47)…as well as this fascinating conversation you are all having.

Most ironic of all the elements of Measures 47 (for me personally) is the difference between how much I can contribute per year towards a small donor committee (say, for example, combined with other union members) and how much I am allowed as an individual outside of said committee -- $50 and $2500 respectively. Currently, I can donate X number of cents per hour of my pay towards the Political Action Committee of my union, and I am not restricted to the degree I would be under Measure 47. I am very much in tune with the workings of this PAC, and I have observed this to be an effective way to serve our union members and promote the interests of working Oregonians. This, in my book of life, is a collective way to have a voice.

Yet Ernie Delmazzo speaks of such fat cats as Loren Parks having a bullhorn (in opposition, I presume) to “our collective whisper.” I figure Ernie does not mean to imply any disregard for the collective voice of unions, but his support for Measure 47 would entail an effective cessation to a real swell system that I am proud to participate in.

In Ernie’s second comment he further elaborates on how our voices go unheard too often. I think he is talking about that collective voice again. For me, I find my collective voice most effective through my union. Measure 47 seeks to stifle that.

Unions really do have a lot to offer the progressive movement, thus it is a pity when progressives figure we should just view this as some trivial sacrifice, as though unions and corporations are somehow equals.

Yayyyy to torridjoe who acknowledges that what some regard as ulterior motives are in fact born of an honest concern regarding the poor design of Measure 47. Yup, you got it, I am not at all impressed with the design.

Thanks to Angry Progressive for mentioning in his/her item #6 the concept of publicly financed campaigns, which is absent from Measure 47. Coincidentally I have recently been studying California Proposition 89, which does address this issue, and I note that the SEIU California State Council endorses this measure in stark contrast to Oregon’s SEIU Local 503 lack of endorsement of Measure 47.

http://www.seiuca.org/

(Just thought I would mention the above for the benefit of any who assume that unions in general are opposing all campaign finance reform measures… )

Gee, could it be that SEIU in California rather likes the idea that the Prop 89 drafters came up with a proposal that sets up a Clean Money Fund primarily financed by a two-tenths of one percent (0.2%) increase in the corporate tax rate?

Wow, now that’s a concept in campaign finance reform I think I could vote for!

How much has Dan Meek and Harry Londsdale spent on this measure so far? Why can't they live by their own laws?

Also how much of your own money did you spend Mr Kaza?

"Do as a say, not as I do"

Victoria Taft to Thom Hartman: I did not rag on you. Some guy who called me a troll said I did. I did not. BTW: Please address M 47 on your show---with respect to how it affects talk radio. And...call off your friends.

lestatdelc doesn't like Fair Elections because we are trying to shut out opposing voices from campaigns [I assume he/she is referring to corporations]. Damiana seems most concerned that the voice of progressive non-profits will suffer. Star Holmberg seems to think that unions will be hurt. Well now, as I wrote, Fair Elections is opposed by every special interest that currently puts a substantial amount of money into the campaign system. They like the status quo.

I think the status quo stinks and so do a large majority of Oregonians [we polled that more than once].

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Torrid's tantrum about supposed disclosure has bee discussed elsewhere. I think Steve Duin got it right when he suggested temporary insanity was the problem.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Damiana can go worrying about Fair Election's threat to free speech till she's blue in the face. That won't make the threat any more real.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Pat Ryan is right about support for CFR being deleterious to a political person's career, though I don't know the particulars of the case he sights, or if Sal Peralta was the person involved. By the way, I was in McMinnville today, and there are Peralta signs all over the place. Way to go Sal!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm glad that SEIU is supporting prop 89 in California. Most unions are opposing it, though. As I've written in several blog threads, I like public financing, everybody else at Fair Elections likes public financing, but the voters of Oregon defeated it soundly, while they passed contribution limits in 1994 by over 72%. Prop 89 is also doing badly in polls. I think the "welfare for politicians" talking point works with many voters, unfortunately. Anyway, every state that has public financing also has contribution limits. The two are synergistic. Oregon has neither. We are election-buying Nirvana. I'll tell you what: if everyone votes for Fair elections, I'll work with you on a public financing initiative.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As some sharp person noted, if the Fair Elections provisions that Peter Buckley, Damiana, et al question are struck down, we will end up with something very close to Colorado's Amendment 27 of 2004, which led to Democrats taking control from Republicans of both legislative chambers - the first time they controlled both in 30 years. It also led to the suspension of TABOR. When was the last time that Oregonians turned against a tax limiting measure? As of yet, there are no reports of Coloradoans having their mouths duct taped shut, either. Free speech is alive and well in the Centennial State.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Kaza is correct that Peter Buckley is largely union funded. It is also true that he broke with the Fair elections effort right about the time that the unions walked away from the campaign. Coincidence? I don't know. Ask Peter.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In discussing small donor committees, Star Holmberg misses the very important point that a union can have many such committees, and a union member [or anyone else] can contribute to many small donor committees, up to the $2500 aggregate limit. Also, the contribution limit amounts were not conjured by Dan Meek out of thin air, they were chosen to conform to limits upheld by federal courts when challenged. Contrary to the scurrilous opposition, Dan Meek is a very careful legislation drafter. He is a detail-oriented kind of guy.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here's a suggestion for an alternative title to Damiana's post [props to Mr. Simon]:

When something goes right Well it's likely to lose me, It's apt to confuse me because it's such an unusual sight I swear, I can't, I can't get used to something so right Something so right as Fair Elections Measures 46 & 47.

Hi Star Holmberg,

Thank you for your post. I'm well known to SEU 503 and they've advocated more alongside Injured Worker' Alliance (which I lead) than any other Oregon labor union.

Corporations outspend labor unions 5 to 1. Measure 47's Small Donor Committees will allow unions to continue lobbying. Although, depending on how well they utilize this, they might have less money, corporations will not be able to utilize SDC's anywhere near the extent labor can.

SEIU and other unions broke form the AFL-CIO, in part, because they wanted to devote more money and resources to building up membership. By greatly reducing business money, they can do this. More members also means more money for their SDC's. More union members translates to more votes for Democrats. And as you confirmed, our brothers and sisters can still conribute $2500 on their own.

A major concern of mine is Wal-Mart. In the past few years, they've stepped up on political contributions considerably. Because Oregon does not have limits like most other states, Wal-mart can spend much more here. Just imagine if all non-management employees of Wal-mart were union members!

People should be viewing this as what the "net gain" is for progressive-orientated organizations.

Further thought:

As reported by The Oregonian in "GOP group banking on Saxton to turn Oregon red" (11/2/2006):

"Money from the association is one reason Saxton has outspent Kulongoski more than 2-to-1. So far, Saxton has spent about $5.5 million in the general election campaign compared with $2.4 million by Kulongoski."

If 46/47 were in place today, Saxton would not have any chance of winning. The bulk of Kulongoski's recent money is coming from labor. This is money that could create so much good in other areas.

Early in this thread, I asked for the names and specific statements of the so-called constructional experts. In fact, I've been asking for months. As yet, Rep. Buckley and other opponents have not provided this information so I can verify names, statements, and the dates when statements were made.

It's sad to see so many progressives willing to accept these claims as fact when no evidence is provided. We should have skepticism when "some" people making claims against 46 & 47 have a financial interests in seeing the measures defeated.

It’s also disturbing that writings, ads, and campaign literature change “at will” between “could” and “will” in regard to the overturning of limits on wealthy candidates self-funding and wealthy individuals financing independent expenditure campaigns.

I meant to say "constitutional" experts in my first sentence above.

Didja see in the O about Nike and Phil Knight giving goo-gobs of money to candidates this year? Over $100k to Wayne Scott and $190k to Kulongoski. Minnis got about $12,000. Pete Courtney and Jeff Merkley got money.

Phil Knight is an interesting person, but politically, he acts like a jerk. Why should he have so much more influence in government than anyone else?

to Anon (11-2 10:42 pm) and everyone else still wading through this thread:

I'm unsure why what I've given - or Dan Meek or Harry Lonsdale - to the 46/47 campaign is even relevant. Fair Elections has played entirely under the rules of the current system...and I am daily grateful that Meek & Lonsdale have been so devoted to the cause.

Sadly, I haven't given nearly as much to this campaign as I would have liked to. I believe it's about $200 - or maybe less...I'd have to check my checkbook or with the campaign's treasurer, Liz Trojan. But she can tell you that there are over 1,900 other "small" contributors like me and that this campaign (perhaps uniquely in Oregon's ballot measure history) has been funded 99.8% from Oregonians.

I'm not sure if the writer of that comment is lumping me in as wealthy as someone like Mr. Lonsdale, but it's a pretty laughable assumption. I only wish I were that successful in business! And if I didn't have six kids and have to make my living by being on a plane over half the year, I would have a lot more time and money to devote to keeping Oregon the same great state I knew while growing up here.

46 & 47 are a BIG step in the right direction. Help Oregon go from "worst to first" and please vote YES this week (and drop off your ballots now, cuz it's too late to mail 'em!)

PS did you know that Oregon HAD campaign limits from 1908-1973? those of us "old timers" (I'm 47) might remember that the state seemed to be pretty well-led in those days by some outspoken & independent-minded leaders (McCall, Hatfield, Straub etc.) that we appear to be sorely lacking today. Maybe that's just coincidence also!

Here's more on Wal-mart.

Money referenced is state and local giving (see last paragraph for federal). This was writen in September. The full article discusses how state limits elsewhere (like California) have prevented them from giving more.

"Wal-Mart gave a total of $326,875 in the 2000 election cycle, $431,017 in 2002, and $857,179 in 2004, according to research by the Institute on Money in State Politics, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research organization based in Helena, Mont. For the 2006 election cycle, the company has given $644,655 so far and seems to be on track to hit a record for political contributions."

"'They've gone from zero to warp speed in political giving all across the board,' says Bruce Freed, co-director of the Center for Political Accountability, a nonprofit group that tracks corporate political spending. The totals include only direct contributions to politicians and political parties. Adding in money for ballot initiatives and other local issues brings the total of Wal-Mart state giving so far this cycle to $1.25 million."

"Today, Wal-Mart has become one of the most active corporations in the U.S. At the federal level, Wal-Mart is already the No. 1 corporate political contributor, giving $943,455 in the 2006 election cycle..."

The full article is here.

This is just one more reason to vote for Measures 46 and 47. Wal-mart is opposed to everything we've fought hard for and hope to change.

Hey all you bloggers, check out the front page of today’s Register Guard,

Bloggers find new clout in state politics.

Right side below the fold, the article makes plenty of reference to BlueOregon, even tells us the true identity of Torrid Joe. (You probably all knew this, but I am a blog rookie.)

BTW, as for Measure 47, IF it passes I will be smack dab in the middle of the conversation on how this alters the political structure of my union and how to deal with it; and IF it fails, I hope that future campaign finance reformers will have lengthy and productive conversations with union leadership, and that the brainstorm will be fruitful.

Thanks for all your feedback and for exercising your right to free speech!

http://www.registerguard.com/news/2006/11/05/home.php

Star I Are (Vote as though your life depended on it. Cuz it does.)

The problem with Mark Bunster and Carla is that they're all about gaining personal recognition and fame. They immediately blurt out political dirt they hear on the Q-T or discover. Billy Dalto is an example. That LA info about his mother could have defeated Dalto if strung near the election. Now, if Dalta is taken down, it'll have cost money better served in other races.

I didn't post that as a supporter of 46/47 as the two issues clearly have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

I saw something yesterday in one of the anti-Fair Elections groups' literature about Measures 46 & 47 being financed by two rich guys. If you've seen Dan Meek's palatial 1500 square foot ranch house, his flashy Ford Escort, and those decadent Italian suits he wears [not], you know what a bad joke such campaign trash is.

Dan's legal career has been all about opposing rich guys who try to rip-off the rest of us. The more I think about it, the more pissed off I become about the dishonest campaign that has been run against Fair elections Measures 46 & 47.

Protect Our Voice is running an anti-Fair Elections ad on KPOJ [the only AM radio I listen to] mentioning the "two wealthy individuals" funding Measures 46 & 47. This is clearly a lie.

So, who is dividing the progressive community? Is it the sincere activists who want to bring democracy back to Oregon elections, or is it the organizations that fund cynical political manipulation to win votes, truth be damned?

Dan Meek has put a considerable portion of his net worth into this campaign, as well as thousands of hours of his time. As he commented when these Protect Our Voice et al distortions began, "if i was wealthy, I'm not anymore."

I don't keep day to day tabs on Fair Elections spending, but a few weeks ago, Dan Meek, not Harry Lonsdale, was the biggest contributor to the campaign.

Personal animosity is not the issue here. Lying, cheating, manipulative campaigning is the issue. I have nothing personal against Kevin Looper, Damiana Merryweather, or Roger Gray; but their political ethics are lacking.

No, Torrid, you're not paying attention again. The ad says the Fair Elections Measures 46 & 47 campaign is mostly funded by two wealthy people. One of the two main contributors, Dan Meek, is NOT a wealthy person. The ad is, therefore, a inaccurate.

the end of the last message should read "an inaccurate statement."

From where I sat out in the audience my clear sense was that Dan won. The biggest reasons were: 1. (the hands-down deal-breaker for many sitting around me) Damiana wouldn't answer the question, put to her twice, as to who the opposition's financial backers are. I met my hubby after work and we were driving in the car when the debate was being replayed on the radio -- I'd told Frank about it, and then there it was, the first time she was asked (by Paul) and her long-winded excuse as to why she would answer a different question, the question SHE wanted to tell Paul he should have asked, and not the one he did ask her...At the debate folks around me were whispering, "she didn't answer it. Why doesn't he call her on it?"

She got a second chance, later on, and again, punted. The hissing around me was more audible, this time.

I can only surmise that she a) doesn't know who is funding the campaign she is spokeshead for, or b) doesn't want to tell. A would be less an issue, though would reflect poorly on her. B implies the possibility that it is either some of those evil "out of state interests" she kept talking about as the real problem to worry about, or just a double-dip by the unions (except, maybe "out of state" unions?) and others already identified as supporters.

If I've missed an obvious guess, I'll be darned.

I was curious enough to go look the organization up on Guidestar, but their 990s aren't posted. So, I see the problem...

When Dan explained that the goofy charts the opponents have been bruiting about have been made-up by the opponents (both the O and Save our Voice – the O actually printed a retraction, as they put in errors in theirs) she lost further credibility.

Mr Munster's complaint gave Dan even more credence. (Talk about sleezy...)

But more than any specific issue, Damiana spoke in generalities and sound-bites. Dan spoke specifics. Damiana said "experts" agreed with them. Failed to cite any actual persons. Dan cited specific court cases and specific similar legislation and its effects -- and specifics as to how various legislators had responded... Damiana told a cute story about how we didn't want Goliath to fall on David and crush him -- (a nicely done ad-bite) but it fell flat in the context of a thoughtful, in-depth debate. She couldn't/or forgot to articulate WHY Goliath WOULD fall on David.

The reading of the list of supporters rang hollow, given all the above. It was a bit too much "trust me, vote as I tell you, don't trouble your pretty head with the details." It became for me a list that spoke more to the current moribund state of my party than anything else.

In the elevator afterwards a fellow, hearing Jesse C say he thought Damiana had prevailed, said "are you kidding me? I went in there a no vote. I'm voting yes, now." People around me nodded and murmured.

It was a small crowd, however, so who knows how much difference it will make. Too bad. It was an interesting and more than usually informative debate.

Many people come up with $160,000 to buy a house or start a business. That doesn't mean they're wealthy, it means they are putting their money into what is important to them.

You'll need to get the C&Es to convince yourself, Torrid, but if Dan is the biggest or second biggest contributor, how would the campaign be "mostly funded by two wealthy individuals", as the ad says?

As to all this "too difficult to understand" stuff, it seems to me that opponents of Fair Elections Measures 46 & 47 are mostly below average in intelligence. I've heard and read so much whack meant to be thoughful comment, that I am led to believe they are not capable of complex rational thought. So it comes as no surprise that they cannot, even with tremendous effort, understand Fair Elections. Just because something has many details does not make it non-understandable. Have you looked through a calculus, physics or organic chemistry textbook recently? They are much longer and more complex than Fair Elections, but intelligent, diligent students get through them by the thousands. It would be easy for a lazy, uneducated, unintelligent person to pick up one of those texts, leaf through it and honestly announce that it is not understandable. He would be sincere, but he would be wrong. He might better go into journalism, as so many editorial boards seem to have trouble understanding what they read as well.

Dan Meek might not have an answer for all the anonymous experts who forsee Fair Elections' judicial demise because [and I'm sure I've run this by you recently, Torrid] it's not logically possible to prove a negative. Dan has supplied plenty of evidence to suggest that Fair Elections provisions will be upheld. Opponents don't seem to be able to remember that evidence [more evidence of their intellectual weakness?], but it's quite simple and persuasive to anyone with an open mind.

I was starting to feel like a fly on the wall, listening to all this banter, and yes I was even a little miffed that my last comment was lost in the dust. But then Mr. Tom Unciviletti said the following, and my attention was jarred:

"As to all this too difficult to understand stuff, it seems to me that opponents of Fair Elections Measures 46 and 47 are mostly below average intelligence."

Gee, I hope I am in the not so mostly part. Truth is, I was reading the darn measure in its entirety last summer when it was still on the street. If I had to take a multiple choice test on the subject, not sure where I would place in Tom’s bell curve; but my lack of support is not due to a lack of understanding. I just oppose the measure as it is written.

And please do consider the comment I made in my last entry, even though it is not nearly as much fun as tearing at each other’s throats. I.e., if M46 and M47 do not pass, I think conversations with union noggins (even if of below average intelligence) would be highly recommended for future campaign finance efforts. And if said measures do pass, I will be involved in internal union discussions relevant to the fallout. It may be challenging to me intellectually, but I will somehow manage.

BTW, no offense taken, since I know I am actually no dummy, and you folks are just a wee bit riled up.

Star,

I was talking about the people conceiving, running, and executing the anti-Fair Elections campaign, who should have studied what they are urging people to vote against. I was not talking about voters.

I do grow uncivil when I see the same weakly supported statements over and over from opponents. If they don't understand Measure 47 by now, they shouldn't be giving other people advice on it. The people who need to understand it to put it into operation are the workers in the Elections Office who will write the regulations based on the provisions of Measure 47. They understand election law like science students understand calculus, physics, and organic chemistry.

As Dan Meek has pointed out, and probably none of the Anti-Fair Elections campaigners remembers, Measure 9 of 1994 was longer and more complex than Measure 47 is. I ran for the Legislature in 1996 under Measure 9 rules and don't remember beating my head against any walls because I couldn't understand the rules. We raised and spent money. We turned in our C&Es. No sweat.

I hope folks are able to pick up on my argumentative device. I don't really believe Roger Gray, Kevin Looper, Jesse Cornett, Damiana Merryweather, and Patty Wentz are stupid, I believe they are pretending to be stupid because sowing confusion is an effective campaign ploy to get folks to vote NO on a measure. You've seen it used before many times, haven't you? It's right out of campaign consulting 101.

Union activists will have no problem understanding how to use small donor committees to effectively raise money. Nonprofits will catch on in a flash how to separate regulated from unregulated activities. Corporate executives may go out and shoot themselves in the head when they realize they will now need to deal with governments that cannot be bought and insist on doing what is best for the people.

Pretty soon Oregon will become the state it looked like we would become 30 years ago: progressive, innovative, well educated, healthy, wealthy and wise. It won't be Nirvana, but it will close enough to make us the envy of the 50 states.

Making democracy work will make it all possible.

Torrid -- are you really Bark Munster? Whoa...

the Internet is an amazing and complicated thing.

Digressions aside. I tried to read through your posts since mine. I have trimmed the ho-ha down to this -- you don't like rich people. You are, I guess, a Rove Republican dufus. Like, you hated Kerry, the "Rich Guy"? Worse, he had a "Rich Wife"? (Hint, she told him what to do don't you know?)

Sheet. What - we got that line cheap, because they knew they wouldn't need it ever again against Kerry? After he flubbed a joke, and the entire Democratic populace of the entire country, went, "oh, say you're sorry.." Sorta like we bailed on Dean and went all, ho ho ho, over his laugh...

laughs on us. Our state seems to be heading for voting for campaign finance reform -- and against any measures that would allow that to happen.

Say thanks to the powers that be.

Looks like M 46 is to fail in all counties. I guess I wasn't alone in finding it unacceptable. What does it mean that almost all counties are passing M 47?

<h2>I think rather that, as noted CFR is desired, but the current package was found wanting. No need for conspiracy theories, or calling opponents stupid. Puh-leeze enough of that!</h2>