Let's give Bill Sizemore's friends a taste of their own medicine.
In 1906, the Oregonian opined that "In Oregon, the state government is divided into four departments – the executive, judicial, legislative and [William] U’Ren."
Who was William U'Ren? A progressive reformer and the father of our initiative system. He pushed for direct election of U.S. Senators, presidential primary elections, progressive tax reform, and more. He built public support for his ideas and regularly won his campaigns.
Contrast that to Bill Sizemore -- a scam artist who uses the initiative system to line his own pockets. He doesn't actually care about passing laws; he just wants to fund his operation and bankrupt his political opponents. He cares nothing for the "will of the people" as he blatantly engages in racketeering behavior to play financial shell games and fraudulently place measures on the ballot through fake signatures generated by mercenaries and real ones collected by identity thieves.
As the Oregonian noted over the weekend:
Sizemore's only business success has been to "hijack" Oregon's 106-year-old initiative system and turn a populist political tool into a moneymaking enterprise.When asked what motivates the man he calls "the initiative king," Greg Hartman, a lawyer for the Oregon Education Association who has battled Sizemore in court for eight years, has a one-word answer: "Money."
So it hardly matters to him that he's been a complete and total failure at passing legislation via the ballot box:
Beginning with Measure 8 in 1994, Sizemore and his allies have sponsored 12 ballot measures. Voters rejected nine and the courts overturned two that voters approved.Sizemore's most lasting impact on the state came in 1996 with the passage of Measure 47, which reduced property taxes and limited annual tax increases. But lawmakers complained that the measure was riddled with ambiguities and loopholes and, with Sizemore's cooperation, rewrote it into Measure 50, approved by voters in 1998.
Other than money, Sizemore delights in boxing the ears - and emptying the treasuries - of the organizations that oppose him:
As for diverting resources from his opponents, Sizemore said, "It's not my goal. It's something I have in the back of my mind. If a measure keeps my enemies busy, that's not necessarily a bad thing." ...Members of the Defend Oregon coalition concede that they are playing into Sizemore's hands. A side effect of his efforts is to drain resources from unions and other liberal groups, keeping them constantly on the defensive. But they say the stakes for Oregon's future are so high that they have no choice.
Make no mistake -- keeping his "enemies" busy is his primary goal. And it's why his right-wing allies continue to fund his operations.
With Oregon's labor unions, environmental advocates, and human-service organizations busy playing whack-a-mole, Sizemore's right-wing and corporate allies -- folks like the tobacco industry, the timber industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the construction industry and homebuilders, the Oregon Restaurant Association, and more -- can spend their time working to support legislative candidates friendly to their industries.
Is it a coincidence that the rise of the Oregon House Democrats in 2004 and 2006 coincided with the six-year period that Bill Sizemore was largely quiet - sponsoring only a single measure? I don't think so.
To be sure, we've done well in recent years - taking control of every statewide office and finally winning back the Legislature.
But with Sizemore back, and bigger than ever, are we in danger of sliding backwards again?
Here's what I've never understood: Why don't we progressives organize and fund our own ballot measures? Why not spend a few dollars to keep Sizemore and his right-wing friends busy? I'm quite certain that we could develop a few ideas that would be highly popular. The key is to find ideas that would be excellent reforms if they passed; but aren't so critical that we'll live and die by their fate.
After all, investing in super-popular ballot measures is a very cost-effective way to screw with the other side.
Sizemore and his allies spent about $3 million trying to pass the ballot measures he authored. During that same time, Sizemore's opponents spent more than $25 million to defeat them.
So, let's hear those ideas. Not big, grandiose "gotta have 'em" ideas; not barely popular "spend big to win" ideas... small ideas; ideas that make sense; will start out popular; and will drive Sizemore's right-wing and corporate friends crazy.
I'll start: I propose a ballot measure that will cut video poker commissions to restaurants in half - and dedicate the funds to college scholarships for Oregon high-school students who get 3.0 GPAs or better, and are the first-in-their-family to go to college.
It's a good idea, but if it fails, I'll still sleep OK at night. It'll drive the Oregon Restaurant Association crazy, and they'll take that election cycle off from legislative politics. It'll start out super-popular, and will likely pass, unless the ORA spends millions and millions to confuse and mislead Oregon voters about it. Cheap to put on the ballot; expensive to defeat. Perfect.
That's my idea. What do you propose?
Oh, and sidenote: To join the folks playing the 2008 edition of whack-a-mole, head on over to Defend Oregon. They need your help. Seriously. These Sizemore and Mannix measures are a disaster in the making.
|
September 8, 2008 |
Kari Chisholm | Comments (101 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Rulial | Sep 9, 2008 12:55:25 AM
Why don't we progressives organize and fund our own ballot measures? Why not spend a few dollars to keep Sizemore and his right-wing friends busy?There are two reasons Sizemore is able to get lots of his measures on the ballot: (1) he's financially backed by a small group of rich people and (2) he's a racketeer.
The second point is important. We have no idea how much money unions and progressive organizations had to throw away due to his racketeering. We have the OEA/AFT-Oregon lawsuit, but I suspect that's only the tip of the iceberg.
One reason I'm excited about having John Kroger as our new attorney general is that he has promised to take a harder line against this kind of activity. It's sad that we have to depend on teachers' unions to preserve the integrity of the initiative system.
Frankly, I'd like to see some criminal prosecutions.
By the way, if you circulate that video poker measure, I will sign it.
Posted by: Douglas K | Sep 9, 2008 1:25:02 AM
5% lodgings tax on all hotel/motel rooms in Oregon. All revenues dedicated to the maintenance and improvement of Oregon's state parks system. The rate might be higher or lower; the idea would be that this tax, when combined with revenue already dedicated to State Parks, would allow the parks to be taken off the general fund. That leaves more general fund money for schools, and our parks would not longer be repeatedly short-changed by the legislature?
This is a tax that won't hurt business; if a visitor is planning a trip to Oregon, or an Oregonian is planning a trip to the coast, they won't change their travel plans because the $90-a-night motel room now costs $94.50.
Politically, I don't know how this would play. But most of us who live here won't pay the hotel tax very often, and Oregonians tend to support our state parks as long as it doesn't take too much money out of our own pockets. Framed as "should tourists kick in more money to improve our state parks?" it might be a winner.
Posted by: Eric Parker | Sep 9, 2008 7:25:13 AM
Washington did it in 1963. California did it in 1960. IOregon has never done it.
This is an idea to renumber the highways in oregon (externally and not the ODOT internal numbers).
Why? Well...US highway 99 has been decommissioned for years yet Oregon still has 99E and 99W - causing confusion for those wanting to drive the valley. US 30 hardly exists because of it's duplexing with I-84...
It just goes on.
Create a committee to decide how to do this and have every number change or decommission of a highway put on the ballot. Yes, some of the changes may be frivolous, but it would make those like Sizemore busy defeating every change/decommission tot he point they wont have time to creat any more stupid initiatives.
Posted by: Eric Parker | Sep 9, 2008 7:41:48 AM
Examples for the above:
Decommission US highway 30 throughout the state (With AASHTO's blessing) and re-christen the part from Portland to Astoria as Oregon State Highway 4.
Re-christen the highway from McMinnville to Junstion city (currently 99W) as Oregon State Highway 49.
There is a lot more, but wayyyy to much to put here...but I hope you'all get the point :)
Posted by: Bob | Sep 9, 2008 7:50:02 AM
IDEA 1:
An initiative requiring DHS to limit child social workers' caseload to no more than n children per worker. (Ask an expert what an appropriate n is -- I suspect it's about half the current caseload.)
Mandate the funding for additional caseworkers come from a combination of:
- Video lottery
- New home & condo development fees
- Alcohol & cigarette taxes
IDEA 2:
A massive tax credit for vehicles that get more than 50 mpg highway. Fund it with a gas guzzler tax on vehicles that get less than 30 mpg highway. Make the tax progressive -- the further you get from 30 mpg, the bigger the penalty.
IDEA 2.1:
Put auto registration fees on a sliding scale, calibrated by curb weight & gas mileage. The better mileage you get, the less you pay. This would be revenue-neutral -- Hummers pay more, Geo Metros pay less.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Sep 9, 2008 8:02:27 AM
Eric --- Your idea is interesting, but why would right-wingers oppose it?
Posted by: LiberalIncarnate | Sep 9, 2008 8:09:01 AM
How about a measure that requires Bill Sizemore to be declared mentally ill and institutionalize? Or one that declares him an honorary sex offender?
I mean, common on! These would get at least 45%!
Posted by: Eric Parker | Sep 9, 2008 8:18:50 AM
Probably, Kari, because of the amount of new signage that would correspond with the changes. The Legislature created new routes a few years ago, yet they have not signed the routes still in many areas due to that they are not as important as would, say, the Beltline Highway (OSR 569)would be in traffic volume.
Maybe if we added onto the changes some highway improvements (the green variety, of course) that would make touring better? My main objective is to make it easier to drive/navigate the state and make the routing more logical and modern. There is no reason to have US 30 when it is duplexed with I-84 for the majority of it's existance within Oregon.
Posted by: Eric Parker | Sep 9, 2008 8:33:06 AM
There are also the pesky Highway Historians that would have an absolute fit over anyone messing with US 30 in any capacity. Those people would surely create a coalition of support to fend off any changes of routing/signage of any sort.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Sep 9, 2008 8:49:53 AM
My main objective is to make it easier to drive/navigate the state and make the routing more logical and modern.
Sure, OK.
But what I'm looking for right now is something that will make these people crazy: the tobacco industry, the timber industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the construction industry and homebuilders, the Oregon Restaurant Association...
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Sep 9, 2008 9:04:05 AM
How about a measure that requires Bill Sizemore to be declared mentally ill and institutionalize? Or one that declares him an honorary sex offender?
Or, like Washington's Tim Eymann (a Sizemore clone), a horse's ass.
Posted by: Emily George | Sep 9, 2008 9:15:57 AM
A 1-2 sentence Constitutional amendment saying nothing in the Constitution's free speech provisions prohibits the Legislature or the people through the initiative process from adopting reasonable restrictions on corporations contributing to the the political campaigns of candidates for public office in Oregon.
Leave the details to a future ballot measure. Don't try for a comprehensive reform in 2010. Just open the door. The key to drive the right nuts is to limit it to just candidate campaigns and just tackle corporate contributions, which are illegal in almost every other state.
The corporate interests you mention will have to fight it.
Posted by: Will Hobbs | Sep 9, 2008 9:20:23 AM
I'd like to see an initiative that amends the constitution of Oregon to make it more difficult to amend the constitution of Oregon. Right now, it can be done with a simple majority of voters; this should be raised to 60% or 2/3 majority. The result of the current low bar has been a mish-mash of amendments that should never have become a part of the constitution.
I would make an exception, though, for repealing amendments passed by the initiative system-- the same bar that had to be crossed to pass a bad amendment should be allowed for its repeal.
Posted by: Becky | Sep 9, 2008 9:23:48 AM
This is actually pretty funny. For years, Sizemore has used the excuse that he had to play underhanded because the other side was playing that way. Now you're wanting to pick up on his tactics. And I wonder how I got so jaded on politics.
Here's your real problem with overspending by the left in trying to kill Sizemore's measures. There's a whole machine that makes its living off campaigns, and they have every reason to freak people out about the situation and talk them into spending more money hiring them to do a big-time campaign. If Sizemore's measures aren't polling well, then why spend millions to defeat them? They won't pass anyway. If they are polling well, then maybe it's time to consider why that is and get your legislators to act to diffuse the public's frustration, thereby castrating Sizemore.
And why use such slick, expensive campaign techniques when there are plenty of low-cost ways to get the word out to voters sufficiently to kill his measures? I think too many people have become enamored with their own campaign ideas and the process and have forgotten the meaning of the dollars they are spending. The right wing won't respond to any of your ballot measure ideas by pumping a ton of money into them because they're too cheap to do that. Just think about it - when was the last time you saw any sort of expensive conservative campaign like the kinds the unions run in this state? They do everything on the cheap, using volunteers and utilizing the most inexpensive advertising options. Seriously, do the polling first, then think like a non-profit operating on a shoestring. There's a ton of money to be saved that way without losing at the ballot. Then you'd have enough left to support your other issues and candidates.
Anyway, you should know as well as anyone how irritating it is having our initiative process hijacked by someone who is searching for something to put on the ballot when the process was intended to serve as a vehicle for the people to address burning issues that their elected representatives could not or would not address. Why try to think up something and clog the ballot if there isn't a widespread burning issue (think women's suffrage, the bottle bill, and runaway property taxes, for example)? If there is a burning issue, then do the right thing and get some experts to draft the measure and carefully vet it, hope and pray that the legalese department in the AG's office doesn't destroy the ballot title like they usually do, do your polling to be sure the final ballot title itself (and not the "idea") will garner a "yes" vote (nobody votes on your idea - they vote on the ballot title), collect the signatures (the most expensive part of the campaign), utilize free media and inexpensive but effective outreach efforts, and let the voters do what you should by then already know they will do. Sizemore does all that for about $200,000 a measure. But without his experience and accessory organizations, you'd probably need $500,000 to do it. If you're lucky, the right wing will spend $50,000 trying to defeat it. Remember, they're cheap.
If you're not ready to go to that much trouble, however, then please stop demeaning the initiative process and fostering impotent anger. Sizemore will only go away when people like Dick Wendt and Loren Parks quit giving him money. In other words, he'll be around for awhile. You've got to quit empowering him by reacting with so much inane over-spending. A few pages in the Voter's Pamphlet reminding people that the measure was written by Bill Sizemore will cost a couple thousand dollars and do more to defeat it than a million dollars in glossy mass mailings and television ads.
Posted by: Steven Maurer | Sep 9, 2008 9:25:56 AM
I don't know, Kari. The tobacco industry excepted, I don't see the timber, construction, ORA, or pharmaceutical industries as automatic enemies. They have their views, and those views are often Republican. But I don't see them dedicated to Sizemore's brand of demagoguery. What we're really plagued with is a handful of multimillionaire cranks, like Loren Parks.
The simplest and easiest way to fix the initiative system would be to simply outlaw paid signature gathering. To make initiatives more accessible, the legislature could simultaneously reduce the number of signatures needed to qualify. All Oregon's problems would be fixed in one simple fix. Liberals would still have to deal with popular conservative measures, like "One Man/One Woman" which would be qualified through church communities, but the practice of buying ballot access would stop dead in its tracks.
If that is simply not politically possible, I say the Legislature should simply make a RICO like statute against organizations that routinely engage in ballot fraud. Don't have the paperwork to prove you're not paying by the signature? That's 5-10 years in jail. Clear and credible evidence that your organization has employed ballot fraud signature circles? That's 10 to 20 - all the way up to the chief petitioner. And no - "I didn't know" - is not an excuse. You check your own work and sign under the penalty of felony perjury that you're not corrupt.
Posted by: Jim H | Sep 9, 2008 9:26:03 AM
We need to do away with unfunded mandates. I see two possible ways to go about it:
1. An outright ban on any initiative that introduces an unfunded mandate (the initiative would have to also introduce a tax or tax increase that would pay for the change).
or
2. Allow the Legislature to raise the revenue (for initiatives that will cost money to implement) in any way they see fit, without regard to tax increase restrictions (ie, requiring a super-majority or having to put it up to voters).
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Sep 9, 2008 9:27:19 AM
We need infrastructure as much as ideas. Sizemore may be a political wash-out, but he can put measures on the ballot in his sleep.
As to your post, I'd put something on there that's green. Let's wedge the right with science and see how they respond. How about taxing carbon emissions and using the revenue to fund green tech?
Other ideas:
-A ballot measure that would allocate Oregon's delegates to presidential candidates proportionally once the rest of the country passes similar legislation.
-Mandating that media outlets operating on our public-owned airwaves offer free or cheap ad time to political candidates (with certain thresholds for qualification)
-Get rid of the corporate kicker! (I'd love to get rid of the personal kicker, but putting it on the ballot is a political disaster.)
Posted by: Jim H | Sep 9, 2008 9:37:47 AM
Jeff, What's the idea behind allocating the delegates proportionally? Are you talking the general election?
I'd be more in favor of the National Popular Vote where all of the delegates are given to whichever candidate wins the national popular vote - as an end-around the Electoral College.
On voting issues, I think we also need fusion voting and instant run-off - but I don't think those are the Sizemore-infuriating type of things Kari's looking for in this post.
Posted by: rural resident | Sep 9, 2008 10:00:51 AM
I agree with Becky about putting resources into worthwhile measures that the public can accept on the merits. Steven is also right about industries like construction, timber, and food services not being enemies. That's where plenty of good, middle-class folks derive the incomes (and pay the taxes) to support the programs society needs.
Put forth an idea that makes sense, would have a fair amount of public support, and for which a campaign infrastructure can be assembled. One idea would be a constitutional amendment that overcomes one of the major drawbacks of Measures 5/47/50 by reassessing property at fair market value at the time of an arm's length sale. Nobody would pay additional property taxes while they own their current residence, and property could still be passed to close relatives without incurring an increase in taxable value. However, the valuation for tax purposes would increase when properties are sold on the open market. Someone purchasing a home for, say, $400,000 should expect to pay taxes on a $400,000 home. That's fair. Most people would agree. It would raise large amounts of money for counties, cities, and school districts without having any impact on someone's current tax liability as long as they continue to live in their current residence (even second homes), own their current business, or keep properties of other types. Only the new owners would be affected.
Yes, there would be opposition. But what would their pitch be? If you buy a $400,000 home, you shouldn't expect to actually pay taxes on that amount? Why not? That's the way it worked for most of us who bought our home some time ago and have held onto it. That California's Prop 13 doesn't do it this way? Actually, they do reassess upon a sale. That's one reason Prop 13 works a lot better than does our law.
Better to expend resources on things that make a difference. You might even find some of those terrible "enemy industry groups" supporting this.
Posted by: Linley | Sep 9, 2008 10:06:14 AM
Somewhat off topic, whimsical, but fixes one of my pet peeves: a requirement that all motor fuel prices must be in dollars and cents (i.e. not fractions of cents)per unit volume.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Sep 9, 2008 10:15:28 AM
The simplest and easiest way to fix the initiative system would be to simply outlaw paid signature gathering. To make initiatives more accessible, the legislature could simultaneously reduce the number of signatures needed to qualify. All Oregon's problems would be fixed in one simple fix.
Unfortunately, that's unconstitutional. Already been tried.
Posted by: Sargent | Sep 9, 2008 10:20:39 AM
By the way, if you circulate that video poker measure, I will sign it.
I will sign that petition five times! And with other people's names!
Oh wait; I don't work for Bill Sizemore. I'll just sign it once.
Posted by: Metroid | Sep 9, 2008 10:24:30 AM
Require a public vote for all future urban growth boundary expansions. The homebuilders and realtors will go nuts and spend millions.
Posted by: Eric Parker | Sep 9, 2008 10:27:44 AM
Since we're talking altering the initiative process:
Create an initiative that will mandate that any passed measure can not be repealed or changed or kicked into the coutrs for a period of two election cylcles. There would be also a reverse mandate along with this that states that any defeated measure can not be voted on again in it's original or altered form for the same amount of election cylcles.
Point: When the voters say NO - they mean it. Whent hey say yes, we have to abide by the voters wishes.
Posted by: Jim H | Sep 9, 2008 10:41:55 AM
Wait a minute Kari. I just finished reading your post more carefully. What the heck is this about:
"and are the first-in-their-family to go to college."
As a middle-child I would strongly take offense at this. What does being first in the family have to do with anything? My brother gets a free ride, but I'm left with a loan or joining the military? You want to take us back to the Middle Ages where the eldest gets all the land and the rest of us suckers have to go fight in the Crusades?
I think you should replace "and are the first-in-their-family to go to college" with "and volunteer X-number of hours to a qualified non-profit or public service organization".
Disclaimer: Actually I did join the military (Air Force) and thanks to the GI Bill do not have any student loans for the degree I just completed this year. Thanks tax payers!
Posted by: Bob Baldwin | Sep 9, 2008 10:42:50 AM
Here's an easy one:
Prohibit all corporate political contributions and lobbying expenses except to the extent that the shareholders have individually volunteered to contribute to the corporate-sponsored PAC. Require that contribution be renewed annually.
Posted by: Douglas K. | Sep 9, 2008 10:44:44 AM
Create an initiative that will mandate that any passed measure can not be repealed or changed or kicked into the coutrs for a period of two election cylcles. There would be also a reverse mandate along with this that states that any defeated measure can not be voted on again in it's original or altered form for the same amount of election cylcles.
The first part of this suggestion is unconstitutional, and also really stupid. The second is unenforceable, and equally stupid.
Posted by: Eric Parker | Sep 9, 2008 10:55:54 AM
Stupid, perhaps, but it would keep zealots like the OCA from force feeding us their warped beliefs down our collective throats by acting like spolied 6 year olds. It would also re-enforce the respect and common sense of a NO vote. NO means NO and should be respected as such. Just because you have money and resources for any intiative does not entitle you to force it down others throats when they have told you they don't want it with a NO vote in the first place.
And why would it be unconstitutional? That hasn't stopped Sizemore in his zealot agenda...
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Sep 9, 2008 10:56:37 AM
Jim H, my garbled suggestion was the same you support. Dunno if it's a wedge to the right--but it's a good idea.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Sep 9, 2008 10:57:13 AM
Hey folks... listen up.
I'm not looking for nice ideas that oughta-be-a-law. We've had lots and lots of those discussions before.
I'm all for big investments in green technology, getting rid of the 9/10s of a penny on gas prices, renumbering highways, and the like... but I'm looking for 80%-popular ideas that undermine the financial support of the right-wing agenda.
First and foremost, ideas for this strategy start with goring someone's ox.
Posted by: steve novick | Sep 9, 2008 10:59:40 AM
One problem with Kari's logic is that all Sizemore cares about is the ability to use the initiative process itself. So there are real limits to what you can file that worries Sizemore Sizemore doesn't care about video poker commissions. If you filed something on video poker, it would be fine with me, but you're kidding yourself if you think that has any impact at all on Sizemore. He's funded by Loren Parks and other individual rich guys. I don't think we can do an initiative targeting sexual hypnotists in Nevada. We COULD maybe boycott Jeld-Wen in protest of Dick Wendt's funding Sizemore ... but that's not an initiative. Tim Nesbitt has filed and passed some process things -- banning payment by the signature, requiring any supermajority requirement to pass by the same supermajority. Those are the kind of things that actually affect Sizemore.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Sep 9, 2008 11:00:30 AM
As a middle-child I would strongly take offense at this. What does being first in the family have to do with anything? My brother gets a free ride, but I'm left with a loan or joining the military? You want to take us back to the Middle Ages where the eldest gets all the land and the rest of us suckers have to go fight in the Crusades?
An excellent point, Jim H. An excellent point. (And one that, as an eldest child, I didn't consider.)
I'd like to amend my proposal:
I propose a ballot measure that will cut video poker commissions to restaurants in half - and dedicate the funds to college scholarships for Oregon high-school students who get 3.0 GPAs or better, and whose parents and grandparents didn't go to college.
Posted by: RuthAlice | Sep 9, 2008 11:04:49 AM
Bob Baldwin's suggestion is a lovely parallel to Sizemore's paycheck deception scams- though it's more just in that shareholder's don't get to opt out of paying for political contributions at all.
Suggestions: There's many good progressive ideas including one that we should put on the ballot instead of Sizemore - prohibiting credit rating to be used in insurance premiums.
A bill requiring any supermajority measuare to pass by the same supermajority it requires and invalidating any supermajority measures that are in effect that cannot meet that standard.
Posted by: Jim H | Sep 9, 2008 11:07:09 AM
And one that, as an eldest child, I didn't consider.
I thought as much, but didn't want to make the assertion and... you know... make an ass out of Uma Thurman.
Thanks.
Posted by: steve novick | Sep 9, 2008 11:12:26 AM
By the way, Our Oregon filed a version of Kari's idea for 2006. The progressive community evaluated it against other priorities and ultimately didn't go with it. Other people have thought about this stuff before, Not that new ideas are not welcome.
Posted by: Bob Baldwin | Sep 9, 2008 11:22:37 AM
Here's another:
Tie corporate executive compensation (pay, pension, bonuses, etc) to a standardized test of corporate performance, using average wage for all employees, carbon footprint, health insurance available to employees, etc.
Any corporation deemed a "failure" by that measure would have to take money off of exec compensation and re-invest it to bring up that corporations test score.
Use *all* corporate data for the score, so a Nike paying children pennies a day to make shoes will see an appropriate score.
Posted by: Jim H | Sep 9, 2008 11:36:44 AM
Bob, I like your idea, but I don't think we can tell corporations how much they can pay their executives. That said, I think we CAN tell them they can only deduct a certain amount (based on your criteria or just something like 40x the average wage of their employees, etc) for tax purposes.
Posted by: Lou | Sep 9, 2008 11:41:11 AM
I propose a ballot measure that allows school boards to bypass the public ballot and pass corporate tax levies on businesses in their attendance areas to pay for full-time art, music, and PE teachers at the elementary and middle school level and vocational ed teachers at the high school level.
If that doesn't work, I propose decriminalizing open container laws. I am more accepting of folks like Sizemore when I have a beer in my hands.
Posted by: joel dan walls | Sep 9, 2008 11:41:49 AM
Get rid of the initiative system and make our legislators do their jobs. I'm sick to death of progressives' resources getting sucked dry having to fend off Sizemore and Mannix.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Sep 9, 2008 11:43:22 AM
I'm really liking Bob Baldwin's two ideas because each mirrors a Righty Dogma issue. RuthAlice mentioed the first parallel: Card Check
The second, of course mirrors the variations on "merit pay for teachers" (which I support, but I also support Baldwin's "merit pay for executives").
In conversation, this is an Achilles Heel on the Right as they always profess tender concern for the shareholders.
**********
With a little tweaking, Chuck Sheketoff's idea of Corporate transparency also mirrirs calls for gummint transparency. Again, I favor both.
***********
That's three right there.
Posted by: Jared C | Sep 9, 2008 11:43:28 AM
We should take another run at the genetically-modified food labeling initiative that ONLY targets restaurants. It might drive ORA nuts. Starts with 92% support. Costs millions to defeat.
On pharma, something having to do with requiring generic drugs to be the default (for example, health care plans required to pay only for generic drugs, and cannot charge policyholders for costs associated with non-generics, if the effects are comparable).
Homebuilders: require new homes to pay their way in infrastructure -- or prohibit subsidizing infrastructure for new homes that are not affordable housing. (Possible nuance: allow local communities to opt out of this pay-your-way set up).
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Sep 9, 2008 11:43:34 AM
I'm really liking Bob Baldwin's two ideas because each mirrors a Righty Dogma issue. RuthAlice mentioed the first parallel: Card Check
The second, of course mirrors the variations on "merit pay for teachers" (which I support, but I also support Baldwin's "merit pay for executives").
In conversation, this is an Achilles Heel on the Right as they always profess tender concern for the shareholders.
**********
With a little tweaking, Chuck Sheketoff's idea of Corporate transparency also mirrors calls for gummint transparency. Again, I favor both.
***********
That's three right there.
Posted by: Melodie Silverwolf | Sep 9, 2008 11:49:45 AM
Stop the insanity!
It's popular these days to invoke this definition of insanity: to repeat the same unsuccessful behavior over and over while expecting a different result. One major way we've been doing this in America is the so-called War on Drugs, which is really a War on People We Don't Like and Want to Demonize. And just like the War on Terra, we’re not winning.
Kari called for ideas for ballot initiatives to confound Oregon's entrenched right-wing interests. Well, here's one: the Oregon Cannabis Tax Act 2010. It proposes that we stop the insanity of pouring $66 million annually into enforcing marijuana laws in this state, and that we redirect all the money enriching criminals in the black market. This initiative would permit cultivation of cannabis under license by the OLCC, to be sold in retail stores to adults over 21, just like liquor. Ninety percent of the revenue would go directly to Oregon's general fund, and a smaller percentage would be directed to drug education and treatment. All other sales would remain illegal.
It would also permit and promote the cultivation of industrial hemp, which could create millions of dollars in profits for Oregon's farmers, and provide the raw materials for alternative fuel, hemp food products, clothing and building materials.
School-age kids consistently report that marijuana is much easier to get than liquor – drug dealers don’t demand that you be over 21 and show ID. The Oregon Cannabis Tax Act would protect our children from the unscrupulous black market, fund countless important social programs, protect our environment, and promote energy independence for our future. It makes good sense for Oregon, and could add as much as $300 million annually to state coffers. RELAX IT AND TAX IT!
Want to help stop the insanity? Just click.
Posted by: Oregon Independent | Sep 9, 2008 11:51:45 AM
-Get rid of the corporate kicker! (I'd love to get rid of the personal kicker, but putting it on the ballot is a political disaster.)
Jeff, there is already a measure to remove the corporate kicker from the Oregon Constitution by 2010. I sent you guys a press release about it, but although it was picked up by USA Today and the New York Times, it got no mention here on Blue Oregon, so you might've missed it.
(Full Disclosure: My company and its principals are the only progressives to put any measure on the ballot in the last 2 election cycles, having collected approximately 350,000 signatures to form a political party (Independent) and send 1 constitutional amendment (CFR), and 2 two statutes (CFR, Open Primary) to Oregon voters since 2006.
Posted by: Fair and Balanced | Sep 9, 2008 11:55:01 AM
Great post, Kari. Lots of stimulating ideas.
What most appeals to me is an initiative that amends the constitution to fix the initiative process itself. Not sure what all that would mean, but it could include raising the number of signatures, further regulating gathering of signatures, establishing a legislative review process, etc. It may not pass the first five times we try it, but it's the kind of thing where you only need one victory and then it's hard to reverse. Like the property tax revolt turned on its head. Just keep bringing it back and keep those guys tied in knots.
Posted by: Bob Baldwin | Sep 9, 2008 11:58:40 AM
Jim H said:
Bob, I like your idea, but I don't think we can tell corporations how much they can pay their executives.
"Can" is relative. It may or may not be the case that such a statute passed by initiative would be ruled unconstitutional, but so what? The point here (back to Kari's original post) was ideas the Wingnuts would have to oppose, and which sound good at first glance.
Just about any of the right-wing craziness can be turned around and aimed back at them. It doesn't become less crazy by having a different target.
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Sep 9, 2008 12:16:45 PM
A lot of what Becky writes is reasonably persuasive to me at first read. My views are not settled. I am not sure why restrict the idea only to "minor" matters -- a number of the right-wing measures have been pretty major for them.
Bill Sizemore is a good poster child because of his criminal convictions but if we really want to consider what the right has done, & their relative successes and failures, we should consider Don MacIntyre (sp?) and Kevin Mannix too. Oh, and I guess Lon Mabon. I think the overall rightwing win percentage is higher than Sizemore's.
We need to consider who is the target of such a strategy. When Sizemore et al. do stuff that absorbs resources, they aren't trying to take those resources from leftwing ballot measure proposers. As others have said, this isn't going to affect Loren Parks.
Actually I think the most common move is to put on measures that force specific groups to respond to their interests, so that the resources get diverted from other measures that are higher priority for the right. So they put up anti-union measures that the unions have to fight in order to get through measures that the unions might otherwise spend to oppose because they are bad for the state more generally.
So if you really wanted to mimic that strategy, think of issues that specific industries would need to oppose paired with "bigger" & more general issues that they might also oppose but would have to take second priority for different segments say of Associated Oregon Industries or the Chamber of Commerce.
The thing is I think the right sometimes has done this to increase their voter turnout, with issues appealing to their base, and maybe to divert resources from Democratic partisan electoral campaigns. Given the state of the Oregon Republican Party, I'm not sure that's a model to emulate. But maybe I'm wrong & that if we were to look at the whole period since 1990, or pick your arbitrary date, that these things helped the Rs control one or both houses of the legislature for so long.
There is also a propaganda value consideration. They run these things and when they win any of them, claim the mantle of being the real spokesmen for "the people." Is there a value to this suggestion for fighting that?
But to repeat, Kari, can you clarify who is the target for resource diversion here?
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Sep 9, 2008 12:22:00 PM
A variant on the hotel tax idea would be a meal tax on restaurant meals. This would have a virtue if paired with something else from which you wanted to divert ORA spending. Would need to give some thought to whether or not to include fast food places -- there are some issues about regressivity and making life harder from people with limited incomes and overburdened time due to need for two incomes or single parent status, vs. maybe some public health benefits.
Or maybe a trans-fat tax, possibly at the wholesale level.
Posted by: LT | Sep 9, 2008 12:35:28 PM
Chris, a friend of mine who was running a small food court thought that was a great idea--a nickel on a hot dog sort of thing.
He said anyone who couldn't afford that should be cooking at home anyway--less expensive and healthier.
Post a comment
Posted by: Chuck Sheketoff | Sep 8, 2008 11:25:29 PM
Corporate disclosure of profits and taxes paid (or might I suggest "how little paid") by large corporations. Last time it was dubbed corporate accountability reporting (see this and even though it was headed for the ballot with very little money being spent, it was yanked.
It would draw big money from Sizemore's followers and those corporations who for years have successfuully lobbied to create a corporate tax system where the first rule is "if you are paying taxes, get a new accountant."
It fits your criteria Kari. The idea polls well, signatures can be easily obtained and will draw out bucks that still can be beat at the pollsn (it passed in Massachusetts in the early 1990s). No little children will die if it fails...they will just continue to have underfunded schools, health care, public safety and higher ed systems because corporations aren't paying their fair share. The kids will just have to live in the dark like we do, not knowing how little in income tax on profits some large corporations pay.
And last but not least, if on the ballot it will give us a chance to call for meaningful climate change -- as the the information the measure will provide when enacted and implemented will change the political climate for tax reform in Oregon.
I suggest corporate tax disclosure.