I believe Republicans are trying to turn this issue into a "pay to play" diversion instead of cleaning their house of the ideologues.

No shame or humility in losing. Nope. Not from ideological nutbags who are so narcissistic that they actually believe that they represent the "base" of the Republican party.

I see right through it though.

Kate Brown is going to make Bradbury look like an absent saint. I believe that she will run the SoS office so stringent on the initiative process that even those 30+ ballots that Bill Sizemore and his lackeys got in last year will be thrown out due to the new 1,000 signature requirements.

Sizemore will come back with a lawsuit paid for by Loren Parks and in the process he will draw the attention of the Oregon AG, the IRS and Obama's AG putting him in more legal trouble than he is in right now.

That may become reality. Then again, it may not.

So... signature fraud is a big problem when Sizemore is accused of it, but it's a red herring when Acorn is?

Joel, Has Acorn been treated the same way with by the courts as Sizemore?

What is the law in Nevada or wherever that Acorn story was? A) If a registration organization finds bogus registration slips, they have the right and the duty to destroy them? B) All registration slips must be accounted for, and the most any organization can do about overzealous volunteers bringing in bogus forms is to tell the authorities that some of the forms are bogus?

Without that information, is it really an "apples to apples" comparison?

Its about damn time

It's about damned time. And yes, it is. Now, impress me and go after the heads of Oregon agencies and middle managers that break the law instead of always finding administrative rules that let the AG make a (quiet) deal. I won't bring up Hardy because loyalists will dig out the forensic microscope and find a reason he was a credit to the Party.

Thanks, jkoff

As far as I know, the accusations against Acorn almost certainly were a red herring; similar ones against Sizemore probably are too. His legal problems have had to do with money laundering; I don't see how that's relevant. This just appears to boil down to "we know Sizemore is committing fraud, because we don't like him."

Honestly, I don't know why this sort of thing even bothers me anymore, but it does.

It appears that one night in jail wasn't enough for racketeer Sizemore to ponder his sins.

So, Joel, the original court case against Sizemore (leading to the judgement he has never paid) was not about forged signatures, it was about money laundering?

What are the legal rulings on cases where money contributed to one purpose was given to another purpose? As I understand it, money given to the legal entity of a campaign committee is only allowed to be spent on campaign expenses. Does Sizemore have a dispensation to do otherwise?

Why did not Parks and the guy from Jeld-Wen just pay Sizemore a salary instead of routing it through a foundation?

I have spent years of my life (often with low pay) in jobs which required a work product measured by someone other than myself, where staff were required to answer customer questions courteously, and have the information requested.

Sizemore makes a living off ballot measures, but that is OK? He is never required to have his activities supervised by anyone else because measures are his little playground and no law or elected official has the right to say otherwise? He is not required to be polite and answer questions as long as the people funding him like his brazen form of being "outspoken"?

Gee, that attitude will really get you votes from the folks who haven't supported a Sizemore measure in a decade or more.

Across the political spectrum there are people who think Sizemore should go out in the real world and get a real job like the rest of us. Call that "dislike" if you want, but many of us are tired of the attitude that Bill lives by looser rules than the rest of us. Look here and on Preemptive Karma for comments by Becky Miller, former Sizemore employee. Are you saying she owes him unquestioning loyalty?

Who do you believe rules of behavior don't apply to--just Sizemore? Or are you just angry because he's finally being held to account for his activities after all these years? When was the last time he passed a ballot measure? Did any of his measures survive the 5 year mark? Was it just a plot that courts and others changed his measures?

I'm one of those "radicals" who believes that Sizemore is as responsible for his actions as any other Oregon public figure. And it is not just Sizemore. I've had conversations with staffers for legislators of both parties, and mentioned not so much what issues I was concerned about but public figure behavior. I believe that a vision for the future and a plan to carry it out is better than trying to impose ideology on others. I warned a Dem. staffer against the dangers of hubris.

An old friend loved the saying "hubris is followed by nemesis".

That that is what happened to Sizemore--people began to reach the opinion that he was full of himself and thought we owed him the obligation to take his measures seriously.

The Oregon Constitution begins "We the people..". Not "we the political professionals" or "we the initiativemeisters". Voters have the right to disagree with Sizemore or any other public figure.

Or don't you believe that, Joel?

LT has got the weasel by the tail!

Hold up. Hold the fuck up!

I may be an asshole straight shooter who calls it how I see it all the while not giving a damn who I offend. At times. I have a tendency for trolling.

However, I will not engage in felonious slander of a man's name.

Bill Sizemore has never been convicted of violating the RICO Act.

Henceforth, Bill Sizemore is NOT a "racketeer" in the sense that we all know the word from various Scorsese movies.

I will agree to some degree that Bill Sizemore may have used his non-profit, initiative machines to get money from a few wealthy donors to the point it makes his political opponents view him as a "money launderer."

Until Bill Sizemore is convicted of violating the RICO Act, then he is not a "Racketeer."

There is no such state law that brands someone as a "racketeer."

I am technically right, but in the court of liberal opinion, I am as wrong as hell.

Just had to give my 2 cents :)

Actually, YOMB, there is such a state law. And I was wrong, there was actually a signature forgery element to his conviction under ORICO.

No... what will be about damn time is when they ban residents of other states from contributing money to the campaigns of Oregon ballot initiatives.

Get that pervert Loren Parks, and the rest of the right wing freaks that aren't state residents and kick them out of the Oregon ballot initiative process.

Frank,

I guess it's up to you who has a constitutional right to take part in our democratic process? I'd like to know what crimes Loren Parks has committed?

As for the ballot initiative issue, can someone give me proof of fraud and abuses on a level that warrants more laws and scrutiny?

I certainly hope the powers that be leave the initiative process. It is one of the primary reasons I moved here. It is empowering. It also keeps one from falling into complacency. Sure we had plenty of poorly-worded props on the last ballot. But guess what? Pretty much all of them were rebuffed. I am very proud to be a citizen of this state.

YOMB is correct that Sizemore has not personally been "convicted" of being a "racketeer." What has happened is that his various (albeit virtual one-man) "organizations" were found in a civil</i court to have engaged in racketeering. Every time I hear someone call him a "racketeer" or a "convicted racketeer" I cringe. You may wish it so, but it ain't so.

Personally, I'd call him an "unconvicted perjuror" or a "charming and manipulative con man" or an "unrepentant tax evader" - but that's just me.

Darn my syntax. What I meant above was:

What has happened is that his various (albeit virtual one-man) "organizations" were found in a civil court to have engaged in racketeering.

Becky - Thanks for correcting the record (again!)

YOMB - I will amend my comment to read: "It appears that one night in jail wasn't enough for Bill Sizemore, the leader of organizations that were convicted of civil racketeering to ponder his sins."

Perhaps if you want to get some of the facts about Bill Sizemore you should read the rulings of the Judge who found him in contempt of court and sent him to jail. I understand it took her two hours to read in court. Good luck defending Bill Sizemore. He seems to be self destructing much to the delight of most Oregonians.

It's about damn time - You're the intiative process lets normal people have too much say to the legislature. We need to make it as hard as possible for any check to be put on lawmakers. What are you going to do without Sizemore to blame?

I'm all for retaining the initiative process here in Oregon. I am opposed to those who break the law, encourage others to break the law, or use the product of those who have broken the law to change the Oregon Constitution or statutes.

I automatically vote no on any initiative measure that is associated with a small group serial petitioners. You all know who they are. I always consider measures that are put on the ballot by responsible groups of citizens who organize themselves to change the Constitution or state laws. There is a big difference between the two groups. The latter is almost always funded by small donations and petitions are usually circulated by volunteers.

The initiative process is a valuable part of our democracy. That's why it is important to defend it from people like Bill Sizemore, the leader of organizations that were convicted of civil racketeering, and others who repeatedly abuse the process.

The concept of the initiative process is truly populist, but the result of it is thus: it is a tool for moneyed interests to play get-around with Constitutional basics and law.

As long as the vote of the people is easily manipulated by the almighty dollar (we were effectively lobbied by the tobacco industry's 11 million bucks in 2007 in re: Measure 50), the concept of populist common sense is lost in the dark muck of the dollar.

I wandered back west in 1989 and made Oregon my home. In the almost 20 years I've been here, I am hard pressed to recall an initiative that, after the veneer of the properly focused ballot title was stripped away, was truly worthwhile. I will make exception, of course, for corrective initiatives... for ex., Measure 49 as a correction for 37.

I am sure you can come up with exceptions, too, but generally speaking the initiative process has been co-opted by the likes of Mannix, Mabon, Sizemore, Parks, and a few others. They make a busload of dollars by picking on an issue or on a community, and sell their wares by playing on the darkest of human emotions. Even if they lose an election; they win in the pocket. When Lon Mabon spent more than a decade on anti-choice and anti-GLBT measures, his only win was in 1988, but he made a very good living... and so did his family, who provided much of the OCA office staffing.

I applaud Kate Brown and John Kroger for trying to get a handle on this monster. Its going to take an exorcism of the highest order.

Note: I believe that there are a number of ballot measures currently filed that grandfather in before the signature requirement bumped from 25 to 1000 sigs. So if they track everything else correctly, we'll still be dealing with them.

I need to correct myself here.. Measure 49 wasn't really corrective initiative... it, like 50, was a legislative referral.

(I was really trying to come up with a good citizen's initiative... a better example is campaign finance reform or the HOPE initiative.)

<h2>I will say this. During the 2007-2008 petition cycle we turned in 5 suspected forgers. 0 were investigated. New laws don't do shit to curb fraud. If the SOS an AG wouldn't enforce the old laws what good are new un-enforced laws going to do? Nothing.</h2>