Doesn't he still owe $2.5 Million for fraud & racketeering? Why isn't this guy in jail? What does the OR Leg plan to do to (I hate this word) 'reform' the initiative process to prevent Sizemore from abusing the system and making a living at the expense of Oregon citizens?

Sign Me up We will beat the Lefties into the Ground

Yeah, David, because Sizemore has such a strong track record in recent years, doesn't he? Hell, you Rightists have had such GREAT victories recently, haven't you?

If we are lucky, Bill Sizemore will be our biggest concern in 2010. Unfortunately, there are prospects of having greater catastrophes to anticipate - budget-busting military budgets, Afghanistan, Pakistan, a Depression greater than the last?

It is our responsibility to produce such intense pressure on our elected officials and concerned agencies that they DO what must be done and MAKE him pay up or forfeit what he has to those debts. And then it is our job to look at the law he is abusing and seek alter of that law to address the abuses he has perfected.

It is our job to insist upon correction. Sadly, that's how US political process is.

After all these years, there is no sarcasm or humor I fined acceptable about "Buffalo Bill Seizemore".

He owes a court judgement. He should be stopped any way possible from any further political involvement until he pays the judgement, period, end of discussion.

We need to stop ballot title shopping.

There should be an IRS investigation of someone getting a 6 figure income and other perks from a "nonprofit". Because the "nonprofit" is not headquartered in Oregon, this represents political action happening across state lines.

I agree with Bill Bodden that Sizemore poses little concern for 2010. But the prediction of a depression "greater than the last" is way over the top. For me, one concern is as extreme as the other.

Basic legal question here. Felons can't vote, right? So, why should they be able to circulate ballot petitions? I'm missing something.

Newsflash: it's not illegal to owe money, and he's got every right to do what he's doing. With the money flowing into his system, someone else could do it if he didn't. And I'd rather have him doing it, as it allows an automatic percentage of people to say "no" to Sizemore.

Of course, you can try to change the I&R system. And I think we should. But I'm not hopeful of the chance of getting it changed (Sizemore's antics up the chance all the time).

LT: We need to stop ballot title shopping.

There should be an IRS investigation of someone getting a 6 figure income and other perks from a "nonprofit". Because the "nonprofit" is not headquartered in Oregon, this represents political action happening across state lines.

Stopping ballot measure shopping is necessary and relatively easy. Simply require that the signatures to place the measure on the ballot be collected first, not after the ballot measure title is written.

As it is, even with the increased signatures required, Sizemore can float multiple variations of a single measure, get a different title for each, the push the title which polls best.

Second, instead of invalidating just the signatures gathered by a paid gatherer if they commit fraud, make it a mandatory invalidation of that initiative. Commit fraud, start over from the beginning. Same penalty for any failure to comply fully with the C&E disclosure requirements.

Third, require that the name of the chief petitioner be printed on the ballot with the title of each initiative.

Fourth, require signatures to be submitted to the SOS's office within thirty days of when they were gathered (the first signature on each page). Have the SOS conduct "rolling" signature gathering (and invalidation as required). No more "dumping" a hundred thousand signatures on the last day allowed. Allow public review of the signatures submitted, and challenges by individuals.

Fifth, advance the last date signatures can be submitted with respect to election day, to allow adequate time for review and challenge of signatures.

Another idea: Licenses for paid gatherers. You can do anything in the process as a volunteer, but to be paid, at all, you need a license.

Make the license good for 4 years. A simple at-home test, as we do for Notaries. It proves you know what the laws are. Also required: status as a registered voter in Oregon. Lose that status (say, by registering in another state), get a new license.

A nominal fee applies, to cover a finger-print and background check. Any conviction for fraud or other dishonest act, or any felony, and you can't be licensed. Getting paid without a license would carry a fine, prevent getting a license in the future and invalidate any/all initiatives you were paid to work for.

Applies to all gatherers, treasurers and chief petitioners.

I've still seen no reason to change my mind about the desirability of simply abolishing the initiative system and expecting our legislators to do their jobs.

Zarathustra:

Basic legal question here. Felons can't vote, right? So, why should they be able to circulate ballot petitions?

Bob T:

Sure, so long as felons can still be elected I see no reason why they can't circulate petitions.

Bob Tiernan

Bill Bodden:

...budget-busting military budgets...

Bob T:

Hmmm, any concern over ballooning entitlements? The military budget did actually shrink starting with the Bush I admin (and I mean it really went down as opposed to having cuts to the annual increases), but entitlements have continued to grow and grow and grow.

Bob Tiernan

You know who else does hate comedy real well is Rosie O’Donnell.

Maybe BO could commission her to do some articles?

Here's some topics she cover: 1) Why I should be allowed to own a gun, and you shouldn't 2) Fire does not melt Steel - facts revealed. 3) 9-11 the Inside Job. 4) Your Heterosexual daughter and what to do about it 5) Why Aliens refuse to Abduct Me.

I agree with many of the ideas Bob Baldwin expressed above. Any members of the legislature or their staff who are reading this please take this up.

Bill Sizemore will eventually end up in prison where he belongs or retire. Some other nut job will take over and there will be plenty more Parks or Jeld Wen guys to fund the fraudulent signature machine. A thoughtful approach to solve the issue of collecting the signatures of registered voters for citizen initiatives is the real answer.

During the Nov 4 general election, our friends at ACORN were struggling with some of these very same issues. People who were paid by ACORN to register voters were under pressure to get more voters registered. A few (very few) succumbed to that pressure and submitted false registration forms. Many ACORN chapters did their level best to separate out these bad forms and call them to the attention of the local election officials. The problems included homeless people being bribed with cigarettes to register to vote and forms were submitted for the Dallas Cowboys football team and Mickey Mouse. All of this due to the pressure to produce numbers of registrations. Bob Baldwin's license suggestion would work well for both the initiative process and voter registration.

As a liberal (proud one at that!) I don't want my access to the initiative process restricted. I signed at least a dozen different initiative petitions to shut down Trojan. I also want voter registration to be simple and accessible to all citizens over the age of 18.

Just a few years ago, Republicans had their corrupt hands on enough of the levers of power that cleaning up these problems was out of the question. Karen Minis is gone now. Let's act this year to prevent Loren Parks from paying for fraudulent signatures in the future and help ACORN and others to register citizens to vote and not be the subject of Faux News stories!

Zarathustra,

1) Sizemore wasn't convicted of a crime, his organization was. That's why they've had a difficult time collecting the money.

2) Yes, convicted felons released from prison are permitted to vote in Oregon

I think Sizemore is a convicted racketeer and I think he has also been found in contempt of court like 22 times.

michelle,

Dont you think its a little hypocritical to demand that Sizemore be thrown in jail when all you bleeding heart liberals where all for measure 57 which supported hugs and pats on the head for crimainals as opposed to jail???

Please explain how someone who abuses the inititive system(your feelings - not mine) should go to jail but the even non-crackhead that steals from others because their to lazy to work should get off with having to report in once a week to a parole officer and can skip out on restituation because he's a poor soul who's mom and dad didn't hug them enough.

But you folks only think that conservatives can be hypocritical. Sad...

Chris, if you'd take the time to READ the initiatives rather than just accept whatever talking points or lawn signs you happened to bump into, then you'd understand that your premise is idiotic.

I'm not even going to explain it to you, because you're apparently just too far gone. Suffice to say, you have just demonstrated to everyone that you have not actually read the ballot measure itself.

Congratulations: You fail at research.

Time has been wasted,

Did you hear that? That was the point zipping past your head!

The point is that why would you be so quick to jail someone who has not commited a person to person crime vs someone who has

Nice try to turn a valid point into a personal put-down, but i shouldnt expect any more from the Obama-nation

Hmmm, any concern over ballooning entitlements? The military budget did actually shrink starting with the Bush I admin (and I mean it really went down as opposed to having cuts to the annual increases), but entitlements have continued to grow and grow and grow.

Time to wake up,Bob. Bush I left office in January 1993. That's coming up for 16 years ago. In case you haven't noticed, Bush II has been in office for the last seven year and 10 months and this isn't a case of like father like son.
This is just one of many articles on the enormous amounts of money diverted to the Pentagon. Other articles have stated our department of war has a military budget larger than all other nations combined.

Felons/voting: they must go through a specified process to be repatriated to voting rights. It's not automatic, and it's not easy either. But it's not guaranteed you are forever barred from voting due to a felony.

Petition workers: Bob I like all of your suggestions. Let the petition-hucksters whine. We have to do SOMETHING. And if those who are legit are sufficiently unhappy, perhaps THEY will hop up to doing a little policing within-ranks. The idea of registration and also voting status is an interesting one - wonder if it is constitutional?

The bills which passed (but weren't totally in effect for this election cycle) were a start.

I'd like to see a legal decision on whether one must be registered to vote in Oregon to be a paid petition circulator. I'd like to see some regulation on re-runs. If an issue tries and fails twice (which I think is true of some/all the Sizemore measures in 2008) maybe it needs to come to the legislature for committee hearings or wait a specified number of years before it can be on the ballot again.

Bill Bodden: please be more specific about what you consider abominable entitlements? VA benefits are an entitlement. The GI Bill is an entitlement. Housing loans for military were a novel entitlement. Housing cost offset programs are entitlements. Social Security is called an entitlement. Food stamps are an entitlement. Treaty-right services (which NEVER stand up to minimal tests of adequacy, I can tell you as a periodic user over decades in far-separated parts of the country on the lands of many different tribes), these are a typically-abridged but jealously-regarded entitlement.

Bill, to read your tone here, I take it you are bitching about entitlements of some kind? Thanks for telling us what exactly you are against so we can reason together in this wise.

As to the shrinking military ENTITLEMENT MENTALITY: my cousin, a Naval Intelligence Commander who ran a Pacific Ocean/Cold War listening post, wired the Dayton Talks, blah blah blah.... he explained to me that CLINTON stripped the military down to less than fighting weight. NOT Bush Snr. And so the rush to bulk up once the war-making began in earnest, was wide-open for the invasion of mercenaries (I refuse to use the euphemistic "contractors" - these are MERCENARIES who will work for hire to make war and support war-making)into that arena once reserved mostly for militaries who at one time understood they were to obey command and never strive to become the "head", at peril to the Republic.

So I'm just not sure what point you are trying to make, Bill? Can you try again?

I know this is off-topic, but I want to set the record straight since people keep posting incorrect information.

On felon right to vote, wrong again:

http://projectvote.org/fileadmin/ProjectVote/pdfs/felon_voting_laws_by_state_Sept_11_2008.pdf

They are automatically restored upon parole. People on probation can vote as well.

Anon, I did research on this during the election, as I was reading extensively on the voter-disenfranchisement drives going on in states where I have native relatives living. I saw it written repeatedly that felons are NOT automatically restored. THey must petition. It was said that it is a grey area being exploited that felons are registering NOT having done the restoration process.

Is all of the major media as dolefully stupid as that? Remember when the smear was on regarding some buffoon who gathered votes for ACORN back East? And some really loud story about a felon who'd been voting for some years?

At any rate: interesting. Clearly I cannot believe anything I was reading in a variety of news sources during that cycle. That is disturbing.

Thank you for this factoid above if it truly is the straight skinny. Wish you had been around to point that out DURING the election. I really hope that wholesale VOTING EDUCATION is deployed in the schools and elsewhere so Americans can get serious about their so-called rights and freedoms, and hold the process to the mythical standards they simply are schooled to believe we have.

Sal: thanks for lining out the anti-Sizemore fixes on the books now. Heh.

A note on the fiscal-impact idea: in the end it would be meaningless, as anyone presenting anything for signature is going to slice that data so as to minimize the appearance of impact. Also, if the writer is pretty skilled, they can produce pure airy bullshit such as material I've seen on certain legislators' sites that make sounds but say nothing if you actually know the legislation they are referencing. I'm thinking of one particular example I shan't mention for professional safety's sake. Political writers know how to deliver sunlight and vacuum. So, while it's a good accountability concept, it will yield nothing in the end, don't you realistically think?

Sal - Love this information. THanks for your patience and for filling in the details.

I can't imagine why anyone would be unhappy with the cleanup, unless it's becuase they lost something to whinge about, eh? I can't wait to see how this shakes out in the future. Transparency is a word I LOVE.

As to the fiscals - good to know that is what you mean. I still have to advocate that bias can creep in according to who runs that office and the tides of the times. An example is that I've heard from non-Republican Clackamas County Elections office employees that their boss, a Republican, made life miserable and mean for everyone after this election. She was very unprofessional, but seems to be protected from sanction for her behaviours. So it is that in that office, you might have some colour creep in here and there, subtle, but present nevertheless....

At any rate, LBO numbers woudl be wonderful. What is the process for advocating for this and getting it done?

Sal, I was unclear. I am making an example of the pure b.s. I've seen on certain legislator's sites and how fiscal impact numbers could be just as empty of verity. THat was what I meant - and you cleared that up.

So: what you are saying is that GOING FORWARD, Sizemore might have a transparency muzzle on his ass (mixed metaphor, yup)?

Bill Bodden: please be more specific about what you consider abominable entitlements? VA benefits are an entitlement. The GI Bill is an entitlement. Housing loans for military were a novel entitlement. Housing cost offset programs are entitlements.

RW: Go back to where you got on this entitlement kick. It was Bob Tiernan who brought this topic up. I never mentioned entitlements.

Personally, I think there ought to be a minimum wage for paid signature gatherers.

Say, $40 per hour, with a minimum guaranteed salary of 30 hours per week.

And they may be paid to circulate only one measure at a time.

The Supreme Court says we can't ban paid signature gathering. But we can certainly use wage and hour legislation to guarantee a living wage for a part-year job ... and basically make it too expensive for anyone to hire them.

LT: I'd like to see a legal decision on whether one must be registered to vote in Oregon to be a paid petition circulator.

I would too. Re my suggestions above, requiring that status is one of the lesser issues. Mostly it would make it more difficult for people to "pop in", circulate petitions, and then leave. The licensing idea could work without that, however.

I'd like to see some regulation on re-runs. If an issue tries and fails twice (which I think is true of some/all the Sizemore measures in 2008) maybe it needs to come to the legislature for committee hearings or wait a specified number of years before it can be on the ballot again.

Not practical. Sizemore already rolls out multiple versions of the same measure. Limiting anything but a precise duplicate of the previous version would open up abusive interpretations, and allowing "modified" re-runs makes the limitation useless.

Sal: Bob, as of 2008, all paid signature-gatherers in Oregon are required take an online course on the rules of petitioning and get a permit. They may not have a conviction for identity theft.

Fair enough. Then it's a matter of strengthening the limits from the background check, and the penalties for violating the rules. Also, applying those requirements to teh chief petitioner and campaign treasurer.

You should also understand that the legislature has effectively curtailed ballot measure shopping by increasing the number of signatures needed to have a ballot title assigned from 25 to 1000.

That one I knew; I just don't think it's adequate. Get all the signatures, then assign the title.

I disagree with some of your other suggestions, but wholeheartedly agree that the names of petitioners should be printed on the ballot, and have circulated that idea to folks in both chambers heading into the 2009 session. Let me add a second suggestion: add a line to the ballot title description that states the fiscal impact of the measure.

No disagreement from me there. I just think there is likely to be too much confusion around what the "real" impact will be.

Sal, yes, I am sure we are all rational thinkers who understand knife/both ways. However, Sal, the process as it exists in the last election, is not working. It needs tuning up. I am not some zealot, few up here probably are. Overhaul? NO. Tune it up intelligently? Right away.

I am a bit confused - I thought you were telling us of laws already passed, not things that "ought to be done"? Your last post sounds now as if these are recommendations, not existing rule changes. I read your original post as existing changes we can expect that will result in transparency.

Dunno.

Sal:Chief petitioners are now liable for up to $10,000 for each instance of fraud in the circulating of petitions.

Sizemore seems unconcerned about that. And it's the key at issue here. Rather than setting up fines, which may or may not ever be assessed or paid, prevent the benefit of the offense: invalidate the measure.

Sorry Bodden -- whichever Bob got on about a generic boo-word, entitlements, explain what you are kvetching about. It sounds suspiciously like codespeak for anything that equalizes the pain of lower SES citizens. But I would not want to assume that. You might mean something along the lines of corporate welfare in Washington County. Or maybe even the egregious and dangerous whining entitlement thinking that militaries indulge openly now -- "we are the REAL patriots while you pansies who won't MAKE THE ULTIMATE SACRIFICE just sit at home. WE are doign what you will not.... "..... cuzzy Commander Dean used to explain to me that this entitlement-consciousness on the part of the military, now so open, is a danger sign. It is the military carping about knowing best, and feeling entitled to do what they want, not what they are told.

Other thing he explained, the power and difference in the American military was specifically that it was legally and (constitutionally?) placed at all times under command of the Chief. So as to protect from coups d'etat and militaristic rule. The true consciousness of being at service/in service is eroded seriously now.

So.... I will not assume WHICH entitlement you mention. You could surprise me!

Bob T:

...The military budget did actually shrink starting with the Bush I admin (and I mean it really went down as opposed to having cuts to the annual increases)

Pete Forsyth:

Huh? I don't have numbers at my fingertips, but that just sounds crazy to me. The spending on the Iraq occupation alone has been outrageous!

Bob T:

You've got the wrong Bush. See my next message in which I reply to someone who actually grasped what I was saying.

Bob Tiernan

Bob T:

Hmmm, any concern over ballooning entitlements? The military budget did actually shrink starting with the Bush I admin (and I mean it really went down as opposed to having cuts to the annual increases), but entitlements have continued to grow and grow and grow.

Bill Bodden:

Time to wake up, Bob. Bush I left office in January 1993. That's coming up for 16 years ago.

Bob T:

That's just it -- that budget's constant rise stopped during Bush 41 and then the eight Clinton years followed. During that time was anything done about ballooning entitlements?

I guess not.

Bob Tiernan

Pedro:

Some other nut job will take over and there will be plenty more Parks....to fund the fraudulent signature machine.

Bob T:

Has Parks done anything you can appreciate? Don't forget that he was probably the sole reason Oregon voters defeated the attempt to undo the Assisted suicide measure because he funded the resistance to the legislature's attempt to get us to reverse it. But as usual, Parks must be seen in black and white terms. You guys need to take these things issue by issue instead of using a broad brush.

Pedro:

During the Nov 4 general election, our friends at ACORN were struggling with some of these very same issues. People who were paid by ACORN to register voters were under pressure to get more voters registered. A few (very few) succumbed to that pressure and submitted false registration forms. Many ACORN chapters did their level best to separate out these bad forms and call them to the attention of the local election officials.

Bob T:

Oh what a hoot! ACORN is not an organization made of sugar and spice and everything nice. Give me a break. ACORN didn't hire convicted identity thieves for nothing.

Bob Tiernan

Actually keeping Sizemore around might not be a bad idea. All we have to do to beat his initiatives his run commercials with a picture of Billy front and center. I'm leery of some other new wacko initiatives in disguise.

Phil - this could be the Hijack Attack ad of the future. You know how Smith stole and pimped images of others who were only, and sadly, caught in the glare of a photo op flash with him? Special interest campaign groups could pile on the plan,law or person of their choice by simply photoshopping in some recognizable amount of Sizemore, thus deep-sixing the item/person of their choice.

We must remember to thank Mr. Smith as he departs the scene: that was a handy and low-budget tactic he reminded us to use.

BB: If we are lucky, Bill Sizemore will be our biggest concern in 2010. Unfortunately, there are prospects of having greater catastrophes to anticipate - budget-busting military budgets, Afghanistan, Pakistan, a Depression greater than the last?

RM: I agree with Bill Bodden that Sizemore poses little concern for 2010. But the prediction of a depression "greater than the last" is way over the top. For me, one concern is as extreme as the other.

Predictions are not followed by question marks (?). Possibilities that could materialize in the future but may not be realized require a question mark or something similar to indicate uncertainty - something different than a prediction.

Consider this article that gives some hope of averting a depression. On the other hand, don't bet on it.

Sal - clearly it is the latter - a wide and deep disaffection for the assaultive Mr. Sizemore. He abuses this process in a particular way.

I do not see that the rules you cite address his version of abuse. Outside interests are able to fill our voting process with iniatives that have failed before, only retooled slightly and thrown at us again. It's also that Big Law tactic of spending the assaulted entity into the ground having to respond to the falsifications and sloganeering that attend the Sizemore initiatives.

That's my guess.

Doug K:

Personally, I think there ought to be a minimum wage for paid signature gatherers.

Say, $40 per hour, with a minimum guaranteed salary of 30 hours per week.

Bob T:

Hmmm...why should they have to pay more than ACORN pays out?

Anyway, what you're advocating (even in inflated form) might sound nice but your sole purpose would be to limit petitioning (again).

Bob Tiernan

ps... speaking of ACORN - looks like even tho they set up emails that ostensibly lead to offices in every state in the nation as if it's a local office, there may not be one here, as one still waits for a response from that ostensible link. It would be nice if they did not plump up their profile. I want to keep revering the work they do, please.

Posted by: Jonathan Radmacher | Nov 28, 2008 11:46:28 AM

Newsflash: it's not illegal to owe money, and he's got every right to do what he's doing. With the money flowing into his system, someone else could do it if he didn't. And I'd rather have him doing it, as it allows an automatic percentage of people to say "no" to Sizemore.

Of course, you can try to change the I&R system. And I think we should. But I'm not hopeful of the chance of getting it changed (Sizemore's antics up the chance all the time).

Hope you're reading the latest topic on Wild Bill. And you can head that line I mention...

One has to really watch what you teach kids even in jest. After decades of saying "money talks", they're taking it literally!

<h2>I hope this isn't out of place here. I wrote a post today on Congress Matters, the Daily Kos's new sister site, speculating about the committee assignments that our Sen.-elect Jeff Merkley might get. I'm not used to such low traffic -- hardly anyone is reading Congress Matters yet -- and it occurred to me that my post might be of interest to the folks here. If this breaks an etiquette rule that I didn't know about, then sorry!</h2>