These two ballots were referred to the ballot by a business financed campaign of anti-tax forces. 

• If you believe that taxes should be fair and paid by both individuals and business, then you need to vote Yes.
• If you believe that social services, education and healthcare have already been cut enough, then you need to vote Yes.
• If you believe that Oregon’s wealthy and corportions can pay a little more because they have received the bulk of the increases in income and wealth over the past 30 years, then you need to vote Yes.
• If you think that enough cuts have been made to Oregon’s budget, then you need to vote Yes.  If these measures fail at the ballot in January, Oregon will experience a very large hole in its budget.  Cuts to education, healthcare, public services will have to be made. 

More information is available from Defend Oregon, www.defendoregon.org

Sign the Pledge to Vote Yes on 66/67
Volunteer for the campaign

Look who provided the funding to get  these measures on the ballot and now recommend a No vote.  

It is the same business and business friendly groups who have benefited from the past 30 years of shifting tax burden from the wealthy and corporations upon the poor and middle class.  This is just another reason to Vote Yes

Albina Fuel $10,000
Assoc. of General Contractors of America $37,500
Assoc. of Oregon Industries $30,000
Cain Petroleum $10,000
Common Sense for Oregon $50,000
Leathers Oil Co. $10,000
Morgan Distributing $10,000
Nat. Federation of Independent Businesses $808,564
Oregon Assoc. of Realtors $10,000
Oregon Automobile Dealers Assoc. $25,000
Oregon Forest Industries Council PAC $25,000
Oregon Local Grocery committee $25,000
Oregon Restaurant PAC $25,000
Oregonians for Affordable Housing $25,000
Pacific Seafood $10,000
WSCO Petroleum Corp. $10,000

Then for funding the No on 66/77 campaign run by Freedom Issues Works PAC (Russ Walker) the property rights group Oregonians in Action $10,000 and Parks Medical Electroniics $100,000. Loren Parks has pledged to give another $200,000.

August 10, 2009

 OREGON SUPREME COURT HEARS FIRST OF THREE CASES MOST IMPORTANT TO INTEGRITY OF GOVERNMENT

The Oregon Supreme Court on August 13 begins hearing the first of the three most important cases involving money in Oregon politics it has heard since 1996. All of them involve determining what the drafters of the Oregon Constitution had in mind when they included Article I, § 8, the Oregon version of the free speech clause.

Those drafters adopted a free speech clause virtually identical to clauses already adopted in dozens of other states. But the Oregon Supreme Court has interpreted Article I, § 8, as protecting from government control a wide variety of activities as “expressive” that are restricted in nearly all other states–such as unlimited contributions to political candidates.

The first case the Court will hear, with oral argument on August 13, Vannatta v. Oregon Government Ethics Commission, in which Fred Vannatta is challenging the constitutionality of the limits on gifts, entertainment, and honoraria that lobbyists (or anyone with a particular economic interest in government action, including legislation) can give to public officeholders and their families. The limit on gifts from anyone is $50 per recipient per year. Vannatta claims this limit, and the ban on providing entertainment or most honoraria, violates the free speech guarantee of Article I, § 8. Oregon has had limits on gifts, entertainment, and honoraria for decades. The Attorney General represents the defendant, Oregon Government Ethics Commission, and an extensive amicus brief was filed by seven individual Oregon voters, several of whom were chief petitioners on the most recent statewide campaign finance reform initiatives (in 2006).

The second case in the current pipeline is State v. Moyer, where local businessman Tom Moyer was indicted by the Multnomah County District Attorney for having made campaign contributions “in a false name.” The DA alleged that he provided funds to two of his relatives so they could make campaign contributions in their names instead of his. The trial court dismissed the charges, concluding that Oregon cannot require anyone to truthfully disclose their campaign contributions, because of Article I, § 8. The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the trial court by a narrow 6-4 decision of all of that Court’s judges sitting together in a rare en bancsession. Again, the Attorney General represents the State of Oregon, which is defending the constitutionality of the statute that bans the making of political campaign contributions in a false name, which was enacted by voter initiative in 1908. And an extensive amicus brief was filed by the same seven individual Oregon voters and the Policy Initiatives Group.

The third case is presently before the Oregon Court of Appeals, but that Court may send it directly to the Oregon Supreme Court for decision. In Hazell v. Brown, the chief petitioners and supporters of Measure 47, which Oregon voters enacted in 2006, are seeking to compel the Secretary of State and the Attorney General to enforce the terms of that measure, which establishes limits on political campaign contributions in all state and local candidate races in Oregon. Before Measure 47 passed in 2006, Oregon was one of only four states with no limits on campaign contributions, and campaign spending in Oregon races skyrocketed from $4 million in 1996 to over $42 million in 2006. The Secretary of State and Attorney General have refused to enforce these limits, citing Article I, § 8.

“The Oregon Supreme Court has never before faced such a series of cases critical for the functioning of government in Oregon,” said Dan Meek, attorney for the plaintiffs in Hazell v. Brownand for those filing the amicus briefs in the other two cases. “The Court can decide that we can or cannot have limits on campaign contributions and gifts to public officeholders and candidates and that we can or cannot require truthful reporting of campaign contributions. Right now, all 50 states and the federal government require such truthful reporting, 46 states and the federal government have limits on campaign contributions, and nearly all states and the federal government either prohibit or have low limits on gifts to public officeholders.”

Attorney Linda Williams said: “The Oregon Supreme Court has held that we must apply Oregon’s free speech clause in the way the 1857 drafters and voters understood it. We have given the Court dozens of examples of laws and historical evidence which shows that early Oregonians thought that lavishing unlimited money and ‘gifts’ on politicians was undemocratic, even criminal, conduct.”
 
The amicus briefs are available at:

        http://fairelections.net/court/gifts

        http://fairelections.net/court/moyer

The main briefs in the campaign contributions case are available at:

             http://fairelections.net/court/M47/Appeals