Ballot Measures

New Workplace Battlefront Opens on Flexible Scheduling

 The next workplace battlefield is emerging over flexible scheduling of workers in sectors such as fast food restaurants. The situation further rankles Oregon business leaders who are still upset over paid sick leave, a higher minimum wage and Measure 97.

The next workplace battlefield is emerging over flexible scheduling of workers in sectors such as fast food restaurants. The situation further rankles Oregon business leaders who are still upset over paid sick leave, a higher minimum wage and Measure 97.

Democratic lawmakers are teeing up legislation for the 2017 session to mandate scheduling rules for some workers, which could make testy relations with Oregon’s business community even testier.

Senator Michael Dembrow, a Portland Democrat, says it’s timely to tackle the legislation next session. He noted the 2015 Oregon legislature imposed a moratorium on municipalities passing “flexible schedule” ordinances. That moratorium expires next year.

Dembrow’s legislation probably would mirror ordinances adopted in Seattle and San Francisco that require employers with large numbers of part-time workers to provide advance schedules or pay extra compensation.

Supporters say sudden work schedule changes make it hard and costly for low-wage workers to arrange for child care or balance work for second and third jobs. Business advocates say employers need the ability to adjust worker schedules to deal with emergencies and when employees call in sick.

Business groups are already rankled about workplace legislation following the 2015 session when Democrats pushed through bills to mandate paid sick leave and raise the state’s minimum wage.

They haven’t cooled down as business representatives walked away after Dembrow's first interim work group meeting on the flexible scheduling bill.

There is broad business opposition to Measure 97, the initiative appearing on the November 8 general election ballot that would impose a gross receipts tax on corporations with more than $25 million in annual sales in Oregon. Business leaders predict business closures or departures if the measure passes and warn they will be reluctant participants in any negotiations on an alternative if it fails. That wariness could extend to other issues, including the flexible scheduling bill.

After demurring, Governor Kate Brown endorsed Measure 97, even though she says she hates it. Brown based her support on the need for substantial additional revenue to plug a $1.25 billion or larger projected budget hole in the 2017-2019 biennium. Brown and her GOP challenger Bud Pierce will hold their first gubernatorial debate Saturday in Bend and can expect to be asked about the flexible scheduling bill.

When push comes to shove, some business leaders may prefer statewide flexible scheduling legislation as opposed to the specter of cities such as Portland and Eugene adopting their own local ordinances. But bruised political feelings among business leaders also could diminish or even extinguish their willingness to compromise.

Pierce Dumps Trump as Gubernatorial Debates Loom

 GOP gubernatorial candidate Bud Pierce jettisoned his endorsement of Donald Trump on the run-up to this Saturday’s first debate with Governor Kate Brown in Bend. Four more debates will follow into mid-October.

GOP gubernatorial candidate Bud Pierce jettisoned his endorsement of Donald Trump on the run-up to this Saturday’s first debate with Governor Kate Brown in Bend. Four more debates will follow into mid-October.

Few people aside from Donald Trump believe the unconventional GOP presidential candidate can capture Oregon in the November 8 general election. Now Oregon’s GOP gubernatorial candidate Bud Pierce has joined the chorus.

Pierce withdrew his endorsement of Trump this week, claiming the New York real estate magnate isn’t unifying the Republican party and is driving away Hispanic voters. Pierce says Hispanic voters have a natural attraction to political conservatives and he is actively seeking their support to upset Governor Kate Brown.

In an interview last month, Brown urged Pierce to disavow Trump and “do the right thing.” Whatever the right thing might be, Pierce stopped short of pledging to vote for Democrat Hillary Clinton. He said he won't cast a ballot for anyone in the presidential race this year.

Jacob Daniels, Trump’s Oregon campaign chairman and perhaps the only person in the state who thinks his man will win here, dismissed Pierce’s dropped endorsement as insignificant.

The most recent public polling shows Brown with a comfortable double-digit lead over Pierce, but some Oregon Democrats have been uneasy over her largely invisible campaign while she hit the campaign fundraising trail. Pierce hit the airwaves with hard-hitting TV ads last month. Brown went up in the last few days with a softer ad that describes her political start as a children’s advocate and her achievement s governor boosting state K-12 school funding.

Brown and Pierce are scheduled to square off in their first face-to-face debate on Saturday in Bend, which may only rate second billing to home football games in Eugene and Corvallis. The gubernatorial candidates debate again September 30 in front of the Portland City Club, October 6 in Eugene, October 13 in Medford and October 20 in Portland.

Pierce has called for fresh thinking in Salem while Brown has touted her leadership as the successor to John Kitzhaber, who resigned at the beginning of his unprecedented fourth term. No seminal issues have created a sharp division in the race, though the Oregon-Oracle $100 million settlement of the Cover Oregon fiasco may have averted a flash point in the race. The settlement that involved six separate legal actions came just before Brown was scheduled to be deposed.

The debates are likely to underscore Pierce’s opposition to and Brown’s endorsement of Measure 97, the initiative that would impose a gross receipts tax on corporations with more than $25 million in annual sales in Oregon. Proponents and opponents of the tax measure are waging a vigorous campaign that pivots on how much of the tax will filter down to small businesses and ultimately Oregon consumers. Early polling indicates the measure has strong support.

The gubernatorial candidates should be pressed on how they would respond if the tax measure passes or fails. Measure 97 is projected to generate $3 billion in new state tax revenue annually, which would more than plug the state’s anticipated $1.5 billion biennial budget hole. However, the state will face severe spending challenges on education and health care spending if the measure fails.

As the debates unfold, a key target for each candidate will be attracting non-affiliated voters. Brown can generally count on the Democratic majority in urban areas from Portland to Eugene. To win, Pierce may need to catch some of the same populist wind that propelled voters in Oregon to support Trump and Bernie Sanders.

Oregon’s Pending Political Divorce

 Measure 97, which would raise taxes on corporations with more than $25 million in annual sales in Oregon, faces an uncertain future in the general election. However, it does seem certain that it's causing a political divorce in Oregon that will fuel polarization and make compromise harder to find.

Measure 97, which would raise taxes on corporations with more than $25 million in annual sales in Oregon, faces an uncertain future in the general election. However, it does seem certain that it's causing a political divorce in Oregon that will fuel polarization and make compromise harder to find.

Oregon voters can expect political rhetoric to escalate over Measure 97, the initiative to impose a gross receipts tax on corporations with large sales in the state, as the November 8 general election approaches.

However, the more intriguing question may be what will or should happen after the election, regardless of whether Measure 97 passes or fails? Chances are whatever happens will feel like a divorce. Andrew Bulkily, writing for Oregon Business, summed up the situation as going from “gridlock to civil war."

No one disputes that the stakes are huge. Oregon officials estimate Measure 97 will generate $3 billion per year in new state tax revenue. Proponents say most of that tax will be shouldered by large out-of-state corporations that currently don’t pay their fair share of the tax burden in Oregon. Opponents insist that the tax measure will result in higher consumer prices.

Emily Powell, the third generation owner of Powell’s Books, says higher taxes resulting from the passage of Measure 97 could drive the iconic Portland-based independent bookstore out of business. Powell says profit margins in the book business are too small and competition is too stiff to allow the store to raise its prices.

Measure 97 revenues have been touted by supporters, including Governor Kate Brown, as a badly needed and long overdue revenue make-up for K-12 school funding, health care and senior services. Opponents argue that the initiative can’t guarantee how legislators will spend the added tax money and that a big chunk of it will go to cover huge Public Employees Retirement System shortfalls.

There are people on both sides of the initiative who wish a compromise could have been reached to avoid a ballot measure mash-up that could be the most expensive political campaign in state history. Proponents and opponents have each raised double-digit millions of dollars to trade televised jabs this fall. Measure 97 backers weren’t in the mood to compromise, feeling that 2016 could be a moment to push through a major tax change on the ballot.

Which brings us to what happens after the election. If Measure 97 passes, the state’s available discretionary revenue will sharply expand. That would probably erase the projected $1.3 billion state biennial budget hole, but it wouldn’t necessarily determine how the balance of money would be spent. You could expect fierce arguments among interest groups over how much should go to K-12 schools versus investments in health care and senior services – and in higher education. You also could expect some high-profile business response, such as a business like Powell’s Books shuttering.

If Measure 97 fails, the state budget hole will loom even larger, potentially threatening cuts to K-12 and higher education funding and threatening Medicaid expansion. Perhaps worse, many in the business community may refuse to enter into discussions about how to meet that budget shortfall, PERS underfunding or tax reform because of the fractious fight they had to wage to defeat Measure 97. Oregon lawmakers may see hearing rooms full of angry faces unwilling to sit together in work groups to explore solutions.

It’s likely that the political zombie of a state sales tax would re-emerge. The sales tax has been the default idea for how to reduce the volatility of Oregon’s existing income-tax-heavy revenue system. However, sales taxes face their own haunting challenges, such as Internet sales. In Oregon, the appetite for a sales tax by voters has the same taste notes as brussels sprout ice cream.

If Measure 97 passes and Brown wins election, it will give her an effective mandate to guide how the new tax revenue should be allocated. However, it could dampen enthusiasm for climbing the steep hill to craft, pass and avoid a referral on a major transportation funding measure.

If Brown wins, but Measure 97 fails, Brown will have the challenge of trying to patch together a balanced budget, with limited credibility to court business support for alternative tax-generating options.

Brown’s position also would be weakened because she must run for election again in 2018 for a full four-year term. As secretary of state, Brown succeeded John Kitzhaber as governor after he resigned in 2015 and is running this year to fill out the final two years of the former governor’s four-year term.

This is a fairly grim picture. Sort of like a family portrait after a divorce.

Over time, views will soften, the more contentious personalities will be pushed aside and a dialogue can resume. But as the 2016 presidential election has revealed, strong political undercurrents can be unleashed, deepening polarization and crippling efforts to find common ground – or even a table where everyone can sit around to talk.

PERS Costs To Deal a Heavy Blow to Oregonians

  Senate Minority Leader Ted Ferrioli, R-John Day, left, says he and a handful of other lawmakers have proposals in mind to address the climbing cost of unfunded liabilities in Oregon's public employee pension system.  (Denis C. Theriault/The Oreognian/OregonLive)

Senate Minority Leader Ted Ferrioli, R-John Day, left, says he and a handful of other lawmakers have proposals in mind to address the climbing cost of unfunded liabilities in Oregon's public employee pension system. (Denis C. Theriault/The Oreognian/OregonLive)

Oregon’s public worker pension system is in the news again, and this time it’s going to cost us all quite a bit more money.

Lost amid the national hullaballoo over the presidential campaign, we learned that the cost of Oregon’s Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) will climb an extra $885 million in the next biennium. That increase will elevate Oregon’s sum of unfunded liabilities to $22 billion for the next year, leaving lawmakers in an overwhelming bind: Find new revenue to fill the gap or start scaling back public services.

Unfunded PERS liabilities rose to $18 billion last year, and projections from four months ago placed the figure closer to $21 billion. They’ve increased again, largely from a combination of declining pension investment returns, a 2015 Oregon Supreme Court decision restricting pension benefit reductions and the simple fact that pensioners are living longer.

The full gravity of the update began to sink in last Friday when actuaries released new financial projections to the PERS Board.

The situation begs all kinds of big questions: Why isn’t this dilemma a central topic in statewide campaigns this election season? And will political leaders once again try to find PERS reforms in the next session or have they just given up in light of Oregon Supreme Court rulings? 

The biggest problem, though, is that state leaders don’t seem to know how to stop this giant snowball from bounding down the mountain. A spokesman for Governor Kate Brown told The Oregonian editorial board that despite casting a wide net for reforms, state leaders so far have found no solutions that would survive a court challenge. Furthermore, Oregonians cannot afford another year of failed PERS reform attempts, the spokesman said.

“There's no end in sight,” The Oregonian editorial board wrote Tuesday in response to the news. “Contributions by employers – they are required to cover the difference between PERS investment earnings and benefit promises – are expected to go up by 4 percent of payroll in 2017, 2019 and 2021. That puts the employer contribution to the system at $4.5 billion for the 2021-23 biennium, more than twice what it is now, reported Ted Sickinger of The Oregonian/OregonLive.”

With the latest projections, school districts are taking the biggest hit, facing an anticipated $335 million increase in PERS costs. Meanwhile, public agencies will have to carve out $260 million of their own funding to cover the shortfall in PERS payments. Ultimately, the pain will trickle down more directly to taxpayers.

“Oregonians, along with the children they send to school, rightfully expect tax and employer dollars to bear fruit, not burden, and throwing money into an expanding fire is useless,” The Oregonian editorial board wrote. “Unless lawmakers prepare to act in the next legislative session, PERS threatens to undermine the capacity of the state to meet its basic obligations. Fewer school teachers, larger class sizes and the diminution of other critical government services loom.”

Potential revenue for the shortage is quietly tied up with the IP 28/Measure 97 effort to generate a cash influx for Oregon. But of course, the fate of those measures remains up in the air.

Senate Minority Leader Ted Ferrioli, R-John Day, said he and a handful of lawmakers have a list of reform proposals in mind, but Democratic leaders need to be prepared to make difficult cuts. 

“If you want PERS to remain solid, and we do, then you have to trim expectations,” Ferrioli told the editorial board. “We're not messing with anybody's retirement. We need to be prospective about this, look ahead. We can use the court's decision as a template. All it will take is a modicum of interest from the House speaker, the Senate president and the governor."

Unfortunately, no matter where you stand on the issue, the one thing everyone can agree on is that the problem seems to have reached a point where it can no longer go ignored.

Justin Runquist is CFM’s communications counsel. He is a former reporter for The Oregonian, The Columbian and The Spokesman-Review. Away from the office, he’s a baseball fanatic with foolhardy hopes that the Mariners will go to the World Series someday. You can reach Justin at justinr@cfmpdx.com and you can follow him on Twitter at @_JustinRunquist

 

Trump Tackling the Left Coast

 As Republicans open their national convention in Cleveland, Donald Trump has pledged to put some surprising states in play in November, including Oregon and Washington. What does Trump know that most political observers in the Pacific Northwest fail to see? (Photo Credit:  Christopher Dolan/The Times & Tribune via AP)  

As Republicans open their national convention in Cleveland, Donald Trump has pledged to put some surprising states in play in November, including Oregon and Washington. What does Trump know that most political observers in the Pacific Northwest fail to see? (Photo Credit: Christopher Dolan/The Times & Tribune via AP) 

Presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump raised eyebrows when he told Republican congressmen that he expects to run competitively in November on the Left Coast, especially in Oregon and Washington.

Trump didn’t give away his secret formula for turning dark blue states into electoral votes for him, but it is interesting to speculate on what is behind his audacious claim.

The Statesman Journal reported what it called a “surprise result” from the latest batch of party affiliation sign-ups from motorists automatically registered to vote under Oregon’s new Motor Voter law – more people registered as Republicans than Democrats. Some 3,455 new voters aligned with the GOP compared to only 3.023 with the Democrats.

Before you get too excited over that news, note that 124,912 Oregonians have been registered to vote under the new law, but only about 8,500 declared a party preference, according to the secretary of state’s elections division. The small gain in voter registration by Republicans hardly makes a dent in the overwhelming Democratic majority in Oregon. Trump carried Oregon with 252,748 votes in the Republican primary, which was fewer votes than Hillary Clinton received (269,846) in soundly losing to Bernie Sanders (360,829).

But primary results and new voter registrations may not be what Trump and his lieutenants are pondering. They see a whole lot of people, including a vast majority of new voters, who don’t align with either party. There are more non-affiliated voters in Oregon than registered Republicans and almost as many as registered Democrats. This pool of voters could represent just the kind of uncharted electoral waters Trump plans to ply this fall.

Trump also may be planning to appeal to Democratic and independent voters in Oregon and Washington who voted for Bernie Sanders and are disenchanted with Hillary Clinton. Despite national polls showing nearly three-quarters of Sanders Democratic primary voters plan to vote for Clinton, that still leaves the other 25 percent for Trump to court.

Sanders did well in more than just Portland, so Trump’s campaign may try to pry away voters who oppose trade deals and still harbor ill feelings toward the Clintons on timber policies that reduced cuts on public forests and forced mills to close. He might even reach out to “Rust Belt” manufacturing workers in Portland and Seattle who feel left behind.

An active Trump campaign in Oregon and Washington, whatever that turns out to be from this unconventional politician, could give a boost to down-ballot Republican candidates. GOP gubernatorial candidate Bud Pierce seems disinclined to hook his hope to Trump, but Dennis Richardson, who is running for secretary of state, might find some common cause with the Trumpster.

Even if Pacific Northwest Republicans don’t enthusiastically embrace Trump and his message, they might still be willing to collaborate on campaign basics such as get-out-the-vote efforts, aiming to turn out voters who aren’t exactly in the political mainstream.

Win or lose in November, Trump has given the Republican Party a jolt and potentially set the stage for a larger, longer-term political realignment affecting both major parties. His unpredictability as a candidate has allowed doubt to creep in about the reliability of old political maxims, like red states and blue states.

Voter turnout, and to some degree voter mood, can be influenced in Oregon and Washington by ballot measures. Oregonians will be voting on a major tax increase on large corporations, which Republicans generally oppose, but also may fetch opposition from lower-income voters who fear the tax increase will be passed along to them in higher prices for groceries and gas.

Portland-area voters will be asked to approve a major a $750 million bond for Portland Public School renovations, a City of Portland gas tax increase and renewal of a Metro levy to fund regional natural areas. The cumulative impact of tax measures on the ballot could make Portland voters poutier than usual and more open to the kind of messages Trump traffics in.

Washington voters will decide on measures that would impose a carbon emission tax and urge a constitutional amendment that limits constitutional rights to people, not corporations. A gun control measure also may qualify for the fall ballot.

A Republican hasn’t won the governorship of Washington since the 1980s, but the last three elections have been tight. Governor Jay Inslee is seeking re-election, but with sagging approval ratings. He only won in 2012 by a whisker over his Republican rival, former state attorney general Rob McKenna. Pundits predict a vigorous battle for legislative control in the House, where Democrats hold a thin two-seat majority, and the Senate, where Republicans cling to an even thinner one-seat advantage.

If you were betting, you would be smart to keep your chips on blue in Oregon and Washington. But you might not want to lift your finger off the chips just quite yet.

Summer IP 28 Polls May Not Mean Much

 IP 28 would substantially raise taxes on corporations with large sales in Oregon to fund schools and other public services. Polling so far shows the high-profile, big-stakes initiative winning easily and losing miserably. Stay tuned because summer polls aren’t very telling.

IP 28 would substantially raise taxes on corporations with large sales in Oregon to fund schools and other public services. Polling so far shows the high-profile, big-stakes initiative winning easily and losing miserably. Stay tuned because summer polls aren’t very telling.

According to the polls, IP 28, which would raise taxes for large corporations with more than $25 million in annual sales in Oregon, either has strong support, withering support or a large bunch of undecided voters. Who knows at this point?

So it is with high-profile, big-stakes initiatives in mid-summer. Voters may be vaguely aware of them, but a good chunk of the electorate has postponed thinking too much about them until closer to the November election. They have vacations to take and lawns to mow.

Reading too much into summer poll results on initiatives is like depending on the Farmer’s Almanac to tell you whether it will rain next weekend. The polls regarding IP 28 hardly tell any story at all.

The latest public poll, conducted online in late June by iCitizen, shows 65 percent of Oregonians favor IP 28, while 19 percent oppose and 16 percent are undecided.

A poll done by DHM Research in May found 51 percent in favor, 32 percent opposed and 18 percent undecided. Action Solutions released a poll early in June showing only 41 percent support IP 28, while 32 percent oppose and 35 percent are undecided.

Differing questions and polling techniques can account for some of the variation among the polls, but the differences are pretty stark and most likely reflect that a lot of people really haven’t made up their minds yet.

In addition, the campaigns for and against IP 28 are just ramping up. Most competent opposition campaigns erode initial initiative support, sometimes dramatically.

The battle lines on IP 28 are pretty clear, however. Proponents argue big corporations pay too little tax in Oregon, which results in inadequate funding for schools and other public services. Opponents will contend IP 28 is really a gigantic sales tax that will raise consumer prices and cost Oregonians jobs. Both arguments have relatively broad appeal in Oregon, which also may account for some lingering voter indecision.

The iCitizen poll showed support for IP 28 drops, especially among Republican voters, when the the “sales tax” label is applied to it. But DHM Research found strong residual support, even among Republicans, with the claim that corporations pay too little in taxes in Oregon.

Pollsters agreed that views on the controversial measure are fluid. They may fluctuate in the course of the next few months as campaigns mount their best arguments in the most places. The 2016 election has already revealed itself as out of the ordinary, with populist surges on both the political left and right.

The IP 28 campaign will be worth watching. But don’t count on the polls, at least quite yet, as much of a guide for what the eventual outcome.

Trump’s Bad News is Every Republican’s Bad News

 Former Oregon Senator Gordon Smith lost his seat in 2008 in part because GOP presidential candidate John McCain pulled out of the state while Barack Obama pursued a vigorous grassroots campaign that boosted Democratic voter turnout. Similarly, the absence of a national campaign structure in Oregon this year will be a huge loss for the state's Republicans.

Former Oregon Senator Gordon Smith lost his seat in 2008 in part because GOP presidential candidate John McCain pulled out of the state while Barack Obama pursued a vigorous grassroots campaign that boosted Democratic voter turnout. Similarly, the absence of a national campaign structure in Oregon this year will be a huge loss for the state's Republicans.

News this week that Donald Trump’s presidential campaign war chest is down to $1.3 million is sounding alarms for Oregon Republicans.

In stark contrast, Hillary Clinton raised nearly nine times more money than Trump in May, and she entered June with about $42 million to spend. Corey Lewandowski, Trump’s campaign manager through the primaries who was fired on Monday, has called Trump’s campaign lean, with only 30 paid staffers. What cash and manpower there is will likely go to swing states, but Oregon isn’t viewed as one of those.

 Donald Trump's decision to fire embattled campaign manager Corey Lewandowski is one of many signs of trouble for the presumptive Republican nominee's campaign leading into the November general election. 

Donald Trump's decision to fire embattled campaign manager Corey Lewandowski is one of many signs of trouble for the presumptive Republican nominee's campaign leading into the November general election. 

The bad news for Oregon Republicans is they won’t get much if any help from Trump to bolster their own campaigns. The absence of a national campaign structure is a huge loss. Just ask former two-term Oregon Senator Gordon Smith, who lost in 2008 to Jeff Merkley.

Smith became the first incumbent Oregon senator to lose re-election in 40 years. A key reason for his loss was the near absence of a campaign in Oregon by GOP presidential nominee John McCain compared to a vigorous grassroots effort by Barack Obama. What Republican apparatus there was got pulled in the latter stages of the campaign when McCain, strapped for money, concentrated on other states instead.

There is virtually no chance Trump will even try to score an upset victory in Oregon, which casts an even darker shadow over the nearly invisible campaigns of Republicans running for statewide office this year.

 Donald Trump has less cash on hand than Ben Carson and Ted Cruz, whose campaigns have been suspended.  (Source:  NPR )

Donald Trump has less cash on hand than Ben Carson and Ted Cruz, whose campaigns have been suspended. (Source: NPR)

What seemed not that long ago to be a blockbuster election year in Oregon has turned into a bust. There are little known challengers trying to unseat Senator Ron Wyden and Governor Kate Brown. Dennis Richardson, the best known Republican running for statewide office after a better-than-expected challenge in 2014 to John Kitzhaber’s re-election, has so far run a low-profile campaign for secretary of state.

 Figures from the FEC show Hillary Clinton with a robust campaign war chest approaching the general election. (Source:  NPR )

Figures from the FEC show Hillary Clinton with a robust campaign war chest approaching the general election. (Source: NPR)

Without the oomph of a national campaign, these GOP candidates may be left further in the fumes to their Democratic counterparts who will have the benefit of added fuel from an expected Hillary Clinton campaign team in Oregon.

The other political sparks that can incite higher voter turnout are ballot measures. Those don’t look too good for Republicans either. So far, only two measures have been certified for the November general election ballot in Oregon – one to repeal the mandatory 75-year-old retirement age for judges and the other to slap a major tax increase on corporations with $25 million or more in annual sales in the state. IP 28 is more likely to generate voter enthusiasm on the political left than the political right, even if it winds up losing.

A number of other measures, such as ones dealing with a higher minimum wage that might have bumped up turnout, have been scrapped because of the anticipated electoral brawl over IP 28. It's expected to suck up a lot of campaign cash.

Many of Trump’s most ardent supporters are voters who have hung out in the fringes of politics, many without casting ballots. Fundraising, campaign organizations and message discipline aren’t important to them and may even be antithetical to their vision of an ideal “tell-it-like-it-is" candidate. For political insiders who know through experience what it takes to win big-time races, Trump is a nightmare unfolding in slow motion.

Trump’s puny fundraising, his tiny staff and his ubiquitous media appearances in lieu of political advertising will affect more than his own poll numbers. They will affect many down-ballot candidates seeking re-election or, in Oregon’s case, trying to get noticed. Just ask Trump's 16 frustrated and defeated primary opponents.

Voters May Decide 'Fake Emergencies Act'

 Opponents say “emergency clauses” are added to bills by lawmakers who want to thwart voter referrals. Others say the Oregon Constitution shouldn’t be cluttered with provisions to hamstring the legislature and enshrine bad policy.

Opponents say “emergency clauses” are added to bills by lawmakers who want to thwart voter referrals. Others say the Oregon Constitution shouldn’t be cluttered with provisions to hamstring the legislature and enshrine bad policy.

In addition to deciding on a major corporate tax hike, Oregonians may have a chance this fall to cast a vote on the “No More Fake Emergencies Act.”

Wilsonville attorney Eric Winters is the chief petitioner for IP 49, a proposed constitutional amendment that would make it harder for Oregon lawmakers to slap “emergency clauses” on legislation. Winters says lawmakers use emergency clauses to deny opponents a 90-day window to refer controversial legislation, such as a measure to extend the life of the low-carbon fuel standard.

 This is campaign literature from NoFakeEmergencies.org in support of IP 49, which seeks to limit use of emergency clauses on legislation in the Oregon legislature.

This is campaign literature from NoFakeEmergencies.org in support of IP 49, which seeks to limit use of emergency clauses on legislation in the Oregon legislature.

Supporters are still collecting signatures on IP 49, which must top 117,578 to qualify for the November election ballot.

There is a case that legislators use emergency clauses liberally for what you might describe as non-emergencies. The Oregonian editorial about IP 49 poked fun at emergency clauses attached in the 2016 session to innocuous bills expanding the Travel Information Council, creating a Trail Blazers license plate and authorizing an ODOT study to boost ridership on passenger rail.

Under IP 49, lawmakers would need a two-thirds majority to approve a bill with an emergency clause, which Winters thinks would be a deterrent to frivolous use of the technique. IP 49 creates exceptions for biennial spending measures and bills passed during emergency legislative sessions called to address actual disasters.

Tax-raising measures are already off limits for emergency clauses, and they have been referred to voters fairly often. Tax measures also require a three-fifths majority to pass in the Oregon House and Senate, which translates into 36 House votes and 18 Senate votes.

IP 49 follows criticism about the 2016 session that critics complained went far beyond the bounds of a short 35-day legislative session. Annual sessions were sold as a way to give lawmakers a chance to tweak the state’s biennial budget, make technical corrections to legislation passed in the longer regular session and address emergencies. As they have evolved, annual sessions have become a vastly expedited miniature of regular sessions, dealing with substantive and often controversial topics.

In fairness, some of the controversial measures, such as a higher minimum wage, were aimed at heading off costly, divisive ballot measures. That may or may not constitute a true emergency, but timing was important.

Oregon has had mixed experience with cluttering the state Constitution with requirements like this, which may prompt some political observers to oppose the ballot measure, while urging lawmakers to exhibit more discipline in the use of emergency clauses.

Liberal-leaning Blue Oregon notes the U.S. Constitution has been amended 27 times in more than 200 years, but the Oregon Constitution has been routinely tinkered with, turning it into “an ugly, lengthy, wide-ranging and ridiculous document.” Amendments, the group says, have been “shamelessly used to hamstring the legislature, enshrine poor policy and indict differences of opinion.”

IP 28 Would Boost Taxes and May Dampen Economy

 The Legislative Revenue Office released its long-awaited analysis of an initiative to impose a gross receipts tax on large corporations selling in Oregon. It says taxes would definitely go up and the overall economy might take a hit.

The Legislative Revenue Office released its long-awaited analysis of an initiative to impose a gross receipts tax on large corporations selling in Oregon. It says taxes would definitely go up and the overall economy might take a hit.

The initiative to impose a gross receipts tax on larger corporations selling in Oregon would raise $6.1 billion in revenue in the next biennium, while pushing up consumer prices and dampening income, employment and population growth in the next five years.

The Legislative Revenue Office (LRO) shared its findings today on IP 28, which will simultaneously cheer its public sector supporters and send shudders down the backs of its business opponents. Lawmakers and others have been clamoring for weeks for the findings, which will confirm fears and hopes, depending on your point of view.

The $6 billion in new tax revenue would fortify the state’s ability to boost funding for education, health care and senior services and make Oregon’s corporate tax system less volatile in down economic cycles, according to LRO.

Because the tax change falls heaviest on as few as 274 larger corporations with more than $25 million in annual sales in Oregon, LRO says they may find it worthwhile to restructure their businesses here to avoid high taxes. The retail and wholesale trade sectors would be hit the hardest by the tax increase, which could put upward pressure on consumer prices, shrink job creation and possibly even discourage some people from moving here, LRO projects.

There are other variables that complicate the analysis. One is the definition of a sale in Oregon. Another is the exemption of S-corporations, partnerships, proprietorships and benefit corporations, known as B-corps.

Then there are anomalies that arise in the interaction between existing corporate income tax rates and a corporate minimum tax in the form of a gross receipts tax. LRO provides an example of two hypothetical companies, each with $60 million in Oregon sales. For Corporation A with only $3 million of net income apportioned to Oregon, its tax would rise from $218,000 to $905,001 under IP 28. For Corporation B with $18 million of net income apportioned to Oregon, its current tax of $1.358 million would be the same under IP 28. 

It appears certain Oregonians will vote on IP 28 this fall after backers submitted far more signatures to the Secretary of State than required to qualify for the general election ballot. The specter of IP 28 and a boisterous political showdown between labor and business has caused others to back off potential initiatives, citing a lack of support and campaign cash, which is being sucked into the IP 28 vortex.

The LRO report doesn’t contain a smoking gun data point. Oregon tax revenue would rise as a result of IP 28, moving up the state’s per capita rate of taxation from 28th to 20th nationwide. The ratio of taxes to income would climb from 10.1 percent to 11.6 percent, with Oregon jumping from 26th to 9th nationally in that category.

LRO predicts the marginal impact of IP 28 will be to make Oregon’s tax system more regressive, but not by that much. Income, employment and population growth would be dampened, but only slightly. Larger negative impacts would be offset by higher public sector expenditures that tend to circulate in local economies.

LRO projects a net loss of 20,000 Oregon jobs – 37,000 in the private sector and reduced by a gain of 17,000 public sector jobs. Employment would decrease most sharply in the retail and wholesale sectors. Income would decrease $430 million, with income dropping 0.8 percent for households earning less than $100,000 annually.

The biggest “if” in the LRO report is now affected corporations will respond. “Both the large size of IP 28’s revenue impact and its concentrated impact on a small group of large corporations adds considerable uncertainty to the estimates,” LRO concludes.

Oregon’s Primary a Microcosm of the National Election

     Political outsiders dominated in the Oregon primary as Democrat Bernie Sanders scored a double-digit win over frontrunner Hillary Clinton and newcomer Bud Pierce captured the GOP gubernatorial nomination.

 

Political outsiders dominated in the Oregon primary as Democrat Bernie Sanders scored a double-digit win over frontrunner Hillary Clinton and newcomer Bud Pierce captured the GOP gubernatorial nomination.

Oregon’s presidential primary Tuesday serves as a microcosm of the national election. Democrat Bernie Sanders keeps winning to complicate frontrunner Hillary Clinton’s pivot to the general election and Republican Donald Trump glided to victory even though 32 percent of Oregon GOP voters cast ballots for candidates who had dropped out of the race.

Republicans chose Bud Pierce, a first-time candidate who largely self-funded his campaign, to challenge incumbent Democratic Governor Kate Brown. Portland voters swept in Ted Wheeler as mayor-elect, Brad Avakian won a hotly contested race as the Democratic nominee for secretary of state, and Clackamas County will see a fall runoff for commission chair pitting Jim Bernard against incumbent John Ludlow.

Hood River County voters approved a ban on a water bottling plant, parting ways with voters in Cascade Locks who supported Nestlé Waters plan to build the facility there. Meanwhile, Klamath and Grant county voters rejected marijuana-related businesses, Portlanders narrowly okayed a 10-cent gas tax increase and Multnomah County voters gave solid approval to an Oregon Historical Museum bond.

The Sanders victory in Oregon defied widely published polling results that showed Clinton holding a double-digit lead. With almost 90 percent of the vote counted, Sanders posted a 12 percent lead, and his dominance didn’t stop in Portland and Eugene. He outpolled Clinton in every Oregon county except Gilliam.

Sanders’ success in Oregon sends a troubling message to Clinton’s campaign. He likely would have done even better here if independents and non-affiliated voters could have voted for him in the primary.

Trump carried all Oregon counties, which isn’t surprising since no one else was campaigning. A year ago, when Trump announced his candidacy, it was unimaginable he would still be in the race at this point, let alone on what amounts to a victory lap to the GOP presidential nomination. 

Pierce handily defeated Allen Alley, a former Oregon GOP chairman, by running a campaign as a fresh outsider face. In his campaign victory speech, Pierce, who is a Salem medical doctor, told supporters, “I am not corrupt. I am not corruptible."

Raw vote totals confirm that Oregon is a blue state. Sanders and Clinton received around 550,000 votes compared 350,000 GOP votes for a presidential candidate. Brown, who faced only marginal opposition in the Democratic gubernatorial primary, racked up more than 400,000 votes while all GOP candidates received a combined total of 286,000 votes. 

Avakian overcame strong opposition from fellow Democrats Val Hoyle and Richard Devlin in what emerged as the most bruising campaign in Oregon’s primary. Avakian, who is state labor commissioner, now will face Republican Dennis Richardson, who lost to John Kitzhaber in the 2014 gubernatorial race. The wounds inflicted on Avakian in the primary may make this a more interesting race in the fall, giving Republicans at least a glimmer of hope to capture a statewide office.

Wheeler, who is state treasurer, will be in an interesting position as Portland’s mayor in the wings until he is officially sworn in next January. Wheeler was recruited by a coalition of business and labor to challenge Mayor Charlie Hales, who decided not to seek re-election. Hales has continued to fester a contentious relationship with groups such as the Portland Business Alliance, which Wheeler may be asked to mediate over the next few months.

Democrat Tobias Read will face Republican John Gudman to succeed Wheeler, who was term-limited as state treasurer.

Portland Commissioner Amanda Fritz easily won re-election, but Steve Novick will be forced into a fall runoff, probably against architect Stuart Emmons, after capturing only around 43 percent of the vote.

Clackamas County Chairman John Ludlow finds himself in the same situation, only he trailed fellow Commissioner Jim Bernard who collected 37 percent of the vote to Ludlow’s 28 percent. They will scramble to win the other 45 percent of votes cast that were split between Commissioner Paul Savas and Oregon City Mayor Dan Holladay. Clackamas County Commissioner Tootie Smith also will compete in a fall runoff against challenger Ken Humbertson. Commissioner Martha Schrader won re-election.

Victories in November by Bernard and Humbertson would change the tilt on the Clackamas County Commission to more middle-of-the-road politics.

Incumbent Washington County Commissioners Roy Rogers and Dick Schouten were re-elected, as were Metro Councilors Craig Dirksen, Sam Chase and Bob Stacey. Schouten and Stacey ran unopposed.

Perhaps the most interesting legislative primary race saw newcomer Rich Vial capture the GOP nomination in Oregon House District 26 over former Rep. Matt Wingard who sought a comeback. Wingard faced stinging opposition centered on his previous conduct that forced him to resign.

House Speaker Tina Kotek turned back a primary challenge from Sharon Nasset, whose campaign was tied to questionable tactics involving misleading mailings.

Oregon Senator Ron Wyden won the Democratic nomination after threats failed to materialize for a challenge to his re-election from the political left. Congressman Kurt Schrader overcame a challenge from progressive candidate Dave McTeague. Congressmen Peter DeFazio and Greg Walden and Congresswoman Suzanne Bonamici walked over token opposition in their respective primary contests.

Results on local school elections were mixed. Bond measures in Gaston and McMinnville won, but ones in the Corbett, Molalla and Centennial districts lost. Clackamas County voters gave the green light to commissioners to explore funding for road improvements. Rogue Valley Transit won voter approval for a property tax increase and Rogue Community College passed a $20 million bond measure.

Secretary of State Jeanne Atkins predicted 1 million votes would be cast in this year’s primary, marking only the second time that threshold has been reached. The first was in 2008, sparked by the Democratic presidential runoff between Clinton and Barack Obama.

The primary was the first statewide election since Oregon’s Motor Voter law went into effect, which automatically registered people to vote when they took out a driver’s license. Atkins previously reported that many newly registered voters affiliated with a political party, with Democratic registration far outstripping Republican registration. 

Oregon Liquor Privatization Shaken, Not Stirred Again

 For the second election cycle in a row, a grocer coalition has backed away from an initiative to privatize Oregon liquor sales. Grocers say they will focus on defeating a gross receipts ballot measure, but opponents say they ditched their initiative because polling showed it would fail.

For the second election cycle in a row, a grocer coalition has backed away from an initiative to privatize Oregon liquor sales. Grocers say they will focus on defeating a gross receipts ballot measure, but opponents say they ditched their initiative because polling showed it would fail.

The grocer coalition, pushing for liquor privatization in Oregon, has withdrawn its initiative and says it will focus instead on defeating a labor-backed initiative to impose a gross receipts tax on corporations with large revenues. 

Opponents of the liquor privatization measure say the real reason Initiative Petition 71 was pulled is because it didn’t poll well enough to win in this November’s general election.

This is the second consecutive election cycle that Oregon liquor privatization boosters have backed off initiatives after Washington voters approved a similar measure in 2011.

Meanwhile, the Oregon Liquor Control Commission has expanded its pilot program by allowing liquor sales in 14 additional Portland-area grocery stores. The OLCC said the 14 retail licenses it issued represent the largest liquor expansion in Oregon since Prohibition.

For those unfamiliar with liquor regulation, Oregon is considered a “control” state. The OLCC, which is a state agency, buys and distributes distilled spirits through state-licensed liquor stores. The arrangement dates back to post-Prohibition and is rooted in a policy mindset that liquor consumption can be moderated through limited access and higher prices. Those higher prices feed generous amounts of cash into the state General Fund and city and county budgets and fund mental health and substance abuse services. 

As you might imagine, liquor sales is big business. In the 2013-2015 biennium, distilled spirit sales in Oregon totaled $1.06 billion. After paying for inventory and compensating state liquor store agents, there were net revenues of $435 million. The lion’s share ($247 million) went to state coffers, $77 million went to cities and $39 million went to counties. More than $17 million went directly to community mental health and substance abuse service providers.

Those revenue numbers explain the reticence of public officials to surrender control of the liquor supply chain. They don’t explain why Oregonians are ambivalent about moving liquor sales in part or totally over to private enterprise.

Nigel Jaquiss of Willamette Week reports that Oregonians for Competition dropped IP 71 because after spending $1 million it still didn’t poll well enough to win in the fall election. Jaquiss obtained four relatively recent polls, all funded by opponents of liquor privatization, that showed support for privatization ranging between 32 and 41 percent. The most recent poll, which surveyed 800 Oregonians last month, showed 54 percent opposed IP 71, while only 41 percent favored it.

Dan Lavey, who is advising privatization opponents, said grocers should be concerned about the gross receipts tax, but added, “There are two reasons why people abandon or never start campaigns – lack of money or you don’t believe you have a path to victory. The grocers don’t lack for money.”

Pat McCormick, spokesman for the coalition that pushed for IP 71, said its polling showed “voters are ready to allow Oregonians to buy liquor in grocery stores, alongside beer and wine, like consumers in most states.”

Grocers can be expected to take another run at legislation in the 2017 session. But it does seem clear the landscape for privatizing liquor in Oregon is different than it was in Washington. First off, the Washington initiative passed – opponents would say rammed through – because of a $20 million contribution to the campaign from Seattle-based Costco. Second, privatization in the Evergreen State has been met with mixed reviews. Liquor is available in more places, but at higher prices.

Another factor is the flexibility being shown by OLCC, under the leadership of Chair Rob Partridge, to experiment with different approaches to enhance consumer convenience, including permitting the state’s craft distillers to operate tasting rooms.

“I don’t think Oregonians want a liquor store on every corner. I don’t think they want every gas station and convenience store to have bottles of liquor – that’s not what I hear from Oregonians,” Partridge told KATU News.

He said Walmart, which received four of the 14 new retail licenses, says it plans to offer a limited variety of liquor in its stores compared to what is available in state liquor stores. “Sometimes you buy things for convenience,” Partridge said. “Other times, you’re shopping for that great unique specialty product. So, there’s room in the market for both.”

Washington to Vote on Carbon Tax

 Washington could become the first state in the nation with a carbon tax if voters pass Initiative 732 in November. But state budget analysts warn it could amount to a loss of more than $900 million in tax revenue over a four-year period. 

Washington could become the first state in the nation with a carbon tax if voters pass Initiative 732 in November. But state budget analysts warn it could amount to a loss of more than $900 million in tax revenue over a four-year period. 

Washington state could find itself at the cutting edge of taxing carbon emissions with Initiative 732 heading for the ballot this fall. But opponents and budget analysts fear the bold plan goes a step too far.  

The measure would create a new tax of $25 per metric ton of carbon burned in fossil fuels, including gasoline, natural gas and coal. It also would also shrink Washington’s sales tax rate by one percentage point and virtually eliminate the business and occupation tax for manufacturers.

If the initiative passes, Washington will become the first in the nation to tax carbon emissions as other states look on.

“I-732 encourages cleaner energy solutions by shifting the tax burden onto carbon pollution and away from regressive and burdensome taxes that hurt families and businesses,” says Carbon Washington, the group behind the initiative.

Sounds great. So, what’s the problem? Well, as always in the process of creating new taxes and changing the rates of old ones, you have to look at the broader picture. And the big question surrounding I-732 comes down to its fiscal impact, which thus far has been defined by polar opposite projections from either side of the initiative battle.

Carbon Washington argues the tax would ultimately be revenue-neutral, bringing in an estimated $1.7 billion a year while returning roughly that much to taxpayers by lowering the sales tax. State budget analysts with the Office of Financial Management, on the other hand, estimate the tax change would amount to about $915 million in lost revenue for Washington over a four-year period, a painful gut punch for a state where annual budget shortfalls have become the norm.

Yoram Bauman, the founder of Carbon Washington, fired back at the OFM in February, saying the agency miscalculated the fiscal impact of I-732. Bauman added that OFM analysts are not carbon tax experts.

However, the Department of Revenue and legislative budget analysts also project I-732 would create a net revenue loss for the state.  

Several major state organizations have come out against the initiative, including the state Democratic Party, the Washington State Labor Council and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. Ultimately, they argue that it’s the worst time to experiment with a change that could jeopardize so much tax revenue.

“At a time our state is struggling to fund basic services – including public schools, mental health facilities and many other essential services – I-732 would send Washington in the wrong direction and create more damaging austerity choices,” Labor Council President Jeff Johnson said.

Numerous environmental activist groups support I-732, but it's also drawing criticism from some environmentalists. Several factions of Democrats in the legislature and county-level Democratic organizations across the state also are lining up behind the initiative, which supporters tout as an economic stimulus that will do something concrete to address climate change without hurting the middle class.

Lowering the B&O tax for manufacturers would help keep living wage jobs in Washington, proponents argue. The group anticipates reducing the sales tax would save hundreds of dollars a year for the average household in Washington. The initiative would provide up to $1,500 a year in tax rebates for about 400,000 low-income households across the state, Carbon Washington says.

The legislature had a chance this winter to alter the carbon tax proposal and address revenue concerns. But in a short session ruled by more immediate budget woes and questions about adequate education funding, that simply didn’t happen. It also didn’t happen during the special session that ended March 29.

Now, it’s up to the voters to decide what to do. Given Washington voters’ recently muddled history on tax reform measures, it’s anyone’s bet as to how this one will turn out on Election Day. 

Justin Runquist is CFM’s communications counsel. He is a former reporter for The Oregonian, The Columbian and The Spokesman-Review. Away from the office, he’s a baseball fanatic with foolhardy hopes that the Mariners will go to the World Series someday. You can reach Justin at  justinr@cfmpdx.com and you can follow him on Twitter at @_JustinRunquist.

“Emergencies” Top Short Session Docket

 Senate President Peter Courtney helped to convince Oregonians to approve annual sessions and now presides over a 35-day session packed with legislative “emergencies."

Senate President Peter Courtney helped to convince Oregonians to approve annual sessions and now presides over a 35-day session packed with legislative “emergencies."

The strains of a short even-year legislative session sprouted on day one as Republicans in the Oregon House and Senate demanded each of the 260 bills introduced be read aloud word by word.

The message sent by GOP lawmakers is that a 35-day session is too short to consider legislation raising the minimum wage, altering corporate taxation, addressing affordable housing and adopting a pair of far-reaching energy bills.

Those measures are on the legislative docket as a last-ditch effort to keep the issues they raise off the November ballot.

Oregon’s election-year annual session has evolved into a different, though perhaps inevitable role from its original conception. Senate President Peter Courtney, who led the push for annual sessions, sold the plan as a way to update the state’s biennial budget, pass minor legislative fixes and deal with emergencies that couldn’t wait.

Emergencies that can’t wait now apparently include blockbuster ballot measures that would raise the minimum wage as high as $15 per hour, slap a gross receipts tax on large corporate taxpayers and force Oregon utilities to ditch coal-generated electricity.

Senate Republican Leader Ted Ferrioli tweaked Courtney’s memory of the purpose of the short even-year legislative session by saying, “As I recall, Oregonians were sold on the idea of annual meetings with the promise that the ‘short session' would focus on balancing the budget, making small legislative ‘fixes' and responding to emergencies that need immediate attention.  I'm sorry to report that the 'short session' has become little more than a setting for the majority party to pursue an over-reaching agenda of tax increases, regulation and ideological issues dear to the progressives who rule Portland and to a great extent, the rest of Oregon.”

The last part of Ferrioli’s statement reflects his underlying opposition to all of the heavy-duty legislative proposals that are on the table thanks largely to Democratic-leaning activists. The exception is the coal-to-clean bill that was negotiated by utilities and environmental groups.

Governor Brown has offered an alternative minimum wage proposal and Senator Mark Hass, chair of Senate Finance, is proposing a scaled down corporate tax measure.

While those high-profile issues command attention, other significant legislation has been introduced to address marijuana industry regulation, gun sales, processing of rape kits and a few bills that didn’t make it out of the longer 2015 legislative session.

The racer-fast pace of a short session – if a bill can’t get a hearing, markup and a vote in the first two weeks, it is basically dead – provides plenty of fodder for skeptics. House Republican Leader Mike McLane said one-hour notice for a hearing on a major bill doesn’t allow enough time from someone from Eastern Oregon to show up to testify.

In the end, emergencies are in the eye of the beholder. For many Portland-area legislators, for example, the growing housing affordability problem in the city has elevated to a crisis that requires a legislative response. Their proposed response, which requires construction of affordable housing and puts limits on evictions of renters, may not seem so urgent in other parts of Oregon.

A Ballot Brimming with Measures

 The 2016 election could be bulging with ballot measures from a higher minimum wage to making English the official language of Oregon.

The 2016 election could be bulging with ballot measures from a higher minimum wage to making English the official language of Oregon.

Oregon's 2016 primary and general election ballots could be brimming with measures such as a gas tax in Portland, a gross receipts tax on businesses and a higher statewide minimum wage.

There also may be ballot measures touching on raw nerves related to immigration, universal background checks on gun sales, immigration and stricter penalties for lethal force to pets.

Combined with a wide open presidential race, the advent of Super PACs and a high-profile challenge to the re-election of Portland Mayor Charlie Hales, the 2016 election shapes up as a bonanza year for advertising venues. It's possible there could be more money to spend than there is advertising space to buy on television and radio.

As AP's Jonathan Cooper reported over the weekend, the only for-sure Oregon ballot measure at this moment is a legislative referral to make judicial retirement mandatory at age 75. But this is just the lull before the expected storm.

Our Oregon is shopping seven possible ballot measures to raise taxes on corporations and wealthier Oregonians. Two groups are vying to place a higher minimum wage on the ballot, one at $13.50 per hour and the other at $15 per hour.

There are at least two measures kicking around dealing with energy. Backed by oil companies, one would repeal the low-carbon fuel standard approved by the 2015 Oregon legislature. The other, put forward by environmental activists, would ban the expansion of any infrastructure in Oregon to extract, produce, process, ship or distribute fossil fuels.

In the absence of legislative action, Portland Commissioner Steve Novick has proposed a local gas tax to help pay for street repairs. His earlier idea of a street utility bill was shouted down, but Novick said Portland can't wait until the 2017 legislative session when Senate President Peter Courtney says he will take up a statewide funding proposal. There is a slim chance a transportation measure could be hammered out for consideration during the short 2016 legislative session.

Consumer activists have submitted a potential initiative to amend the Oregon Bottle Bill to make all consumer packaging, except what is compostable or refundable, subject to a 10-cent redemption fee. Grocers may elect to push an initiative to privatize liquor distribution and sales in Oregon.

Health care advocates are looking at measures to create a constitutional right to health care and require the Oregon legislature to adopt a system of universal health care. There also is a potential measure that would define maximum allowable charges for health care services.

Immigration foes, fresh from their success in 2014 blocking a driver's license bill, are toying with new measures to require employers to use the E-Verify system and designate English as the official language of Oregon.

Several measures could affect local governments. One prospective measure would hand over 50 percent of lottery proceeds to Oregon counties. Another would strip away Metro's ability to manage its regional urban growth boundary.

A second measure affecting the Oregon Lottery would carve off 5 percent to pay for veterans' services.

Other issues bouncing around, such as rules governing legalization of recreational marijuana, could result in even more ballot measures. 

The Process of Regulating Pot

 Marijuana edibles are just one of the significant differences and public health challenges facing regulators in Oregon who now regulate liquor.

Marijuana edibles are just one of the significant differences and public health challenges facing regulators in Oregon who now regulate liquor.

With voter approval of marijuana use comes the challenge of regulating it. Liquor regulation provides important precedents, but may not go far enough.

There will be similarities in regulating where marijuana can be sold, requiring accurate labels and preventing sales to minors.

But marijuana poses other challenges that have been highlighted by people knee-deep in developing original regulation in Colorado and elsewhere. For example, the amount of alcohol and its effect on individual adults can be roughly calculated arithmetically. That may be less true of the potency of different types of marijuana.

Marijuana edibles represent a significant challenge. Candy is sold with small amounts of liquor, but they convey far less of a potential jolt than a marijuana cookie, which is designed to transport the buzz offered by marijuana.

Another unique challenge is how to integrate the cultivation and sale of medical marijuana with recreational marijuana .

Rachel O'Bryan, cofounder of Smart Colorado, a nonprofit formed to weigh in on marijuana regulation, wrote in an op-ed in The Sunday Oregonian that someone who represents public health concerns, especially for youth, must be at the table writing rules for Oregon. She wrote: 

"Provisions that likely would not have existed but for Smart Colorado included: potency and contaminate testing; health warnings and a universal marijuana symbol; childproof packaging; per-serving and per-package THC limits; and restrictions on marketing and advertising targeted at youth." 

The backdrop for the regulation of marijuana is not law enforcement versus recreational drug users. Legalized marijuana is a hot new product category that financiers and corporate interests are pursuing. They will be the big rollers in the room when rules are discussed and their motivation, O'Bryan says, will be to sell product and turn a profit.

Oregon is a so-called "control" state for distilled spirits. The Oregon Liquor Control Commission sets the rules, with a strong influence from a constituency that includes groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving, which counterbalance pressure from liquor manufacturers, liquor agents and others who would like to sell liquor. O'Bryan argues a similar constituency will be needed to keep marijuana regulation in balance.

Kitzhaber Wins Re-election, But by Narrow Margin

 Governor John Kitzhaber claimed an unprecedented fourth term without a majority, and the measure that gained the widest national headlines was approval of Measure 91 to legalize the use, sale and production of marijuana.

Governor John Kitzhaber claimed an unprecedented fourth term without a majority, and the measure that gained the widest national headlines was approval of Measure 91 to legalize the use, sale and production of marijuana.

Democrats retained and even strengthened their grip on control of the state house and legislature as Oregonians said yes to legal weed and no to labeling of genetically modified foods and the much touted top-two primary. The story wasn't so good for Democrats nationally as they saw their majority in the U.S. Senate evaporate, giving Republicans control of both houses of Congress.

The story of the night was the relatively narrow victory by Governor John Kitzhaber, who claimed an unprecedented fourth term without a majority. On a series of critical news reports about First Lady Cylvia Hayes, including charges she may have leveraged her influence with the governor for personal gain, Kitzhaber's double-digit lead in the polls shrunk to a 5 percentage point victory.

The tighter-than-expected race appears to be more a reflection on Kitzhaber than his GOP opponent Dennis Richardson and raises questions about how the governor will fare going forward, especially if the Hayes scandals continue to dog his administration.

The other race of interest and significance involved a rematch between former Rep. Chuck Riley and incumbent GOP Senator Bruce Starr. Riley led in early voting results, but Starr now hows a thin 123-vote lead in a race that may be headed for a recount. If Riley manages to upset Starr, it would give Senate Democrats an 18-vote majority, enough to pass funding measures without any Republican votes.

Democrats retained control of the Oregon House by a margin of 35-25, one vote shy of the three-fifths majority to move tax measures without help from across the political aisle.

All of Oregon's incumbent congressional delegation up for re-election, including Senator Jeff Merkley, won handily.

Senate President Peter Courtney, whom some thought might face a tough re-election battle, prevailed with more than 53 percent of the vote. On the flip side, Rep. Jim Weidner, a Republican representing McMinnville and one of the most Republican-leaning districts in the state, won by a surprisingly narrow 51 to 46 percent measure over Democratic challenger Ken Moore. Moore campaign vigorously, while Weidner didn't.

A lot of attention and money focused on ballot measures and none more than Measure 92, which would have required GMO labeling. This is the second time Oregonians have rejected a similar measure, but this time the margin was razor thin at 50.6 to 49.4 percent, or something like 17,000 votes out of more than 1.3 million cast. (Interestingly, a GMO moratorium in Maui, which also attracted deep-pocket opponents, narrowly passed.)

The biggest loser was Measure 90, the top-two primary, which went down to defeat 68 to 32 percent. Measure 88, a referendum to overturn legislation to allow driver cards for non-residents, was defeated almost as soundly at 67 to 33 percent.

The biggest winner was Measure 89, the equal rights amendment, which passed by 63 to 37 percent.

The measure that gained the widest national headlines was approval of Measure 91 to legalize the use, sale and production of marijuana. Alaska also approved a similar measure and the District of Columbia passed a somewhat more restricted legalization. They join Washington and Colorado, which already have passed and implemented marijuana legalization schemes. Oregon's regulatory challenge will fall to the Oregon Liquor Control Commission, which announced it will move forward a policy that reflects the "Oregon way."

Legal Money Transfers May Lead to Legal Weed

 Contributions in support of Measure 91 to legalize marijuana are abundant and are moving around like a pea under shells in a street hustle.

Contributions in support of Measure 91 to legalize marijuana are abundant and are moving around like a pea under shells in a street hustle.

The money supporting legalizing marijuana through Oregon’s Measure 91 is messy. You need a timeline and map to follow all the moving money. However, with strict campaign reporting laws enforced by the Secretary of State, it’s easier to track this kind of green than the illegal kind.

There are three Political Actions Committees (PACs) in support of Measure 91 – Yes on 91, New Approach Oregon and Drug Policy Action of Oregon. A large portion of the money raised has been transferred from one of the other PACs, in a shuffle that resembles a street hustler moving a pea around under shells.

Drug Policy Action of Oregon PAC is the simplest to track, which isn’t saying much. The PAC  is on record donating $240,000 –—$90,000 to Yes on 91 PAC and $150,000 to the New Approach Oregon PAC.

But Drug Policy Action actually has contributed an estimated $1.4 million, using variations on the name including Drug Policy Alliance and Drug Policy Action Fund for Oregon.

A group in New York calling itself Drug Policy Alliance uses its Political Action Committee, Drug Policy Action, to funnel money to campaigns. The Oregon branch, named the Drug Policy Action Fund of Oregon, associates with an Oregon address. George Soros is one of the largest donors to the Drug Policy Alliance (the organization behind the Drug Policy Action committee), donating $5 million dollars to the alliance annually.

The Yes on 91 PAC has raised $2.1 million this year, reporting $775,000 still on hand. The majority of the money in this PAC came from the other two PACs. New Approach Oregon gave $700,000 and $500,000 came from New Approach PAC. Another $900,000 came from Drug Policy Action and Drug Policy Action of Oregon.

Despite being the largest PAC and raising $3.3 million this year, New Approach Oregon only has about $150,000 left on hand. For the most part, the money going into this supportive PAC has been gathered from a few sources with deep pockets such as Henry van Ameringen, a New York fragrance corporation heir, and Phillip Harvey, an online sex-toy mogul. Each has given at least $100,000.

Then there is New Approach PAC, which you would assume is a political action committee associated with New Approach Oregon. However, New Approach PAC is not officially registered as a PAC. This “other” type of contributor lists a Washington DC address in its campaign reports. The Oregonian has reported family members of the late Peter Lewis, a billionaire insurance executive, are its main benefactors. The only association this “PAC” has to New Approach Oregon is giving it $750,000 and then another $500,000 to Yes on 91.

On the other side of the campaign efforts, it is as clear as it can get. The No on 91 PAC has raised only $168,000 and still has $43,000 on hand, based on numbers supplied by Orestar.

It’s a good thing Measure 91 isn’t as confusing as the money behind it. The convulsion of transfers and similar PAC names mystifies the true players behind the money. Why this strategy, with multiples PACs, multiple surnames and multiple transfers? Who and what is being hidden behind the puff of smoke?

This smoke screen doesn't appear to disturb voters. According to recent polling, Measure 91 is passing with 53 percent certain or likely "yes" voters, with 41 percent against and less than 7 percent undecided. Oregonians voted down a similar measure in the last election cycle, so now the question hangs in the air of whether all the green put down in favor of Measure 91 will roll up into a victory.

Seeking Pots of Gold from Pot

Oregon voters won't decide on legalizing marijuana until November, but Portland and Ashland — and perhaps, before long, more cities — are exploring whether they can tax it if becomes legal. 

There is an urgency to the municipal inquiries because the legalization ballot initiative specifically reserves the right to tax marijuana to the State of Oregon. However, if cities impose a sales tax before legalization becomes effective, the tax might stick.

The perceived bonanza to government tax coffers from legalizing marijuana took a body blow when ECONorthwest estimated first-year sales would net $16 million in tax revenue, not the $38.5 million touted by the measure's supporters. 

Key variables cited by ECONorthwest would be the number of licensed pot shops to open up — and the willingness of pot smokers to shift to legal, but more expensive marijuana sold in state-licensed stores. The economists predicted 60 percent of pot users would continue to shop in the black market.

Political ID-ology

While the political bases on the far right and far left seem to be hardening, there is a growing group of voters who find themselves alienated from both major political parties — and even the political process itself.

Signs of polarization are everywhere. A recent Pew Research survey showed there is a growing gap between dyed-in-the-wool Democrats and Republicans on a wide array of issues. There is evidence people are voting with their feet, preferring to live in either a blue or red state, depending on their own political viewpoint.

One contributing factor to partisanship — a byproduct of polarization — is how congressional and legislative districts are drawn. Increasingly, district boundaries have been contoured to make congressional and legislative seats politically "safe" for Democrats or Republicans.

An excellent example of the impact of partisan redistricting is the U.S. House, where many GOP members represent safe districts, often with relatively few Hispanic voters. They don't worry about Republicans winning the White House; they fear being challenged by a more conservative opponent in the next primary, as happened to several Oregon legislators in the May primary.

Which brings us

Voters Enmeshed Again in GMO Politics

Oregonians will likely vote again this fall on genetically modified crops, an issue that many view with passion and others with fear and loathing.

The battle over GMO crops pits farmers against farmers, threatens to upset the balance of trade and raises suspicions among consumers and the hackles of agrochemical companies such as Monsanto. It is better than a reality TV show. And it often has the same level of loud discourse. 

Some have tried to encourage peaceful co-existence among farmers with so-called engineered crops and farmers with non-engineered crops. Advocates of this approach say it requires adequate buffers between the two kinds of crops so organic fields aren't infiltrated and cross-pollinated. The only way to establish buffers is to know where GMO crops are being grown, and that's apparently the rub.

The Associated Press carried a story indicating some seed associations around the nation are carrying out mapping, with varying levels of support from biotech companies. But AP reports the mapping is voluntary and spotty. The information is only shared among fellow growers to avoid what biotech companies warn could be a map for agricultural vigilantes bent on crop sabotage.

Robert Purdy, who grows genetically engineered sugar beets in the Willamette Valley on mapped farmland, agrees. "If mapping were made public," he told AP, "nothing could stop people from pulling out those sugar beet plants." 

Organic farmers, whose livelihood depends on crop purity, or at least the perception of purity, say mapping made public is crucial to successful co-existence. "Mapping would bring transparency to a system that's extremely opaque," according to the Portland-based Center for Food Safety.