Salem Political Snark

City Club debate on Measure 105 shows wisdom of voting "No"

I've already voted NO on Measure 105, which would overturn Oregon's successful sanctuary state law that prevents law enforcement agencies from using state resources to detect or apprehend people whose only violation is federal immigration law.

Nothing I heard at today's Salem City Club debate on Measure 105 made me question in the slightest how I voted. 


The debate was between Cynthia Kendoll (on the left) and Andrea Williams (on the right). Kendoll is president of Oregonians for Immigration Reform. Williams is executive director of CAUSA, Oregon's statewide immigration rights organization.

Williams' expression as Kendoll was speaking mirrored how I felt about Kendoll's exceedingly weak argument for voting Yes on Measure 105. Basically, Kendoll said that laws have to be followed; immigrants who are here illegally are breaking the law; so Oregon law enforcement agencies should help federal ICE agents find them so they can be deported.

On the other hand, Williams pointed out sound reasons to vote No. 

She talked about examples of racial profiling that occurred in Oregon prior to the passage of our sanctuary state law. Williams also said that without that law, undocumented immigrants would be wary of contacting the police or testifying in an investigation. 

There was some back-and-forth about whether undocumented immigrants commit more or fewer crimes than the general population. Studies show that "fewer" is the correct answer. (See here and here.)

So Kendoll was wrong when she tried to argue that Measure 105 would make Oregonians safer. She vainly tired to claim that undocumented immigrants engage in more lawbreaking than documented immigrants.

But as a City Club member pointed out in the course of asking a question, it makes sense that people who can't get a drivers license (for example), yet need to drive to get to work, will have more "driving without a license" citations than those who can get a license. 

In other words, illegality most often is a case of this country's broken immigration laws, which don't allow law-abiding, hard-working undocumented immigrants to apply for legal status.

Not surprisingly, I felt that a question I asked of Cynthia Kendoll was brilliant.

It came to me while I was staring at a slide that was left on a screen for most of the debate to summarize the core difference between voting yes or no on Measure 105. I began to wonder about substituting a different word in the bottom line for "immigration."

Like, "marijuana." So this is how my question went to Kendoll, as best I can recall:

Along with others in the audience, I'm a federal lawbreaker, since I use marijuana, and it's illegal under federal law. So I'm wondering if you'd be in favor of local and state law enforcement agencies here in Oregon working with federal agents to arrest people who are using marijuana -- even though it is legal in this state. Conservatives like you usually are in favor of state's rights. But since you favor using state resources to enforce federal immigration law, are you in favor of also using state resources to enforce the federal marijuana law?

Kendoll's answer was so lame, and so unresponsive to my question, I can barely remember what it was. It had something to do with federal immigration law catching criminals, I think. But every marijuana user in Oregon also is a criminal in the eye of federal law enforcement, so this response made little or no sense.

This just shows the hypocrisy of conservatives. They're all for states rights when it comes to gerrymandering, restricting the right to vote, and limiting access to abortions, but on immigration policy and sanctuary state laws, they're all in for federal control. 

Bottom line: vote NO on Measure 105.

 

Here's my 2018 midterms endorsements: every Democrat on the ballot, plus Measure 102

Since I have a blog called Salem Political Snark, it's dawned on me that I should be making endorsements for both local and statewide races, plus Oregon ballot measures. 

This doesn't mean anybody will pay attention to what I say, but us bloggers don't do what we do because we believe we're influential. We just can't help ourselves, being addicted to putting what's going on inside our head into words on a computer screen, then onto the Internet where others can eavesdrop on the state of our psyche.

So here's how I'm feeling two weeks before the midterm election on November 6.

Short version: Vote for every Democrat on the ballot. Plus, vote "yes" on Measure 102 and "no" on the other measures. Regarding other choices on the ballot, like judges, use your best, um, judgement.

Long version: So why am I being so incredibly tribalistic in urging people to vote for every Democrat over every Republican and third-party candidate? 

Because this is no ordinary election. Donald Trump is no ordinary president. And the G.O.P. that Trump unquestionably has become the leader of is no ordinary political party.

We're living in dangerous times. Our country is on the brink of succumbing to authoritarianism. If you doubt this, read "How Democracies Die." Or at least my blog post about the book.

In that post I noted that the authors of How Democracies Die advised against engaging in hardball tactics against Trump, based on their familiarity with what has worked in other countries facing similar threats against democratic institutions. (Note the small "d.")

But voting for Democrats isn't at all a hardball tactic. It's simply the best way for the United States to begin digging its way out of the messy, smelly, unpleasant hole Trump and his Republican cronies have gotten us into.

Everybody has their own favorite description of the crap that lies in this hole.

Mine is lying, disrespect for the truth, trashing reality. To me this is the biggest danger Trumpism poses to the United States, and to the entire world. Without a core concern for shared facts, both societal and scientific, politics has no foundation for wise decision-making, bipartisan or otherwise.

Driving home today, I heard investigative journalist Carl Bernstein talk about Trump on CNN's Cuomo Prime Time. Bernstein said that all presidents lie. Nixon lied. Clinton lied. George W. Bush lied. Obama lied. Occasionally. 

Trump, though, is an almost non-stop liar. Bernstein said this has been Trump's modus operandi throughout his business career, and he's stepped up his lying after becoming president. We've never had a president with such little regard for the truth.

Or a president so uncaring, so lacking in compassion, so egotistical. (At least in modern times.) 

Few Republicans are willing to stand up against Trump's constant assaults on our shared reality. This is why it is so important to elect Democrats this November. No Republican can be counted on to serve as a counter-weight to Trump.

And for sure this includes Oregon's Republican candidate for Governor, Knute Buehler. So vote for Kate Brown. On health care, climate change, women's rights, and so much else, Brown will continue to be on the side of ordinary Oregonians, not special interests.

Every Republican running for office, both locally and statewide, had to be approved in a primary by members of their party who are avidly pro-Trump. Thus there's no way any Republican on the ballot can be trusted to do what's right for Oregonians, since they're committed to doing what Trump wants.

Today Senator Kamala Harris gave a talk in Iowa where she said, "This is the moment in time that is requiring us to fight for the best of who we are... We are better than this."

Yes, we are. We're way better than Donald Trump and his lying ways. So let's send a message in the form of a Big Blue Wave on November 6.

 

Oregon is #1 in ease of voting. I show why.

Oregonians are appropriately proud of our beautiful, prosperous, progressive state. Now we have another reason to feel superior: Oregon is the easiest place to vote among all 50 states.

A professor in the Political Science Department at Northern Illinois University was the lead author of the study, described in "New study scrutinizes time and effort it takes to vote in each state."

Here's the characteristics that make for easy voting:

Oregon has had mail-in voting since 1998, when we became the first state to conduct all elections by mail. We have automatic voter registration via drivers license info, thanks to a bill signed by Governor Kate Brown in 2016. Ballots arrive in the mail about three weeks before election day, which gives plenty of time to vote.

All we need to do is sign the ballot and mail it back so it's received by 8 pm on election day (or drop it in a ballot box, many of which are drive-up). Oregon has online voter registration. People convicted of a felony can't vote while they're in jail, but their voting rights are restored upon their release.

On the down side, voter registration has to occur 21 days before an election in order to be able to vote in that election. 

So all in all, Oregon deserves its #1 ease of voting ranking. I've lived in Oregon since 1971, so I've experienced both the agony of driving to a voting location and standing in line to cast a ballot, and the ecstasy of voting at home.

Which I'm pleased to show.

My ballot for the November 6, 2018 election arrived in the mail a few days ago. Tonight I sat at our kitchen counter, coffee and pen at the ready, and filled in the ballot.

I couldn't find the Marion County Voter's Pamphlet that came in the mail, so I perused the online version to decide on some local judge races. That task completed, I put the ballot in an envelope, signed the back of the envelope, and affixed a stamp.

Done!

Every state should vote by mail. This week there was early voting in Georgia. Reportedly it took two hours to cast a ballot. That's crazy. No one should have to put up with that. Too many states treat voters badly, making it way too difficult to vote.

Currently only Oregon, Washington, and Colorado have 100% vote by mail. But there's hope: a graphic in the ease of voting study shows how states shifted between 1996 and 2016. Oregon used to rank #27. Now we're #1. 

Voters just need to elect state politicians who vow to expand and protect voting rights. Of course, in many states where it's difficult to vote, that's tough to do.

Still, this Oregonian's advice is: Wait in lines. Put up with bad voting laws. Then vote out those who are standing in the way of reforms. Believe me, it's worth the time and trouble to make voting easy for everybody. 

Danny Jaffer shows why Oregon, and Salem, needs to elect Democrats

Vote for Democrats in the November 2018 election. I was convinced of this before our doorbell rang a couple of hours ago, but I'm even more convinced after chatting with Danny Jaffer, who is running to represent Oregon House District 23.

My wife, Laurel, has been hand writing postcards urging our neighbors out here in rural south Salem to vote for Jaffer. So I'd heard his name, and knew he was running against Republican Mike Nearman. That was it, though.

Talking with Jaffer about his background and why he thinks he can win left me with a really good feeling.

Here's one side of the flyer he left with me. Note that Jaffer is a 20 year Navy veteran. He served in Operation Desert Shield, Operation Desert Storm, and the Global War on Terrorism. 

What's not to like, House District 23 voters? Put more positively, I really liked Jaffer's statement about Oregon Forward on his campaign web site.

Oregon Forward is a movement built on the idea that Oregonians can and should work together to create a healthier, cleaner, and more prosperous community for everyone. Oregon Forward is also a rejection of the dirty politics of fear and intolerance which serve only the interests of deep-pocketed special interests, not you and me.

Whether you’re conservative, liberal, or just fed up with politics altogether, the Oregon Forward campaign seeks to make your voice and your interest the focal point of everything we do. A vote for Danny Jaffer is a vote to strip the power of extreme special interests and return power to everyday Oregonians, where it belongs.

Nicely said. 

I think just about everybody agrees that the tone of today's national politics is disgusting. I'm a political junkie, but it's getter harder and harder for me to listen to the news when I'm driving around. I get fed up with the constant bickering, backbiting, and blather -- to name a few "B's" that come to mind.

Jaffer struck me as a nice straightforward guy. He must have made lots of house calls in the past weeks and months, but while talking to him I didn't feel that anything he said was canned or scripted. 

By contrast, consider this excerpt from a Statesman Journal story about the Jaffer-Nearman race (there's also a Libertarian candidate). It followed numerous quotes from Jaffer, including his observation that Nearman doesn't champion issues important to his community.

Nearman did not respond to multiple requests for an interview. After being contacted by the Statesman Journal, Nearman hung up his phone and did not answer subsequent calls and emails. 

Wow. No wonder Mike Nearman hasn't done much for the people in House District 23. Nearman doesn't want to talk about the issues that voters care about, not even to a Statesman Journal reporter who wants to give him a newspaper soapbox.

Maybe Nearman, like Donald Trump, considers journalists "enemies of the people." A letter to the editor in the Corvallis Gazette-Times raised this possibility. 

As the midterm elections approach, I asked myself: "Who is Rep. Mike Nearman and who does he really represent?"

After searching the Democrat-Herald's website for "Mike Nearman," I found just three brief listings, one announcing his plan to run for re-election this year, and two others about the same meeting he planned to attend.

I also read in the Salem paper that Mike Nearman refused to conduct an interview and hung up the phone on the reporter.

This is the opposite behavior we need from our Oregon state House representative from the 23rd District. We need absolute transparency and effective communication practices such as using and respecting the media. The media are not the enemy of the people. This, combined with his voting to eliminate school lunches and against net neutrality, smacks of someone in the pocket of special interests.

Look, I'm not saying that Democrats are politically perfect. But I do strongly believe that Democrats are more likely to stand up for the interests of the general public than Republicans, since the GOP typically tilts toward special interests such as giant corporations.

I'm familiar with the saying, "All politics is local." However, that used to be way more true than it is today. Donald Trump views the upcoming mid-term elections as a referendum about himself. He wants one-party rule, the Republican party, which he is the leader of.

Democrats like Danny Jaffer see things differently. They want the people to rule, not a party, nor one Supreme Leader. That's why I'm voting for Democrats on November 6. I encourage everybody to do the same.

Statesman Journal partnership with Verify More seems creepy

About a week ago Salem's daily newspaper, the Statesman Journal, ran a story, "Statesman Journal partners with nonprofit on political candidates' background checks." 

Most businesses run job candidates through a background check before hiring, to ensure there are no surprises or issues that didn't come up during the interview process.

With that in mind, the Statesman Journal is partnering with a nonpartisan, nonprofit called Verify More to do background checks on Mid-Valley political candidates.

This idea struck me as strange at the time. Now that I've learned more about Verify More, I'm adding disturbing and creepy to describe how I feel about this budding partnership with the Statesman Journal.

What got me to look into this was a message I received from a local candidate for public office. This person told me:

Not sure if you'll find this interesting, but this "non-partisan" non-profit seems to be run and funded by right-wingers. I looked up the guy, David Doud, when I got the invite. He ran for office in Washington a few times as a Republican and lost. Then, the board of the "non-profit" are mostly lobbyists from what I could tell. I talked with a few other candidates and a democratic consultant confirmed that they're funded by real estate developers and other corporate lobbying groups.

I haven't been able to learn who exactly is funding Verify More. The organization's website doesn't share that information, from what I could tell. But let's assume that the Partners listed on the website are financial contributors to Verify More. 

Most of these organizations do seem to tilt toward the conservative side of the political spectrum, aside from Amplify Washington and Ballotpedia.  And David Doud, the founder of Verify More, was indeed a Republican when he ran for Commissioner of the Port of Seattle. 

In his 2009 race for Port Commissioner, Seattle's the Stranger publication had a pleasingly caustic piece about Doud, "David Doud: Dickish!" This was their election endorsement statement. 

So this is another sign that Doud leans rightward.

The piece in the Stranger also discussed numerous false or misleading statements David Doud made in his campaign materials, including my favorite -- citing the "Seattle Times online" as the source of a quote that wasn't made by a reporter or editorial writer, but by someone who commented on a Seattle Times story. 

Given that Doud now supposedly is all about fostering clean political campaigning, it sure seems discordant that seemingly he didn't run his Port Commissioner campaign that way.

At any rate, I'm left with a feeling that the Statesman Journal may end up regretting its partnership with Doud and his Verify More organization.

There certainly isn't much history to go on. Currently Verify More only has lined up four newspapers to partner with (including the Statesman Journal), and has conducted thirty-one background checks, all on candidates in the state of Washington. 

Actually there is more to the Verify More investigation than a background check, as the organization's database lists three categories: Background Check, Resume Verification, and Social Media screening. Here's how the FAQ's describe each:

Background check: Our Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) approved background checks are self-authorized, voluntary and limited in scope to a Multi-State Instant Criminal Check, National Sex Offender Registry, Criminal County Search (10-Year Address History), Criminal Federal Search (10-Year Address History), Civil Federal Search (10-Year Address History), Civil County Search (10-Year Address History). Finally, we offer candidates a safe forum from which to disclose prior criminal convictions or other adverse information beyond the scope of our reports.

Resume Verification: Education, Employment, Professional Credentials, and Military Service Records (e.g. Medals, Tours of Duty), i.e. DD214/SF180.

Social Media screening: There are two types of social media searches: 1) ‘Character Search’ includes negative behaviours a candidate may exhibit online by scouring all publically available content (excludes non-user generated content). 2) ‘Reputation Search’ provides a 360 degree view of a candidate’s reputation by searching all publically available online content (excludes non-user generated content)

The 31-person politician database currently has only one non-green Clear or Verified rating on the 93 ratings. Terry Harder got a red ALERT on the social media screen. 


Naturally I had to view the report so I could see what sort of "negative behaviours" (English spelling, for some reason) candidate Harder was exhibiting online. What I found was shocking!

By which I mean, I found it shocking that Verify More would put a big red ALERT next to a candidate's name because the person had some mention of marijuana on Facebook, given that the sale, growing, and use of marijuana is legal in Washington state. 

This is one of the reasons I find Verify More to be creepy.

Obviously it's Social Media screening is highly subjective. Yet Harder's opponent would be able to cite Verify More in a campaign ad that says "Terry Harder's character rated an ALERT from a group that checks the background of candidates for public office."

I'll do my best to keep an open mind about Verify More's upcoming ratings of Oregon candidates. I'm just suspicious of the organization's motives, and also its methodology.  

Jim Moore talks Oregon mid-term election at Salem City Club

I've heard political analyst Jim Moore speak after elections, but today was the first time I'd heard Moore offer up his take before an election. 

Before Moore started his Salem City Club presentation, I told someone sitting at my table that I hoped Moore wasn't going to throw cold water on the chances of Oregon progressives in the upcoming mid-term election. 

Thankfully, he didn't, as I'll explain below. But though I wish Moore's fingers in the photo I took of him were indicating how small Republican chances were, actually his gesture had some other meaning. (Or maybe no meaning.)

Moore, a political science professor at Pacific University, did refer quite a few times to the possibility of a Blue Wave. Early on in his talk, though, Moore said that while there are indications this could happen, he wasn't sure Oregon was going to become even bluer than it is now.

Still, current Oregon voter registration percentages Moore supplied are encouraging for liberals like me:

Democrat -- 35.4%
Republican -- 25.9%
Unaffiliated -- 31.9%
Independent party -- 4.5%

Now, Moore observed that Republicans who are depressed by the 10 point voter registration gap between them and Democrats like to say, look at the Unaffiliated and Independent Party percentages. Combined, they total more than registered Democrats.

But here's the problem with that logic.

Moore said that most of the "unaffiliated" actually are people who would be D's and R's, but don't want to be identified with a political party. Meaning, they aren't really swing voters. And they vote at a 20 to 35% lower rate than registered Democrats and Republicans.

So Knute Buehler has to be considered an underdog in his attempt to unseat Kate Brown as Governor.

Moore did share a slide showing that recent victories by Democrats in the Oregon Governor race have been by fairly small margins, about 4.5% on average. And he noted that nationally, the GOP would be overjoyed to put a chink in the West Coast "Blue Wall" by Oregon choosing a Republican governor.

However, while polls show a close race between Buehler and Brown, Moore said that even with Phil Knight's recent $1 million contribution to the Buehler campaign, Brown has been outpacing him in fundraising. Here's the current money in the bank for the three Governor candidates:

Buehler -- $1.6 million
Brown -- $4.3 million
Independent party candidate -- $222

That isn't a typo. The Independent Party candidate, whose name I instantly forgot after Moore mentioned it, has a grand total of $222 in campaign funds. 

During the Q & A period, Moore was asked about the chance of Greg Walden being upset in his conservative district by Democrat Jamie McLeod-Skinner, who is driving around the wide open spaces of eastern Oregon with a teardrop camper in tow of her Jeep. 

(Moore observed that stories about McLeod-Skinner usually cite the 40,000 miles she's driven; but everybody in eastern Oregon drives long distances, he said wryly.)

Citing two Republican Congressional representatives in Washington state who could lose to a Democrat if a Blue Wave manifests, Moore said that Walden would need a even bigger Blue Wave to be ousted. So this is possible, albeit unlikely. 

Regarding Oregon legislative races, only four are competitive in Moore's view, two House and two Senate races. None involve candidates in the Salem area. Moore said that Democrats are going to maintain control of the state House and Senate. The question is whether Dems will end up with a super-majority, which could happen with a large enough Blue Wave.

On the ballot measure front, Moore observed that when the Oregon legislature approved the "sanctuary state" bill that prevents local law enforcement agencies from helping to enforce federal immigration laws, both the Democratic and Republican parties were in favor of this. 

Moore urged everybody to read the second paragraph of Measure 105, which would repeal the sanctuary state law, because it says that law enforcement hands aren't tied if an undocumented immigrant is suspected of having committed a crime. Moore didn't think that voters would approve Measure 106, which prohibits state funds from paying for abortions.

In off-year elections, Moore said that with just a few exceptions in past years, the party that doesn't hold the presidency loses seats in Congress. National issues often affect mid-terms, as in 2006, when opposition to the Iraq War hurt Republicans.

However, in the era of Trump, Moore said that the main issue is Trump himself. And given how unpopular Trump is, that's great news for those, like me, who want a Blue Wave to wash over not only Oregon, but the whole country.  

Dennis Richardson talks about redistricting at Salem City Club

Secretary of State Dennis Richardson is an Oregon anomaly: a Republican elected to statewide office.


This probably helps explain why comparatively few Salem City Club members attended his talk about redistricting today, since most members lean leftward.

Another reason might be that the recommendations of Richardson's pet project, a Redistricting Reform Task Force, have been politically dead ever since, well, six months before the Task Force issued its final report in October 2017.

In April 2017 Oregon Democrats said Richardson's plan was dead on arrival. Which is sort of strange, given that the Task Force recommendations hadn't been released yet. 

According to a Bend Bulletin story, it sounds like Richardson attempted to spike the ball way before he was anywhere near the political goal line. 

Richardson, the state’s only Republican statewide officeholder, announced Monday that a task force he created in February would draw the district lines. An 18-page constitutional amendment would go on the ballot for voters to approve or reject.

Well, neither of those things happened.

As us City Club members heard today, the Redistricting Reform Task Force didn't recommend that it be the body to draw district lines after the 2020 census, and there is no way the Democrat-controlled legislature is going to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot.

Nor, apparently, is there going to be an initiative to do this, since Richardson mentioned a possible initiative only in passing.

So I'm not sure why the City Club program committee decided that a talk about a redistricting proposal that was dead on arrival before it even arrived was warranted. That said, Richardson sounded reasonable today, and the questions that were asked of him were interesting.

One came from me. 

I noted that it doesn't seem fair when one side in a battle is expected to lay down its arms before the other side. Thus my question for Richardson was whether any red states, or better, deeply red states, had implemented independent redistricting commissions similar to those in Washington and California, which Richardson mentioned as good examples.

Richardson said he couldn't think of any. At the time, this confirmed my belief that progressives are more open to giving up the legislative power to approve redistricting maps than conservatives are.

However, when I got home and Googled this, I found that as of June 2017, six states had independent redistricting commissions:  Alaska, Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana, and Washington. 

Maybe Richardson mentioned California and Washington early on in his talk to reassure City Club liberals that left-leaning states have gotten on board the independent redistricting commission train. Actually, though, more red states have gotten away from partisan redistricting via the state legislature.

A Eugene Register Guard opinion piece notes that the last time Oregon engaged in a redistricting process, in 2011, it went well. 

Oregon has been relatively immune to raw partisanship in apportionment, but suspicions linger after new lines are drawn every 10 years. Such suspicions are corrosive in themselves, undermining confidence in the fairness of the political system.

Oregon’s last reapportionment was generally successful -- for the first time in half a century, the 2011 Legislature succeeded in coming up with a bipartisan plan. In earlier decades, the secretary of state drew district lines because the Legislature could not agree, or the task ended up in the hands of the state Supreme Court. The 2011 success has led some, including Jeanne Atkins, the former secretary of state who now chairs the Oregon Democratic Party, to question the need for the changes recommended by Richardson’s task force.

The task force calls for redistricting to be placed in the hands of an independent commission made up of people who have no stake in the outcome and who are of varied political affiliations. California and Washington have both created redistricting commissions, reportedly with good results. Because such a change would require a constitutional amendment, the Legislature would need to place the question before the voters.

Which isn't going to happen, as already noted. It's tough for Democrats, who currently control both the state Senate and House, plus the Governorship, to surrender control of redistricting to an independent commission. 

And the fact that the impetus for this came from a Republican, Richardson, certainly didn't add to the appeal of the proposal. Richardson did his best to sound all bipartisan and non-political in his talk today, and mostly he succeeded. It wasn't a fluke that he was elected to be Secretary of State in blue Oregon.

Richardson can sound like he is above the political fray, even when he really isn't. There's little doubt in my mind that, deep down, Richardson saw an independent redistricting commission as being favorable to the interests of Republicans. 

Here's something else that was on my mind as I listened to Dennis Richardson today: unpleasant memories of his days as Oregon's "spam king." That 2014 Oregonian story says:

Opponents dubbed Rep. Dennis Richardson, R-Central Point, the "spam king" in 2012 after he used public records laws to obtain – and use -- hundreds of thousands of personal email addresses.

That spring, he crashed the Oregon Legislature's server for hours by trying to send a newsletter with four large attachments to 475,477 people – the equivalent of one in eight Oregonians.

Now Richardson, the GOP nominee for governor, is back to his old ways.

Richardson's campaign obtained 418,958 email addresses in February through a records request to the Legislature, and has been generating complaints for sending unsolicited emails, often to non-supporters.

This made me whisper to a couple of fellow liberals at my table, "No way!" when Richardson asked people to sign up for his email list if they wanted to be kept informed about Secretary of State goings-on.

Pharmaceutical companies are behind full page ad opposing HB 4005

Don't be fooled by the full page ad in today's Statesman Journal opposing HB 4005, a bill that would require pharmaceutical companies to disclose pricing information about drugs they sell. 

The group behind the ad, Caregiver Voices United, is a front for the pharmaceutical industry.

Sure, you won't save at the pharmacy counter as a result of HB 4005 because the bill doesn't directly regulate drug prices. Rather, it brings some much-needed transparency into the price-gouging that pharmaceutical companies are notorious for.

Here's an excerpt from an Oregonian opinion piece, "Oregon should force Big Pharma to fork over pricing info."

The Prescription Drug Price Transparency Act, or House Bill 4005, would shine a light on the shadowy pricing process, giving consumers critical information about which drug companies are raising prices in Oregon. Its principal sponsor is Rep. Rob Nosse, a Democrat from Portland. The bill has already gained bipartisan support ahead of Oregon's short 2018 session.

Under the proposed legislation, if a drug corporation wants to raise the price of a drug by more than 10 percent a year, it must provide detailed information on that drug to the Oregon Department of Consumer Business Services. That would include everything from its name, price and length of time on the market and the top 10 highest prices paid for the drug in other countries. The company would also have to report its total sales and profits for the previous year.

Sounds good, right? 

Well, one giveaway that Caregiver Voices United is backed by pharmaceutical companies is the complete absence of any information about what HB 4005 does in their ad. And the photo of a stethoscope on a calculator means absolutely nothing.

What, the calculator is sick? It's heart has an arrhythmia? 

A bit of Googling revealed a March 2017 story in the Eugene Register Guard about a previous attempt by Caregiver Voices United to kill a similar bill. Here's excerpts from "Divide over drug costs spills into legislature: Groups with ties to industry attack bill in Oregon House." (boldface added for emphasis)

An ambitious attempt to try to rein in prescription drug prices on about a third of Oregon health insurance plans has run into a buzz saw of opposition in the Capitol.

The concept of curbing fast-growing drug costs is very popular with voters nationally, polls show. Democratic and Republican state lawmakers say high prices are a problem.

But the experience of House Bill 2387 this session illustrates strong differences of opinion about how to cut prices.

It also shows how two well-funded lobby groups — the pharmaceutical industry and health insurance companies — have aggressively tried to shift the policy discussion to their advantage. The drug industry opposes the bill, but many insurers like it.

Two groups with ties to the pharmaceutical industry are running unusual full-page ads in several Oregon newspapers, including The Register-Guard, attacking the bill, which is stuck in committee.

...One Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit group, Caregiver Voices United, is running a newspaper and radio ad campaign against the bill in Oregon. The group calls the bill a “big insurance bailout.”

The group is a subsidiary of the Caregiver Action Network, whose top funder is the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. Other corporate partners include pharma firms Allergan, Genentech and GlaxoSmithKline, according to its website.

So Oregonians should urge passage of HB 4005, rather than urging its defeat.

Caregiver Voices United is a shadowy front organization for pharmaceutical companies that want free rein to keep 0n gouging people through their exorbitant prices for drugs. The full page ad is as shameful as those pricing policies.

Vote Yes on Measure 101. It's a no-brainer.

Here in Oregon there's only one thing on the January ballot, Measure 101. And it's a no- brainer: VOTE YES

I say this after spending an hour today hearing both sides make their best cases for "Yes" and "No" at a Salem City Club meeting. Even though I came in expecting that Yes would have the better arguments, I was surprised how weak the No arguments were.

Measure 101 asks Oregonians to decide if $210 to $320 million worth of assessments on insurance companies, some hospitals, the Public Employees Benefit Board, and managed care organizations go into effect, as passed by the 2017 legislature. 

This money leverages $630 to $960 million, or more, in federal Medicaid matching funds. So we're talking about the possibility of a billion dollar shortfall in payments that provide health care to low-income people in Oregon.

That would be a disaster. 

So it's no wonder that Tonia Hunt, who argued the Yes side, said that 155 organizations are supporting Measure 101. This notably includes the entities that would pay the assessments, plus doctors, nurses, and a whole bunch of other groups in Oregon.

Organized opposition to Measure 101 apparently is limited to a few tax-hating legislators. Lindsay Berschauer, the No advocate, didn't mention a single organization that's on her side. 

I guess taking health care away from tens of thousands of Oregonians and forfeiting up to a billion dollars of federal money that would have to be made up by Oregon taxpayers isn't all that popular.

Berschauer tried to make a big deal out of the fact that 90,000 people signed the initiative petition that got Measure 101 on the January ballot. Well, given that Oregon has 4.1 million people, it isn't surprising that 90,000 would support a really bad idea. 

The moderator of the debate, Bill Mainwaring, asked a great question of Hunt and Berschauer. He said that if Measure 101 failed, logically one of three outcomes would result.

(1) The legislature could decide to reduce the health care budget by about $210 million, which would mean an additional loss of about $640 million in federal funds, thereby necessitating cutting off people from the Oregon Health Plan, reducing benefits, or both.

(2) The legislature could take the $210 million out of somewhere else in the state general fund budget, like schools or public safety.

(3) The legislature could enact a different tax, such as a surtax on the Oregon income tax. He figured that an increase of 1.2% would raise $210 million.

Neither of these options is very appealing.

Yet Berschauer couldn't come up with any other ways of finding $210 million, other than talking in some pretty vague ways about how state government has wasted money in the past -- which obviously has zero relevance for how money could be found now to fund health care for low-income people should Measure 101 be voted down.

So all of the persuasive arguments were on the Yes side at today's City Club debate. 

Like I said, it's a no-brainer. Vote YES on Measure 101. Children and others needing health care will thank you.

Oregon marijuana policies discussed at Salem City Club

Last Friday I enjoyed hearing Oregon State Senator Ginny Burdick and Sara Batterby, CEO of HiFi Farms and a founding chair of Women Grow, update a Salem City Club audience about what's happening with marijuana in this state. 

West Salem Cannabis had a display set up in an adjoining room. Unfortunately they couldn't give out any free samples, nor sell anything outside of their store. I hugely enjoyed seeing fellow semi-staid City Club members browsing the cannabis offerings and talking about pot with the friendly West Salem Cannabis employees.

Yes, Oregon, along with other legal weed states, has come a long way. Burdick started out by reminding us of our state's pioneering efforts to bring reasonableness to marijuana policies.

In 1973 the state legislature decriminalized small amounts of marijuana. In 1997 Republicans tried to recriminalize it, but this was turned down by voters. In 1998 Oregonians voted to approve medical marijuana. In 2014 Measure 91 passed, making recreational marijuana legal. In 2015 the Oregon legislature passed a package of bills to refine Measure 91 and put light regulation on the medical marijuana system. Now, in 2017, the legislature is working to strengthen regulation on medical-only growers.

Burdick said that while the medical marijuana system is popular -- 75,000 card holders in 2016 -- too much of the pot is being diverted to the black market. Since Jeff Sessions, President Trump's Attorney General, hates cannabis, Burdick told us that the goal is make Oregon's "seed to sale" tracking program so effective, this state will be the last place the feds would want to crack down on.

As is well-known, banking is a big problem for marijuana businesses. Many/most retail stores have to deal in cash, which makes paying their employees and taxes to the Department of Revenue a lot tougher than it needs to be. Efforts are underway in Congress to fix this. 

In 2016 marijuana tax receipts totaled $60 million, much higher than expected. So cannabis is becoming a major economic force in Oregon.

Sara Batterby then took over the podium and gave an entertaining talk (in a pleasing British accent) about Oregon marijuana from a business perspective. 

She extolled Oregon, saying what is going on here is "really phenomenal." Batterby praised the collaboration between legislators, regulators, and cannabis businesses in this state. According to her we grow and sell some of the highest quality cannabis in the world. 

Yay us! 

(Legal weed certainly has enriched my life; in fact, I'd call it a near-necessity following Trump's election to keep my psyche from exploding in frustration, irritation, and exasperation over what's happening nationally.)

If my scribbled notes are correct, Batterby said that Oregon's marijuana industry has created 12,500 jobs -- double that if ancillary jobs are included. She formed a women's networking group (a Women Grow chapter) when she came to Oregon that started with 100 women and is now up to 325. 

Forty-four percent of Oregon cannabis companies are headed by women, which makes this sector one of the most diverse gender-wise in the world's economy. Batterby said she also hires quite a few veterans with PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder), which is helped a lot by cannabis consumption.

Batterby and Burdick talked quite a bit about the black market in both their remarks and a following Q & A session. 

Legal marijuana businesses can't compete with the black market on price, in part because illegal growers/sellers don't pay taxes. Thus higher taxes lead to lower legal sales and less tax revenue.

It was estimated that $300 million is lost via "diversion sales." When asked about the difference in price on the black market, we were told that the legal wholesale price is about $5/gram, and $6 to $12 at the retail level. The black market price is about 25% less.

When the subject of CBD (the mostly non-psychoactive component of cannabis) came up, Batterby said that THC (the psycho-active component) is a potentiator of CBD. So CBD and THC play nicely together and, in her view, the whole plant is the best use. 

Regarding how cannabis is consumed, old-timers are used to smoking marijuana. (I can testify to this, having gone to college in the San Francisco Bay area in the late 1960's.) But now the largest market is in vaporizers, tinctures, edibles, topicals. 

It was great to hear these two women talk so knowledgeably about the Oregon marijuana scene. This Salem City Club presentation reinforced my long-standing belief that I couldn't live in any other state. 

Legal pot. Legal right-to-die. Beautiful scenery. I don't have to fill my car's gas tank. Liberal-leaning. Public beaches up and down the coast. Mostly strongly environmental (though this legislative session is turning out to be a disappointment).

Now Oregon needs to erase more of the distinctions between alcohol and cannabis consumption. It seems crazy that people can drink in bars and restaurants, but can't legally consume marijuana in public. This doesn't make sense. For one thing, I'd much rather have mildly-stoned people driving around than mildly-drunk people.