Salem Political Snark

Trump's mug shot has an artistic quality to it

I rarely praise Donald Trump. Can't remember the last time I did this, but it could have been his Operation Warp Speed that succeeded in getting Covid vaccines to Americans in record time. 

Today was another occasion for Trumpian praise. I couldn't help but think, "Dude, your Fulton County mug shot is a work of art. Great pose, with just the right combination of malevolence and irritation in your look."


I suspect Trump is happy with the mug shot also. By leaning forward he appears to have managed to capture the light and dark shading on the opposite sides of his face that captures his yin and yang nature. 

Or, more accurately, it would have if Trump actually had two sides to his nature -- since it's pretty clear that his personality is 100% egotistical authoritarian.

A story in The Guardian, "Belligerence and hostility: Trump's mugshot defines modern US politics," says:

Mugshots define eras.

Bugsy Siegel peering malevolently from beneath his fedora in a 1928 booking photo summed up the perverse romance of gangsters in the prohibition age.

Nearly half a century later, mugshots of David Bowie, elegantly dressed but dead-eyed after his arrest for drug possession, and a dishevelled Janis Joplin, detained for “vulgar and indecent language”, spoke to the shock waves created by 1960s counterculture.

Now comes what Donald Trump Jr described as “the most iconic photo in the history of US politics” before the booking picture of his father glaring into the camera was even taken. But whether deeply divided Americans view the first ever mugshot of a former president as that of a gangster or a rock star is very much in the politics of the beholder.

Trump’s hostility shines through as he turns his eyes up toward the camera above him and in his taut, downturned mouth as he is booked into the Fulton county jail on charges of trying to steal the 2020 presidential election. Dressed in a blue suit, white shirt and red tie, he makes no attempt to put on a smile like some of his co-defendants in their mugshots.

The picture does not flatter but it does convey the message many of Trump’s supporters want to hear – belligerence.

There's little doubt that at this moment the mug shot is being put on t-shirts, coffee mugs, and other paraphenalia that will be sold to Trump lovers and haters alike. As The Guardian said, what you see in the photo depends on the politics of the beholder.

Joshua, a guy on TikTok, likens the mug shot to the famous American Gothic painting. OK, that's something I never would have thought of, but Joshua makes a decent case for his thesis. This is why I like TikTok. You get exposed to stuff you'd never see otherwise.

Here's a couple of other mug shots from some of Trump's fellow Georgia indictees.

You can see that Trump's mug shot is in a class by itself. He's a showman, an entertainer. Trump has a rare ability to funnel unbridled rage in his mug shot because that's his dominant personality characteristic: believing that he's being treated horribly unfairly, even when he isn't.

Rudy Giuliani, who tries to look tough but comes across as pathetic.

Mark Meadows, looking like he's trying to look like he doesn't care his mugshot is being taken.

I enjoy the Salem City Club. Consider joining.

I've been a member of the Salem City Club for a bit over ten years. I was invited to join by Russ Beaton, a retired Willamette University economics professor. He and his wife, Delana, are active volunteers in the City Club.

Me, I just go to the programs.

They're from noon to 1 pm on selected Fridays at the Willamette Heritage Center, which used to be called Mission Mill. A box lunch can be ordered, but it isn't necessary to buy one. I bring some food with me and eat it after the program, when I head off to exercise at Courthouse Club Fitness.

After the invited speakers do their thing, usually there's plenty of time for questions. The questions and answers often are almost as interesting as what the speakers had to say in their prepared remarks. The basic idea of the City Club is fostering a sense of civic involvement and community. 

I lean decidedly toward the liberal side of the political spectrum, as do many other City Club members. But there's conservatives in the City Club also. I wouldn't go so far as to call it a microcosm of Salem, in part because the membership tilts in the older direction. Still, I enjoy meeting the fairly diverse people who belong.

That's one reason I'm writing this post and sharing it on Facebook -- in hopes that more younger people will join.

A new season of City Club programs begins on September 8, along with a membership drive. If anyone is interested in attending a program as my guest at no cost (otherwise non-members are charged $5), email me and we can work something out. 

Here's a City Club message that appeared in my email inbox today. It'll give you a good feel for what the City Club is all about, and what programs are going to kick off the 2023-24 year. Programs usually are every other Friday, aside from holidays.

A Great Way To Start

By Ron Eachus, Salem City Club President
 
After a successful return to in-person meetings last year, Salem City Club is ready to begin a new season this fall with some critical topics and wonderful speakers at the familiar Willamette Heritage Center venue.

We will begin with two new public officials. The season will start on September 8 with Congresswoman Andrea Salinas, who was elected last November as the first to represent Oregon’s new Sixth Congressional District. She will be followed on September 22 by Andrea Castañeda, the Salem-Keizer School District’s new superintendent.

One of the Program Committee themes for this season is climate change and its effect on our daily lives through its impact on the economy and the environment. We will be following our first two speakers with programs on the impact of global warming on insurance rates, the plans for the transition to electric vehicles, and where climate related funds from the Inflation Reduction Act are being used in Oregon.

Our mission is the same - a space for civil discourse for civic good. It is a critical mission in the current vitriolic political environment and it will take strong, active support from membership to carry out. So, when it comes time, please renew your membership donation!

But we will also be asking you to help expand Salem City Club by reaching out to potential new members and encouraging them to join. Future communications will describe the membership options in more detail. But the best ambassadors for City Club and its mission are our members so save the dates for attending the programs and help us expand our membership by reaching out to others. Remember, members can introduce others to City Club by bringing a guest for free.

Councilor Nordyke says city officials have lost public trust

Way to go, City Councilor Vanessa Nordyke.

Vanessa Nordyke and furry friend

Your responses to questions asked by the Salem Reporter about the payroll tax approved by the City Council on a narrow 5-4 margin without a vote of the people are a great example of speaking truth to power.

The Salem Reporter sent questions to the four councilors who wanted Salem citizens to vote on the payroll tax. Only Vanessa Nordyke and Jose Gonzalez responded in time for publication. 

Here's two of the questions, along with Nordyke's responses. I've highlighted in red her comments about the City of Salem losing public trust.

If you believe some source of new revenue is needed, what would you propose and how much would that raise? 

Given the ever-changing cost  of inflation, housing, and gas, the moment you quote a number it becomes out of date. I can tell you one thing: I would not propose a payroll tax that bypasses the voters! I would’ve held listening sessions with the community and business leaders about how best to raise revenue rather than unilaterally passing a payroll tax. Unfortunately, people are so outraged by the payroll tax vote that anything the city says now is likely to fall on deaf ears. Trust has been broken. 

Do you believe councilors and city leaders have done enough to seek a regular source of state funding to compensate the city for losses from non-taxable state property in city limits? If not, what would you do differently?

Not even close. Most people have no idea that city leadership tried to get state funding. They missed opportunities to invite city councilors, local leaders and voters to join forces. The city could have rallied the people to write letters to legislators and sign up to testify at the Oregon Capitol. Residents could have called their legislators to take action. We could’ve come together as a community to make the ask, but that’s just not how the city does things.

Had the city done this, the response from lawmakers might’ve been quite different. Even if lawmakers still said no, the city and its residents would have emerged united in purpose, with a shared understanding of our budgetary reality. At that point, we could have met as a community to decide where we go from here. But the city didn’t use that path. Instead, the city unilaterally passed the payroll tax and refused to even continue the July 10 hearing to allow for more testimony.

When we include the public, we gain trust. When we exclude the public, we lose trust.

Instead of inviting the public into a transparent, meaningful, and inclusive discussion of our budgetary challenges, most residents felt blindsided by the payroll tax.

City government struggles with transparency. Outreach, transparency and community engagement are rock bottom on the city’s priority list. The city’s “we know best” mentality is exactly why people are outraged over the passage of the payroll tax without taking it to the voters.

I couldn't agree more. The payroll tax fiasco shows that city officials do indeed have a "we know best" mentality that fosters a mistrust of citizen involvement. Now the City of Salem faces an uphill battle in getting voters to approve the payroll tax in the November election.

As Nordyke repeatedly says above, it's tough to get citizens to trust city government when that government didn't trust the citizens enough to ask them to vote on the payroll tax. A business group had to gather about 13,000 signatures of Salem voters for a referendum petition to put the tax on the November ballot.

Now that's citizen involvement. 

Nordyke also made some excellent points about ways the City of Salem could be making the Police Department more efficient and effective, which could eliminate the need for the police funding included in the payroll tax proposal.

She's a strong advocate for a civilian-based mobile crisis unit similar to the highly successful CAHOOTS program in Eugene that has markedly reduced the number of 911 calls responded to by police officers.

In response to a Salem Reporter question, Nordyke said:

I agree with funding police as a general rule. But, I don’t agree that we should be paying police officers to form a homeless outreach team. The city could pay crisis workers to perform homeless outreach at a lower rate than police officer salaries.

...Despite my urging, the city considered but ultimately rejected including $300,000 for a mobile crisis unit (MCU) in the payroll tax. The payroll tax will raise over $27 million a year in additional revenue (if it is passed by the voters). Council discussed including $300,000 out of that $27 million to help fund an MCU. The final payroll tax voted upon by Council excluded the MCU funding. 

...An MCU is a 911-responsive unit of trained mental health workers and crisis workers who can respond to calls involving mental illness, substance abuse and homelessness. Mobile crisis units free up first responders and emergency rooms for higher acuity 911 calls. This payroll tax is being touted as a tax designed to address homelessness and public safety. Without an MCU, this tax fails to address a big chunk of our homelessness and public safety needs.

...This payroll tax prioritizes policing homelessness over ending homelessness. Policing homelessness doesn’t reduce homelessness, but it sure does cost a lot of taxpayer money.

I would use the last several annual surveys of City residents as a guide towards prioritizing what to keep and what to cut. Time and time again, those surveys told us to make addressing homelessness our top priority. The payroll tax doesn’t do that. People feel that the city isn’t listening to them.

There's a simple reason people feel that way. They're right. The city isn't listening to them.

Georgia indictment of Trump should be wakeup call for GOP voters

A little while ago a Georgia grand jury indictment was unsealed, revealing that Donald Trump and 18 other people have been charged with criminal conspiracy for their efforts to overturn the legitimate 2020 election victory of Joe Biden in Georgia.

Aug 14 (Reuters) - Former U.S. President Donald Trump was hit with a sweeping fourth set of criminal charges on Monday when a Georgia grand jury issued an indictment accusing him of efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden.

The charges, brought by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, add to the legal woes facing Trump, the front-runner in the race for the Republican nomination for the 2024 presidential election.

The sprawling 98-page indictment listed 19 defendants and 41 criminal counts in all. All of the defendants were charged with racketeering, which is used to target members of organized crime groups and carries a penalty of up to 20 years in prison.

Among the other defendants were Mark Meadows, Trump's former White House chief of staff, and lawyers Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman.

"Trump and the other defendants charged in this indictment refused to accept that Trump lost, and they knowingly and willfully joined a conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome of the election in favor of Trump," the indictment said.
Download Trump indictment Georgia

This is Trump's fourth criminal indictment. Despite his oft-repeated claims of witch hunt, actually what's going on in a hunt for justice. The only reason Trump is being accused of criminal behavior is that a whole lot of evidence shows that he's behaved criminally.

Not long ago, one criminal accusation would have been more than enough to completely derail the candidacy of someone who wanted to be president. Or in the case of Richard Nixon, remain president.

Back in 1974, Republicans joined with Democrats in condemning Nixon's criminality, which forced him to resign. Here's some of what Nixon said in his resignation speech.

This is the 37th time I have spoken to you from this office, where so many decisions have been made that shaped the history of this Nation. Each time I have done so to discuss with you some matter that I believe affected the national interest.

In all the decisions I have made in my public life, I have always tried to do what was best for the Nation. Throughout the long and difficult period of Watergate, I have felt it was my duty to persevere, to make every possible effort to complete the term of office to which you elected me.

In the past few days, however, it has become evident to me that I no longer have a strong enough political base in the Congress to justify continuing that effort. As long as there was such a base, I felt strongly that it was necessary to see the constitutional process through to its conclusion, that to do otherwise would be unfaithful to the spirit of that deliberately difficult process and a dangerously destabilizing precedent for the future.

But with the disappearance of that base, I now believe that the constitutional purpose has been served, and there is no longer a need for the process to be prolonged.

Yes, Democrats controlled both the House and Senate in 1974. However, Nixon had lost the support of his fellow Republicans in Congress also, which led Nixon to say in his speech that he no longer had a strong political base.

Things sure have changed in the Republican Party.

Now Trump is able to say that if he is indicted a fourth time this would guarantee his election in 2024. I doubt that, but it does seem true that Trump's newest criminal indictment will further endear him to Republican primary voters -- who already have given him a massive lead over Ron DeSantis and Trump's other primary opponents.

I find this really disturbing. It boggles my mind that one of our two major political parties is so obsessed with a lying, egotistical, morally bankrupt candidate, Trump, that a majority of GOP voters is willing to ignore solid accusations of criminality and support him anyway.

This is how our nation could turn into an autocracy, when otherwise decent people decide that maintaining power is more important than preserving our democracy. I just hope that Republican voters wake up to the danger that Donald Trump represents. 

Trump doesn't care about anybody but himself. He likes to say that if prosecutors can indict him, they can indict anybody. That's utterly false. Republican voters only have to worry about being indicted if they do something criminal, like attempting to overturn the outcome of an election. 

Trump isn't on your side, GOP faithful. He's always only on one side, his own. Wake up to this fact before it's too late.

Salem payroll tax faces likely defeat in November vote

Nothing is certain when it comes to voting.

So even though the controversial payroll tax passed by the Salem City Council on a narrow 5-4 margin will be on the November ballot, since a referendum petition has gotten more (probably way more) than the required 4,000 signatures, this doesn't mean that the tax will be defeated.

It just seems likely, given that conservatives hate new taxes, progressives don't like regressive taxes that hit lower income workers at the same rate as higher income workers, and everybody dislikes it when politicians refuse to allow a vote of the people on an important issue -- which is what the City Council did.

Today we discussed the payroll tax at a meeting of the monthly Salon discussion group that my wife and I belong to. 

The general consensus was that the tax is likely to fail, given how badly the City Council has handled this issue. Somehow the five members who voted for the tax, which included Mayor Hoy, have managed to irritate all sides of the political spectrum.

That doesn't bode well for the tax, especially since the referendum petition drive collected more than triple the number of signatures than the 4,000 required to get on the ballot. But again, anything is possible when it comes to politics. 

Possible is just different from likely.

If the tax does fail, our discussion group felt that it should be revised in a future incarnation to tax workers who make, say, under $75,000 a year at a considerably lower rate than workers making more than that. This would blunt the (correct) argument that the tax is regressive in its current form.

It also would be nice if the City of Salem would be more honest with citizens about what the estimated $29 million a year would be used for. I keep seeing references that this money is needed to preserve funding for existing services.

That's only half true, since an April 2023 City of Salem staff report said that about half of the money would go for existing services and about half of the money would go for new services. (The tax rate that ended up being selected was .814%, but the total to be raised is close to what's shown below.)

The way I see it, voters probably would be willing to approve a payroll tax that raised less money if it didn't hit lower income workers so hard, and if most of the money went to fund homeless services such as the Navigation Center. Police and Fire already get the majority of general fund dollars, and there is a lot of inefficiency in how these departments are managed.

In Oregon and Ohio, a good day for democracy

Fans of democracy -- and it's a sad commentary on our politics that this doesn't include everybody -- are heartened by what happened here in Oregon and there in Ohio today.

On the home front, I was thrilled when a notification from the Oregonian popped up on my iPhone saying that our Secretary of State had issued the correct ruling on whether ten state senators who took part in a lengthy walkout during the 2023 legislative session could run for office again.

Here's an excerpt from "Republican senators who boycotted work can't run for reelection, secretary of state rules."

Ten Republican and Independent senators who participated in a six-week walkout this spring won’t be allowed to run for reelection, Secretary of State LaVonne Griffin-Valade announced Tuesday.

Griffin-Valade wrote that she views voter-approved Measure 113 as disqualifying Oregon lawmakers who received 10 or more unexcused absences during the 2023 legislative session from running for reelection in 2024.

That was clearly what voters intended, even though wording of the full text of the measure said absentee lawmakers couldn’t run in the election “after” their term, whereas lawmakers run for reelection about two months before their terms end. Ballot language and media coverage all communicated to voters that the punishment for absences would impact lawmakers in their next term, not a later one.

“It is clear voters intended Measure 113 to disqualify legislators from running for reelection” to a term immediately following the one in which they have 10 or more unexcused absences, Griffin-Valade said in a statement. “My decision honors the voters’ intent by enforcing the measure the way it was commonly understood when Oregonians added it to our state constitution.”

She said she directed the Oregon Elections Division not to accept reelection filings from any lawmaker who skipped that much work.

Clearly this was the correct decision, though Republicans surely will ask a court to overturn the Secretary of State. Good luck with that. As noted in the Oregonian story, there was no dispute about what Measure 113 would do prior to the vote on it in the November 2022 election.

But now Oregon Republicans want to further burnish their credentials as our state's anti-democracy party.

First they undermined the will of voters who elected Democratic majorities in both the state House and Senate by preventing legislation from moving forward during their six-week walkout, which prevented the Senate from having the two-thirds quorum needed to be in session.

Now they're planning to attempt to undermine the will of the 68% of Oregon voters who approved Measure 113 via a legal challenge to the Secretary of State's ruling on what that law requires. This is typical of Republican politicians these days: when they lose an election, they don't try harder to convince voters to vote for GOP candidates and positions, they attempt to weaken democracy.

Republicans have been doing the same thing in Ohio.

After supporters of reproductive freedom announced that they'd seek to put a constitutional amendment on the November 2023 ballot guaranteeing women in Ohio the right to choose to have an abortion, and polls showed the amendment was likely to pass, the GOP-controlled legislature ignored a recently passed law that did away with August elections.

August, after all, is in the midst of summer when many people aren't paying attention to politics, so the turnout typically is low.

Which is just what Ohio Republicans wanted, since their scheme was to put a proposal on the August 8 ballot (the only thing on the ballot) that would change the threshold for passing a constitutional amendment from a simple majority of the voter to 60%.

They were open about their motivation for doing this: to markedly reduce the chance that Ohio voters would approve the constitutional amendment legalizing abortion, which currently is illegal in Ohio. The proposal also would make it considerably more difficult to obtain the required signatures to put an amendment on the ballot.

Well, today we learned how Ohio voters felt about that Republican attempt to subvert democracy. The proposal failed, big time. With 97% of the vote in, Issue One is failing 43% to 57%. 

There's no guarantee that Ohio voters will approve the constitutional amendment legalizing abortion in November, but now it sure seems likely that the amendment will pass, given that every time abortion has been on the ballot since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, abortion rights have scored a victory.

Americans don't like having rights taken away from them. Especially the right to a free and fair democracy.

Trump's defenses against Jan. 6 indictment make no sense

Yesterday it filled my progressive heart with joy when I heard that Donald Trump had been indicted by the Justice Department on four counts related to his attempt to steal the 2020 election after Joe Biden was lawfully elected: three of conspiracy and one of obstruction.

You can read the eminently readable 45 page indictment via this PDF file.
Download Trump Indictment file

Today it was amusing to hear the laughable defenses trotted out by Trump's attorneys for why their client is innocent of the charges. Those defenses are so weak, Trump might as well plead guilty tomorrow at his arraignment, since his chances of being acquitted are extremely low.

The main argument being made on Trump's behalf is that he was simply exercising his First Amendment right to free speech when he questioned the validity of Biden's presidential victory. As competent attorneys have been saying, that's an argument for the Court of Public Opinion, not for a Court of Law.

The indictment acknowledges that Trump was entitled to his free speech. Here's what was said on page 2.

The Defendant had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even to claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the election and that he had won. He was also entitled to formally challenge the results of the election through lawful and appropriate means, such as by seeking recounts or audits of the popular vote in states or filing lawsuits challenging ballots and procedures. Indeed, in many cases, the Defendant did pursue these methods of contesting the election results. His efforts to change the outcome in any state through recounts, audits, or legal challenges were uniformly unsuccessful.

But the indictment goes on to say: (the "1" is an artifact of copying in text from the PDF file)

Shortly after election day, the Defendant also pursued unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results. In so doing, the Defendant perpetrated three criminal conspiracies:

1. 1. A conspiracy to defraud the United States by using dishonesty, fraud, and deceit to impair, obstruct, and defeat the lawful federal government function by which the results of the presidential election are collected, counted, and certified by the federal government, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371;

   2. A conspiracy to corruptly obstruct and impede the January 6 congressional proceeding at which the collected results of the presidential election arecounted and certified (“the certification proceeding”), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(k); and

       c.  A conspiracy against the right to vote and to have one’s vote counted, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241.

Each of these conspiracies—which built on the widespread mistrust the Defendant was creating through pervasive and destabilizing lies about election fraud—targeted a bedrock function of the United States federal government: the nation’s process of collecting, counting, and certifying the results of the presidential election (“the federal government function").

Ruth Marcus demolishes the free speech argument in a Washington Post opinion piece, "The Trump indictment tramples no one's First Amendment rights." If that link doesn't work for you, here's a PDF file, along with an excerpt.
Download Opinion | The Jan. 6 indictment doesn't trample Trump's First Amendment rights - The Washington Post

But Trump is not being prosecuted for his repeated lies about a stolen election. He is being prosecuted for the efforts he made, the actions he took to operationalize that contention and prevent the clear will of the voters from being realized, or what the indictment calls “unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results.”

Just because words are involved in the commission of these alleged crimes does not mean that prosecuting Trump violates his First Amendment rights. The protections of the First Amendment are strong and capacious, but they are not unlimited.

Corporate executives accused of defrauding investors by making false statements engage in speech, but that does not immunize them. Same for those who engage in insider trading or a conspiracy to fix prices.

Or, to bring things closer to home, if Trump at a rally encouraged his supporters to beat up a protester, that would not prevent him from being sued or even criminally charged. If he were to falsely accuse a political opponent of being a child molester, the libel laws that he wants to weaken would not shield him from legal recourse. (Here, I am borrowing examples from U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, ruling in a civil case that Trump could be sued for inciting the Capitol rioters.)

“The heart of our jurisprudence with respect to the First Amendment is the difference between regulating speech and regulating conduct,” Rep. Jamie B. Raskin (D-Md.), once a constitutional law professor, told me. “Everything charged in the indictment involves criminal conduct by Donald Trump and not the mere expression of political views. If Donald Trump wanted to say that the joint session organizing the peaceful transfer of power was a fraud and a charade, he had every right to say that. But he had no right to actually obstruct the proceeding.”

Thus, the indictment doesn’t accuse Trump of breaking the law by claiming the election was stolen. It asserts, instead, that Trump, “on the pretext of baseless fraud claims,” pushed state officials to ignore the popular vote; that he organized “fraudulent slates of electors,” including some who were “tricked into participating,” and that and his co-conspirators “used knowingly false claims of election fraud” to pressure the vice president to refuse to certify the election results.

What Marcus says above also demolishes an equally weak argument by defenders of Trump: that he was the victim of bad advice offered by his legal advisers. Today's All In With Chris Hayes show on MSNBC featured legal analysts who made this important point.

John Eastman, a Trump legal adviser, wouldn't have been an unindicted co-conspirator in the indictment if he had simply said that it made sense to have alternate slates of electors in several battleground states where the vote between Biden and Trump was very close, but Biden had been declared the victor.

That way, if a court or a recount established that Trump actually won a state, the alternate slate of electors for Trump could have been legally substituted for the Biden slate of electors.

However, when that legal approach morphed into an illegal scheme to have Vice-President Pence declare that Biden's electors were invalid and the alternate Trump electors should be substituted for them, even though there was no legal basis for doing this, that is when a conspiracy to defraud the United States government and voters took place.

So it looks extremely likely that Trump will be found guilty of the charges in the indictment. Of course, he's entitled to a vigorous defense when the case goes to trial. Trump had just better hope that his attorneys have better arguments than what they've shown so far. Even Bill Barr, his attorney general, agrees.

Payroll tax debacle could hurt progressives on City Council

It looks likely that the effort to gather 4,000 signatures of Salem registered voters in order to force a referendum vote on the employee payroll tax approved by the City Council on a narrow 5-4 vote is going to succeed.

A Salem Reporter story says that Let Salem Vote has already gotten 4,000 signatures and is seeking 6,000 since some signatures will be invalid.

Throughout Salem, in front of grocery stores and at popular events, people with clipboards have been collecting signatures in an attempt to bring the issue of a Salem payroll tax to a public vote.

As of Tuesday morning, July 25, the campaign has gathered over 4,000 unverified signatures, according to Oregon Business and Industry, the group leading the effort. The group needs to submit at least 3,986 qualified signatures for registered voters within the city of Salem to get the issue on the ballot in November.

The signatures have not yet been validated, and the group is seeking at least 6,000 total signatures to account for errors, before the submission deadline to the City Recorder on August 9, who would then review the sheets and file it with the County Elections Division.

I donated $60 to Let Salem Vote because, well, I believe in letting Salem citizens vote on a significant new tax that will cost the average Salem worker earning $62,000 about $500 a year.

Assuming that the referendum petition gets the required number of signatures, the City Manager, Mayor, and City Council are going to have a tough decision to make: should they give up on the idea of the payroll tax, or campaign to pass the tax in the November election?

This reminds me of a similar dilemma faced by the folks at City Hall when their scheme to install parking meters downtown ran into a whirlwind of opposition that led to a referendum petition getting 9,000 signatures, if I recall correctly, much more than were needed to put a ban on parking meters on the ballot for the next election.

The City Council decided to toss the parking meter idea in a political trashcan rather than risk an embarrassing election defeat. I think the current City Council would be well advised to do the same with the payroll tax notion.

Their big mistake was to ignore the pleas of the vast majority of those who testified about the payroll tax to put it up for a vote of the people. If that had happened, the City of Salem could have made cogent arguments for the tax and had a decent chance of it passing this November.

Now, though, the imperious attitude of the five progressives on the City Council who voted for the tax -- we know best, so we don't want to put this on the ballot -- has ticked off a broad swath of the Salem electorate, conservatives and liberals alike, as this tweet pointed out. (Councilor Nordyke was the only progressive who had the good sense to vote against approving the tax without a vote of the people.)

I'm unsure which will be worse for Mayor Hoy and the other four progressives who approved the payroll tax: having the tax approved by voters this November or turned down.

Either way, there's going to be a lot of anger directed at "tax and spend" liberals on the City Council, which is one reason why, as a progressive myself, I favor the council withdrawing the payroll tax idea and keeping it as an option for a future election.

The Salem-Keizer Proletariat substack has an interesting article in this regard: "Far-right PAC uses Salem worker tax to launch grift." 

A collection of business and political groups appear to have a good chance at gathering the required signatures to send a recently passed payroll tax to Salem voters for their approval.

And while the petition effort is being led by Oregon Business and Industry (OBI), a significant portion of the signature gathering appears to be driven by far-right stalwart, Marion Polk First - an organization with a political action committee (PAC) that funnels campaign resources to some of the most extreme right-wing candidates and causes in Oregon.

...In fact, Marion Polk First made their motivations clear the very next day after the Salem City Council passed the working class tax. Their participation in this petition effort isn’t really about giving the people a voice, it’s about exacting political retribution on City Councilors that they are ideologically opposed to.

Nonetheless, the decidedly left-leaning Salem-Keizer Proletariat writer urged people to sign the payroll tax petition, since he believes citizens should be able to vote on it. Which points to the poor decision-making skills of the five progressives on the City Council who approved the tax.

They should have realized that a big new tax on everyone who works in Salem, whether or not they live here, was going to be highly controversial. It shouldn't have been a surprise to the Tax Without a Vote five that a petition drive to put this on the November ballot would both happen and likely be successful.

Now a November vote isn't going to be solely on the merits of the payroll tax and what the money would be used for, since the tax is tied in with the irritation of citizens of all political persuasions over the five City Council progressives claiming that they know best and no vote of the people was called for.

Except, it now appears that there will be a vote. Whether this will result in a threat to the current 6-3 progressive majority on the City Council remains to be seen. It certainly won't make Salem voters look more positively on those five progressive members who approved the tax.

Salem mayor and city councilors explain position on allowing payroll tax vote

The Salem Reporter (which I consider a subscription bargain for local news) had a great idea: ask Mayor Hoy and the other eight members of the City Council why they voted the way they did on the employee-paid payroll tax that ended up being approved on a contentious 5-4 vote this month.

Journalist Abbey McDonald did a great job with "Salem councilors explain their votes for and against the payroll tax."

I was particular interested in a question about why the City Council members either supported or opposed having Salem citizens vote on the payroll tax in the November election, since I was disappointed in the decision not to allow such a vote.

Now it looks likely that there will be a vote anyway.

Let Salem Vote, an effort backed by the Oregon Business & Industry organization, is working to get 4,000 signatures from registered voters in Salem that would be enough to place a referendum regarding the payroll tax on the November ballot, or apparently the May 2024 ballot if enough signatures aren't obtained by August 9.

Below I've shared the responses on the voting question from Mayor Hoy and six of the eight city councilors. Councilor Deanna Gwyn didn't respond to the survey and Councilor Trevor Phillips didn't address the specific questions. I've put "opposed" in red and "supported" in green to make it more obvious what the position of each member of the City Council was on the voting issue.

It's interesting that Mayor Hoy and Councilor Stapleton both said that the difficulty of organizing a campaign in support of a payroll tax measure was a central reason why they didn't favor letting Salem citizens vote on it.

This may turn out to be a bad decision, since it seems probable that a vote on the payroll tax is going to occur anyway through the referendum process. But the difference is that now lots of people are upset with the City Council ignoring the overwhelming majority of those who testified on the payroll tax who urged that the tax be voted on by Salem residents.

So it seems to me that Hoy and Stapleton made a mistake in thinking that it would be easier to implement the payroll tax without a vote of the people.

Actually, it's looking like that task is going to be harder after the decision to approve the tax by the City Council -- since that stirred up opposition to the council action that probably will carry over into opposing the payroll tax itself if the referendum ends up being successful.

Mayor Chris Hoy:
What is the primary reason you opposed letting voters decide on a major tax increase?

“I have information about the state of the budget, demand for service and the urgency of the matter that the average voter does not have. I believe this tax is in the best interest of the community.

Passing a tax measure at the ballot box would require a costly campaign that would take a tremendous amount of time and money. Having just run the bond campaign, I believe the prospects of raising that amount of money and finding councilors willing to spend the time necessary to run a campaign would be virtually impossible.” 

Councilor Virginia Stapleton:
What is the primary reason you opposed letting voters decide on a major tax increase?

“Many don’t know this, but the City cannot help run campaigns, they cannot pay for them or offer any other support other than information. It would be up to the nine of us on Council to do the heavy lift. We would need to raise anywhere between $30-100k (the more the better), design the campaign, run the education and outreach and in the end secure the vote. Most of us have fulltime jobs, family obligations and our continuing work on Council. … I am also concerned that we would have a campaign in opposition to the measure and most opposition efforts are very well funded making them hard to compete against. In the end, I knew that although it was the unpopular thing to do, it was the right one considering all the obstacles.   

Councilor Linda Nishioka:
What is the primary reason you opposed letting voters decide on a major tax increase?

“American democracy is founded on the principle of representative government, where elected officials, such as members of Congress, state legislatures, and city councils, are chosen by the people to make decisions for the benefit of their constituents and community. One of their key responsibilities is deciding on taxes, as they can create, modify, and implement tax laws that align with the interests and needs of the community.

My elected officials decided on most of the taxes I pay and have paid.”

Councilor Micky Varney:
What is the primary reason you opposed letting voters decide on a major tax increase?

“Expediency and urgency—in short, the gravity of the situation and the additional delay in that would have occurred had we waited 4 more months. With a delay, we would have been forced to start making cuts to programs. Slashing $13.9 million of community services which support park maintenance, our libraries, Center 50+, city-wide recreation programs would be devastating. Reductions to the permitting and planning department would further slow development and building of housing inventory. Trimming an additional $2 million from police and fire would increase risks to health, life and property. We’ve observed, from the ongoing Covid recovery period, how long it takes to get people hired and get the wheels turning again.  Reinstating programs down the road at some point will be slow and will be more expensive as well.”

Councilor Jose Gonzales:
What is the primary reason you supported letting voters decide on a major tax increase?

"This is one of those issues most of them will personally feel."

Councilor Julie Hoy:
What is the primary reason you supported letting voters decide on a major tax increase?

“Because it was the right thing to do.”

Councilor Vanessa Nordyke:
What is the primary reason you supported letting voters decide on a major tax increase?

"The people expect to vote on payroll taxes. Passing the payroll tax without taking it to the voters was a huge breach of trust. Based on the fact that we took three bond measures to a vote in recent history, and we were on the brink of taking this payroll tax to the voters in 2020, the voters reasonably expected to be asked for their vote on this tax.” 

Here's how the the payroll tax would be used, according to a Salem Reporter story. Police, fire, and homeless services uses only add up to $24.9 million of the $27.9 million total per year, so the remaining $3 million is for administration of the tax.

The tax is expected to bring in $27.9 million per year. City officials say that would pay for sustaining and expanding staffing and services at the police department, fire department, emergency and medical services, code enforcement and services for unsheltered people, including the navigation center and micro shelters.

The police department will get nearly half, at $10.5 million a year, according to an April staff report. Of that, $7 million would go to sustain current operations, $1.5 million to fund and expand the homeless outreach team, and add an additional $2 million to hire 13 officers for a community policing program focused downtown. More on what that means here.

Homeless services, including the navigation center and three micro shelters, would get $7.9 million according to the staff report. Those programs are currently being funded with state grants and federal Covid relief money. The city otherwise does not have money in place to keep those services running beyond 2025. Read more here.

The fire department would get the next largest chunk at $6.5 million, according to the staff report. Of that, $4.2 million would go to maintain current services, and $2.3 million would pay for an additional 12 employees. Without additional funding, the department will not be able to operate two planned new fire stations to be built starting in 2028. More on that here.

Let Salem Vote seeking signatures for referendum petition on payroll tax

I believe in the value of voting. Most people do.

That's why so many were upset when the Salem City Council approved an employee payroll tax on everyone who works in Salem, resident or not, without putting it on the November ballot, as virtually everybody who testified about the tax urged.


Predictably, given the intense widespread outrage over this action, a group was formed to challenge the council's decision. Let Salem Vote has filed a petition for a referendum that would put the payroll tax on the November ballot -- where it should have been from the start.

Here's how Let Salem Vote describes their effort.

Oregon Business & Industry (OBI) has launched an effort to refer the city of Salem’s recently adopted payroll tax to voters.  

On July 10, the Salem City Council voted 5-4 to adopt a nearly 1% payroll tax despite overwhelming opposition during public comment. The new tax will be a significant burden for employees, exacerbating the effects of steadily rising inflation and providing an incentive to seek work outside of Salem or stop coming to Salem for portions of work as they otherwise might have. For employers, the tax will create a significant compliance burden, especially for those with employees who work on the road, at various job sites, or on hybrid schedules.  

“OBI is headquartered in Salem, and we care deeply about this community. We have no problem with Salem or any other city asking voters to support levies for important local services. However, this proposal is vague, the tax is high, the administrative burden is significant, and there is little assurance as to how funds will be spent. At a minimum the community deserves a chance to vote,” said Angela Wilhelms, OBI’s president and CEO. 

Preston Mann, OBI’s director of political affairs and a Salem resident, filed the petition on July 14. The city approved OBI’s petition that same day. Approximately 4,000 valid signatures from Salem voters are due Aug. 9 to refer this to the November 2023 ballot. To account for possible errors and ensure success, OBI aims to submit 6,000 signatures. Time is of the essence. 

Visit www.LetSalemVote.com to find out how to sign a petition, circulate a petition among neighbors and friends, or contribute to the campaign.

Mayor Chris Hoy and the other four members of the City Council who voted to pass the payroll tax without referring it to voters may regret their decision. 

Note the third paragraph in the Oregon Business & Industry (OBI) press release. Even though OBI will say that the petition just is for Salem residents to be able to vote on the payroll tax, that's language to attract as many signers as possible as quickly as possible.

It seems clear that OBI, likely along with other business organizations, is opposed to an additional tax on employees to be collected by Salem businesses and would like to have voters reject the payroll tax. The statement "At a minimum the community deserves a chance to vote" indicates that there's a maximum: not only voting, but voting against the tax.

Worse for the City Council, if this does get on the ballot, opposition to the tax is going to be widespread. As OBI says, "For the average Salem resident earning $62,192 annually, the new tax will cost over $500 every year!" (Minor quibble: that statement should have said "average Salem employee," since the tax falls on everyone who works in Salem even if they live elsewhere.)

And aside from the obvious pocketbook concern, many people don't like that most of the $28 million a year to be raised by the payroll tax would go to hiring new police and fire employees, along with City of Salem staff needed to oversee the new tax.

There's scant evidence that the Police and Fire Departments are understaffed, or that efficiencies can't be found in these departments -- which already consume most of the City of Salem general fund dollars -- that would make the payroll tax unnecessary.

Yes, the plan also is for the tax to fund some homeless services. That's a good thing. But shoving more money at the Police and Fire Departments isn't wise, at least not without a lot more examination of how these departments could operate more efficiently and effectively.

I urge you to sign the petition if you're a Salem registered voter. Just click here.