Measure 64

Argument in Favor

The Evils of Commingling

Organized crime does it to launder their dirty money. Enron did it to conceal its true financial condition from employees and investors. Commingling has long been a tool used by bad guys to conceal what they really do with their money.

This may come as a shock to many Oregon voters, but Oregon law currently allows some organizations to commingle their political funds with other funds, making it almost impossible to determine how much money they are really spending on politics. Worse yet, the government is actually complicit in this subterfuge.

If you read the official ballot title for this measure, a neutral ballot title drafted and certified by Oregon's attorney general, you will see that a "Yes" vote on Measure 64 ends commingling and a "No" vote continues the current practice of allowing groups to disguise their true political expenditures by commingling.

Here's what Measure 64 does: Measure 64 gets government out of the business of collecting political funds. It is a foundational principle of Americanism that government's role in elections is to remain neutral; to conduct the election fairly and not help either side. Only in third world "banana republics" do we expect government to help one side win an election.

Currently, however, government uses taxpayer owned resources, including taxpayer owned equipment and public employee time on the job, to collect millions of dollars every year in political donations for government employee unions. This unfair advantage makes them the most powerful force in Oregon politics. Measure 64 ends this abuse of taxpayer resources and creates a level playing field.

Second, Measure 64 makes it illegal to commingle political money with money collected using public resources. This will enable the public to observe the true flow of political donations.

Under Measure 64, no one could use public resources to collect political funds and government would once again assume a neutral role in elections, helping neither side.

(This information furnished by Wayne Brady, Americans For Prosperity - Oregon, Marion Co. Chair.)

Argument in Favor

The Commingling Must Stop!

Many worthy organizations collect money by means of the public payroll system and by volunteer check-offs on Oregon tax returns. By these means, millions of dollars are collected each year for charitable and philanthropic causes.

All this money is collected in good faith and with the understanding that the money will be used for the purposes for which it was collected.

But there's a problem. Some of the organizations using the public payroll system to collect money are also very political. Some of the organizations, in addition to the charitable things they do, spend millions of dollars hiring professional lobbyists, donating to political candidates, and supporting or opposing ballot measures.

It is one thing to use public resources, including public equipment and supplies and public employee time on the job, to raise money for charitable causes. That's well and good, as long as the contributions are entirely voluntary. It's another thing altogether to use public resources to collect political donations.

Measure 64 allows charities to continue collecting donations for legitimate purposes, but it prohibits using taxpayer owned, public resources to collect political funds.

Perhaps more importantly, it stops organizations from commingling charitable funds with political funds when the money was collected using public resources. Commingling is the act of mixing one kind of money with other kinds of money so that it is not readily apparent how much is being spent for either purpose.

This is a serious problem when a large part of the money is used for politics. Oregon's campaign disclosure laws are based on transparency and full disclosure. Our system demands that all political donations be fully disclosed, so we can tell who is donating to whom and whether any conflict of interest is being created by the donations.

Measure 64 prohibits commingling of political money with any money collected using public resources.

Measure 64 plugs a major hole in the current system and deserves our full support.

(This information furnished by Bill Sizemore, Oregon Tax Payers United.)

Argument in Favor

Opting Out

For 26 years I was a public school teacher. I spent my creative energy on kids by working hard to teach new ideas and to find new ways to teach old ideas. Sometimes it worked, and I'd see lights go on in their eyes. Sometimes it didn't work, which meant I had to try harder. Like I said, I was a teacher.

A teacher. Not a political activist. For 26 years I paid my dues to the NEA (National Education Association), the OEA (Oregon Education Association) and various local associations.

The teachers unions started out as organizations formed to serve teachers by helping to improve work conditions and by laboring to protect us from abusive management practices.

Well, the servant has become the master. These unions have become beasts that feed upon their unsuspecting, often blissfully ignorant, constituents. The feeding trough is replenished monthly through the convenient and appallingly lucrative, government-subsidized practice of what amounts to garnishing employees' wages via automatic payroll deduction.

Thousands of teachers across the state are spending themselves on behalf of the children of Oregon—your children and mine—while being systematically bled by the unions to support a massive, liberal political agenda that violates their core values.

And they have no choice.

In fact, when I tried to take advantage of the "opt-out" clause in the union agreement, I found that the only things I was allowed to opt out of were my rights and protections as a member. I still had to pay! How is that opting-out?

Teachers should teach. Government should govern. Unions should stop using teachers and government to raise money to fuel their ambitious political agenda. Anyone who wants to VOLUNTARILY contribute to the cause should be allowed to do so. Or not!

A "Yes" vote on Measure 64 will help stop this out-of-control practice of using government resources to take money from those who don't want to "donate."

(This information furnished by Tim Rohrer, Oregon Tax Payers United.)

Argument in Favor

Government Is Not Supposed to Take Sides in Elections

There are countries in the world where governments do not just run the elections, they actually determine the outcomes. In these countries, usually third world dictatorships, those in power forcibly prohibit opposition candidates—they cheat when they count the votes, and they limit free speech and debate.

But this is Oregon, you say. This is America. In this country, we know the proper role of government. In this country, government doesn't take sides. It merely conducts elections as a neutral party.

If you really believe that, then you are not familiar with the way things are done here in Oregon. In this state, government is hardly the neutral arbiter. Government routinely helps one political party over the other and often assists one side in ballot measure campaigns.

Surely, you've noticed that with ballot measure campaigns, one side is able to flood the air waves with television and radio commercials, while the other side has almost no visible campaign. That's because government is helping the side that supports higher taxes. Government raises literally millions of dollars for that side of the campaign and none for the other side.

Have you noticed that in Oregon the Democrats control the state legislature and every statewide office from the Governor to the Secretary of State to the Attorney General? Do you really believe that's because Oregonians overwhelmingly support the tax-and-spend message most Democrat candidates espouse? Hardly.

Every year government collects millions of dollars in political money for only one group, a group that gives about 98 percent of its campaign donations to Democrats. Consequently, Democrats control Oregon.

How could anyone think this is right, or even American for that matter?

Measure 64 forces government to remain neutral in elections. Measure 64 says you can't use public employee time on the job or other taxpayer owned resources to collect political donations for anyone.

That's obviously the way it should be.

(This information furnished by Tim Rohrer, Oregon Tax Payers United.)

Argument in Favor

How the Public Employee Unions Run Oregon

We hire public employees to be public servants. We entrust them with all kinds of important responsibilities, many of which they handle quite well.

We allow public employees the use of publicly owned buildings. We allow them the use of taxpayer owned cars and trucks and computers and telephones and everything else they need to do their jobs.

We do not give them access to all these things so they can use them to collect millions of dollars in political money for their unions or so they can run campaigns for their favorite politicians. And yet, that is exactly what is happening.

Public employee unions are far and away the most powerful force in Oregon politics. They own this state. They call the shots in the governor's office. They run the state legislature. They literally decide who will win pretty much every statewide office in the state, including secretary of state, attorney general, and the state's superintendent of schools.

Public employee unions are even the biggest donors to candidates for the Oregon Supreme Court, which creates a rather serious conflict of interest for judges.

Why do public employee unions have so much power? Where do they get the money to buy all these elections? The answer is simply: From you the public.

Public employee unions are allowed to use public buildings, public computers, and public employee time on the job to collect millions of dollars per year in political funds from the paychecks of public employees all across Oregon. And they don't even have to ask permission to take the money out of employees' paychecks.

All Measure 64 does is stop the use of public resources for collecting political funds. If 64 passes, public employee unions will have to raise their political funds from willing donors, just like everyone else does.

Simply put, they won't be able to use your taxpayer owned resources to do so.

(This information furnished by Tim Rohrer, Oregon Tax Payers United.)

Argument in Favor

Was Bill Sizemore Railroaded?

For more than a decade, labor unions and liberal newspapers have smeared Bill Sizemore nonstop. However, before you believe absurd claims that Sizemore was "convicted" of using fraud and forgery to get measures on the ballot, consider these facts:

Fact one: Both at the beginning and end of the Oregon Taxpayers United trial, teachers union lawyers told the jury that the case was not about Bill Sizemore; that Sizemore was not a defendant, not being sued and, in fact, not even a party to the case.)

Fact two: Before the trial began, teachers union lawyers removed every Republican from the Multnomah County jury pool, leaving Sizemore's organization a stacked jury of 14 Democrats and one Pacific Green Party member.

Fact three: For the three years he presided over the case, Judge Jerome LaBarre concealed the fact that his son was an activist/member of the Oregon Education Association, the same union that was suing in his dad's court. The judge's son has even been elected a teachers union president.

Fact four: Judge LaBarre kept from the jury evidence that was critical to Oregon Taxpayers United's defense.

Fact five: Nothing in the jury's verdict even mentions Bill Sizemore. No witness in the trial claimed that Bill Sizemore was involved in or authorized any forgeries whatsoever.

Fact six: Notwithstanding media reports that Sizemore was convicted of racketeering, Sizemore has never been so much as charged with a crime in his entire life.

Fact seven: After the trial, another Portland judge ordered Sizemore to personally pay the OEA's multimillion dollar judgment. Sizemore never received a trial or opportunity to defend himself.

Fact eight: The OEA has offered not to pursue their ill-gotten judgment against Sizemore if he would drop his appeal and agree to stay out of politics for 15 years. Sizemore refused.

Oregon's liberal establishment has gone to the extreme, even railroading him in court, trying to get Bill Sizemore out of politics.

(This information furnished by Bill Sizemore, Oregon Tax Payers United.)