Read the whole storyPrimary Conversations: Secretary of State[Posted by Sarah Jane Rothenfluch on April 29, 2008] LISTEN TO "Primary Conversations: Secretary of State" (24MB MP3) The next in our "Primary Conversations" series looks at what many consider the second most important job in state government: The Secretary of State. This office has been a stepping-stone for many governors, including Mark Hatfield, Tom McCall and Barbara Roberts. It oversees elections and the initiative process, state audits, corporations and archives. The secretary of state serves with the governor and state treasurer on the State Land Board and serves as chair of the Oregon Cultural Trust. Rick Dancer, a former television news anchorman from Springfield, is running unopposed in the Republican primary. On the Democratic side there are three state senators leading the race. And they'll all be joining us on Thursday: Kate Brown is a state senator from Portland. She was first elected to the Oregon House of Representatives in 1991 and served two terms before being elected to the Senate in 1996. In the Senate she served as Democratic Leader. Recently she led efforts to review Oregon's ethics laws and create an online database of campaign contributions and expenditures. Brown has also practiced family and juvenile law and taught at Portland State University. Rick Metsger is the state senator from Welches. He was first elected to the Senate in 1998. Since then he's focused mostly on transportation, early childhood development, career training, and consumer protection. He's probably best known for his 16 years as a television sportscaster at KOIN-TV. Metsger has also worked as a high school teacher and as assistant basketball coach at Lewis and Clark College. Vicki Walker is the state senator from Eugene. She is known as the watchdog among the candidates, in part because of her years as a court reporter. Walker was elected to the Oregon House of Representatives in November 1998, and she served two terms. In 2002, voters in Lane County elected her to the Senate. She is well known as an advocate for education and children's rights. What questions do you have for these Democratic candidates for secretary of state? What do you want the next chief elections officer to do about the initiative process, redistricting, or election reform? Are voter IDs, the subject of a Supreme Court ruling yesterday, among your list of concerns? What are your ideas for improving the state's election system? Share your questions -- and suggestions -- for these secretary of state hopefuls and we'll put them on the air. GUESTS: Kate Brown: State Senator from Portland Rick Metsger: State Senator from Welches Vicki Walker: State Senator from Eugene
I would like to know if these candidates would support the ID requirement to vote. I can't speak for all states, but in Oregon it costs money to get an ID issued by the state, and quite frankly I think it would be horrible if we required ID's to vote. This would be an obvious attempt to disenfranchise voters of low economic status. Indiana, according to NPR news, does not charge for state issued ID's so I will entertain their arguement even though I don't agree it's right. The only way I could see an Oregon ID requirement, would be if they made ID's free in Oregon. But even then, how would those ID's be paid for? That's a big burden to taxpayers and I think we should just keep our current system, as mail in ballots would be impossible to regulate if we had to show ID at the polls.
“You may call them special interests. I think they’re special,” Brown said.
http://www...id=4&fid=2 Trouble is that these special interests are all seeking different slices of the Oregon pie and that may not correlate well to the values of the average Oregon voter. Oregon is one of 5 states that has no limits on contributions to candidates. http://www...Limits.htm The most stringent limits are in Montana. With reforms there, self-financing increased by 11%, while decreases of 33%, 49% and 31% were seen from businesses and special-interest donors, organized labor and political party committees respectively. http://www..._FINAL.pdf Of Montana's races, 43% are considered competitive, while in Oregon only 23% are. Races in Maine and Arizona (states where public financing is prominent) are the most competitive. http://www...ndex.phtml http://www...G&b=507399 In commenting for a lack of televised political news coverage, Bill Johnstone, president of the Oregon Association of Broadcasters, claimed that viewers get " 'more than their fill,' and that covering what politicians say is not in the public interest because few of them tell the truth." He has further said that people who are interested in politics should tune in to political ads or use the Internet. http://rgw...on=opinion How does the voter evaluate campaign rhetoric, sound bites and political endorsements? Will improved ethics rules and increased transparency of campaign contributions and expenditures be adequate to level the playing field, such that "serious" candidates can be more "electable?" What are the views of these SOS candidates regarding campaign contribution limits and public financing?
The Secretary of State oversees and enforces Oregon's campaign finance disclosure and regulation system.
It is little known that Oregon law currently allows campaign contribution funds to be used for public office related expenses. Because "public office related" is undefined, campaign funds have been used for all sorts of things that are not campaigning for office. Some of these things are also supposed to be paid for by per diem paid to legislators, so they amount to "double dipping". Would the SoS candidates support closing this loophole? This is one piece of campaign finance reform. Would the SoS candidates support some form of CFR such as limiting campaign contributions or some form of clean money elections like in Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, or the City of Portland?
I would like to know the candidate's positions on the initiative process.
I believe that the initiative process, while intended to be populist and progressive, is out of date with the reality of modern politics. It enables minority special interests to push through deceptively packaged or radical legislation that is very harmful to the established, considered and democratically established policies of the state. (Measure 37 is a case in point here.)
If we truly had a representative democracy, the initiative system would be unnecessary. The SOS should be a champion of campaign finance reform. Money in politics effectively gag the voice of the people.
Do the candidates support 1. a constitutional amendment for contribution limits? 2. public financing?
Millions of new residents are expected to be moving to Oregon over the coming years from states with more "traditional" voting processes, and a challenge to our current vote-by-mail system might emerge. So I'd like to know how firmly the candidates are committed to protecting the "by mail" aspect of our process.
One guest went on at length about the initiative process. Specifically saying that it should be made more difficult (more signatures) to shop titles. How does she square this view with her action in the last legislature where they first polled titles, then wrote one and specifically exempted it from judicial review?
She also suggested that the 5 largest contributors to measures/candidates be listed in the voters pamphlet. Again, how does she feel about the Sec. of States very recent decision to exempt Our Oregon, who spent almost $900,000 on the last election, to be excused from even reporting their expenditures? What makes this question inappropriate? The Sec of State decided one of the largest contributors in the state does not have to report their receipts and expenditures, yet goes on to fine people for overlooking contributions in their reports of just a few hundred dollars. Do these candidates feel this is a correct decision, or are they even familiar with it?
Please ask the candidates when will the state of Oregon will start labeling Genetically Modified Foods. There are 27 nations that require the labeling of these ingredients, the US is not one of them. In 1997 there was a campaign to require the labeling of GMO's but it failed. As Oregon prides itself on being the first to do new and innovative actions. When will the state require the labeling of GMO's??
Showing comments 1 - 16 of 16
RSS |
|
04/29/2008 1:40:56 PM
© 2008, Oregon Public Broadcasting.
Search · Inside OPB · Report Reception Problems · Privacy Policy · Terms of Use · Contact Us · Pressroom · Employment · Community · Audio Streams · RSS Feeds
