- HOME
- Email Signup
- Contact Us
- Issues
- Actions
- Register to Vote
- Calendar
- Candidates
- Contribute . .
- . . on Your Tax Form
- Flyers, Buttons, Posters, Videos
Progressive Party Positions
We are VERY different from the Establishment parties.
Our 2012 Voters Pamphlet Statement
|
|
Dem |
Rep |
Progressive |
| Real campaign finance reform | NO | NO | YES |
| Oppose extension of income tax cuts for the rich | NO | NO | YES |
| Oppose Wall Street bailouts | NO | NO | YES |
| Oppose Cuts in Social Security Benefits | NO | NO | YES |
| Employment for All (WPA style) | NO | NO | YES |
| Increase minimum wage to living wage ($10 or more) | NO | NO | YES |
| Single Payer comprehensive health care | NO | NO | YES |
| Oppose Cuts in Medicare Coverage | NO | NO | YES |
| End wars in Iraq and Afghanistan | NO | NO | YES |
| Oppose use of mercenaries ("contractors") | NO | NO | YES |
| Cut military spending | NO | NO | YES |
| Equal rights for all; same-sex marriage | NO | NO | YES |
| Oppose NAFTA & WTO; encourage local sourcing of products & services | NO | NO | YES |
| Oppose spying on American civilians | NO | NO | YES |
| End occupation of Palestine | NO | NO | YES |
| Oppose shipping coal for export through Columbia Gorge | NO | NO | YES |
| Oppose offshore drilling | NO | NO | YES |
| Clean energy; no nuclear | NO | NO | YES |
| Repair, improve infrastructure (transportation, water systems, etc.) | NO | NO | YES |
| End the drug war | NO | NO | YES |
| End the Senate filibuster; restore majority rule | NO | NO | YES |
| End “corporate personhood” | NO | NO | YES |
OREGON ISSUES
1) We have worked for real campaign finance reform, not the phony bills promoted by the Democrats and Republicans, both of which opposed the 2006 Oregon campaign finance reform ballot measures.
2) We want a State Bank to invest in jobs for Oregonians and to stop the State Treasurer and the Oregon Investment Council from jumping into bed with corporate raiders and fast-buck artists who lavish luxury travel and gifts on State employees.
3) We want fair taxation. Oregon has the 4th highest income taxes of any state on lower-income working families and is still at the bottom in taxes on corporations.
4) We want to stop government promotion of gambling (including video poker and video slots) and stop giving away $100 million per year in ridiculously high commissions to shops with video machines.
5) We want to make the initiative and referendum again available to grass-roots efforts, instead of making it so complicated and expensive that only corporations and unions can afford to use it.
6) We want to improve K-12 public education by giving parents and teachers more rights to manage their neighborhood schools.
7) We want social justice systems that are inclusive and that promote responsibility, safety, trust-building and equality.
8) We advocate abolishing the Oregon Senate, leaving the 60-member Oregon House of Representatives. Splitting the Legislature into two bodies allows both of them to play games and avoid responsibility.
9) We want the Oregon Legislature to adopt the National Popular Vote plan so that Presidents are elected by popular vote.
American Extremists
HJM6 to full House for vote
Submitted by DavidDelk on Tue, 06/18/2013 - 10:13
HJM6-3 approved by Rules Committee unanimously
Today the Oregon House Rules Committee took a major step to end corporate domination by voting out of their committee HJM6-3. HJM6-3 is the revised Joint Memorial calling on Oregon's congressional delegation to send us a constitutional amendment to end the court-created doctrines that money is speech and that corporations are people. The committee voted unanimously to send the resolution to a vote of the full House.
Read the text of HJM6-3 here.
Time to take action!
Having sent it to the full House means we each need to advocate for its passage. Call or email your state representative NOW, express your support for HJM6 and inform them of your expectation that they will approve this and move it onto the senate. Because the legislative session will end soon, we need to take action NOW!
Governor Kitzhaber: Veto the Pro-Nepotism Bill
Submitted by info on Tue, 04/16/2013 - 16:00
WHAT OREGON GOVERNMENT NEEDS IS MORE NEPOTISM!
by Dan Meek
That is the message of HB 2079A, which has already passed the House and the Senate on April 15. Governor Kitzhaber has 5 days to sign or veto it.
UPDATE: Governor Kitzhaber has signed this bill, thus allowing public officials to decide to hire their own aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, half brothers, half sisters, stepchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, mother-in-law, and father-in-law, without even disclosing the relationship.
My testimony against the bill as it appeared in the House is attached. It has only gotten worse since then.
Under ORS 244.177, a public official is currently not allowed to appoint, employ, or promote a "relative" in a paid position with a "public body that the public official servers or over which the public official exercises jurisdiction or control," unless the public official does not participate in the decision to appoint, employ, or promote his or her "relative."
Oregon's nepotism restrictions currently apply to these "relatives" of a public official, under ORS 244.175(4):
(4) “Relative” means the spouse of the public official, any children of the public official or of the public official’s spouse, and brothers, sisters, half brothers, half sisters, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, sons-in-law, daughters-in-law, mothers-in-law, fathers-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, stepparents, stepchildren or parents of the public official or of the public official’s spouse.
HB 2079A substantially changes the definition of "relative" applicable to the nepotism restrictions. It eliminates from that definition the public official's half brothers, half sisters, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, stepchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, mother-in-law, and father-in-law, replacing the current definition with this:
"Relative" means:
(a) The spouse, parent, stepparent, child, sibling, stepsibling, son-in-law or daughter-in law of the public official or candidate;
(b) The parent, stepparent, child, sibling, stepsibling, son-in-law or daughter-in law of the spouse of the public official or candidate;
Some dictionaries define "sibling" as including only "a person's brother or sister," not a half brother or half sister. See Collins English Dictionary (HarperCollins 2003). The new definition covers "stepsiblings," but half-siblings and stepsiblings are not the same.
I see no reason to remove half brothers, half sisters, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, stepchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, mothers-in-law, and fathers-in-law from the nepotism restrictions.
Governor Kitzhaber: Please veto this bill.
Vote NO on Fluoride in Portland
Submitted by info on Thu, 04/11/2013 - 18:32
The Oregon Progressive Party urges a "NO" vote on putting fluoride in the Portland water supply (Measure 26-151) on the May 20113 ballot.
Read about it at Clean Water Portland
Trans Pacific Partnership - release the text
Submitted by DavidDelk on Mon, 03/18/2013 - 13:02
Obama is negotiating another "Free Trade Agreement" like NAFTA, only bigger and badder. Call your US Representative and Senators and tell them not to give Obama Fast Track Authority to pass it and tell them to demand that the agreement text be released now so we can know what is in the agreement. It is outrageous that 600 corporate lobbyists can read it and we cannot. Read the Alliance for Democracy flyer on this and find the link to contact to your rep and senators. http://www.afd-pdx.org/uploads/1/3/4/0/13403615/flyer_1_c.pdf and learn more on Fast Track Authority here: http://www.afd-pdx.org/no-fast-track-authority.html And tell your US Representative and Senators to
* release the text so that both the public and congress can read the text prior to President signing it
* not vote for Fast Track Authority for the President. Fast Track Authority has been used to enact almonst every "free Trade agreement.
Scott Silber: Threat to Themselves and Others: Intervention on the Corporate Addiction to Power Before It's Too Late
Submitted by DavidDelk on Sat, 02/02/2013 - 22:10
When: Sunday, Feb. 17, 7 PM
Where: First Unitarian Church, SW 12th and Salmon
Admission: $5-20 sliding scale. No one will be turned away for lack of funds
A provocative evening discussing corporate personhood with Scott Silber, lead faculty at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Constitutional Studies and Democratic Development's Youth Organizing Institute, human rights and environmental organizer, and former Director of Colorado's Public Workers' Union.
Scott is the Executive Director of National Intervention, which treats money in politics as an addictive substance. Intervention calls for a national deadline for the ratification of any amendment that abolishes corporate personhood and requires publicly funded elections, viewing any such amendment proposal as an urgent "sobriety checkpoint" for any elected official.
In the event Congress fails to pass that amendment "sobriety test" in time, National Intervention organizes a block-by-block "12-Step National Recovery Platform" campaign, calling on all of us who may be enablers of the addiction system to draw strong boundaries in our relationship to the addicts in power for a new social contract (a New New Deal) while we still have time.
Event co-sponsored by Alliance for Democracy, Economic Justice Action Group of the First Unitarian Church, Move to Amend PDX.
Join the event on Facebook and share with your friends.
Multnomah County considers corporate personhood resolution
Submitted by DavidDelk on Mon, 12/24/2012 - 11:16
On January 10, 2013, turn out as the Multnomah County Commission considers a resolution calling for Oregon's congressional delegation to support amending the US Constitution to overturn Citizens United, and eliminate the two court created doctrines of corporate personhood and money equals speech. We need you in the building showing your support for this.
Multnomah County Building 501 SE Hawthorne Portland OR Day/Date: Thursday, January 10, 2013 Time: 9:30 AM
Read the proposed resolution here.
Invite your Facebook Friends here.
More information from Alliance for Democracy, David Delk .
Michael Munk on Nike Tax Giveaway
Submitted by info on Wed, 12/12/2012 - 05:23
It is the genius of the 1%, who used to be called the “ruling class,” that its control of our politicians even when exercised brutally in the light of day can appear to Oregonians as just part of the natural order of things. Democrat Ginny Burdick of Portland and Republican Bruce Hanna quickly joined hands with the state’s major media http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/12/oregon_should_give_nike_the_as.html#incart_river to celebrate it with knee-jerk enthusiasm and demand that it be immediately translated into law.
Oregon Politicians on Their Knees to Nike
Submitted by info on Wed, 12/12/2012 - 05:16
David Delk brings us this cogent summary of the latest example of the difference between Democrats and Republicans. As Ralph Nader says, it is "the velocities with which their knees hit the floor when corporations knock on their door." The Oregon Center for Public Policy documented that the tax break Nike wants to be continued--on a guaranteed basis--reduces its Oregon state corporate income taxes by 95%. Because the Oregon Constitution requires taxation to be uniform, this guaranteed tax break would have to apply to all corporations, at least to any corporation making a $150 million investment in Oregon property over the next 5 years. Under the proposed bill, the contractually-guaranteed tax break would last from 5 to 40 years.
The Oregonian front page story on Tuesday was about the special session of the Oregon legislature called by the governor for passage of special protection of Nike from changes in the certain aspects of the Oregontax code for the next five years. Local activist Michael Munk dubbed it the Nike Corporate Welfare Law (read his blog statement here). The Oregonian article noted that there were critics of the move but only quoted the Oregon Center of Public Policy in a single paragraph. So much for fair and balanced reporting.
Oregon Center for Public Policy later issued their own response in an email titled: A Highly Dubious Assumption in the Governors Proposed Nike Deal. It is available on line here. Nike appears to be afraid that because the Oregon legislature might rework some tax policy, their special tax adjustment worked out with the Oregon legislature a decade or so ago in which only the in-state sales would be used as the basis for calculating the income tax owed to the state of Oregon might be changed. They say they want "certainty." Previously, the rate was based on value of company property in Oregon, total number of employees and total company sales around the world. With the passage of the Single-Sales Factor, Nike and other companies doing most of their business out-of-state (Intel, Precision Castparts, Boeing, Columbia Sportwear, for instance) received a very, very, very big tax break and we were left with decreasing tax revenues to pay for teachers, senior services, parks and other state services. Nike is part of that chorus of business that likes to remind us of the importance of having a educated population that they can hire even as they do their best to lower the taxes they pay.
And note that we don't know how much taxes Nike paid before receiving the generous tax break or how much they pay now. All such information is private and not to be disclosed of us or legislators.
The draft legislation to be considered is available here
Please contact your state Representative and Senator and demand that they vote no on this. And further, that they change the law to require disclosure of corporate tax reports. Find your representative and senator here.
Our Candidates Did Well in the 2012 General Election
Submitted by info on Wed, 11/07/2012 - 06:36
The Oregon Progressive Party's candidates performed well in the 2012 general election.
Minor parties in Oregon are required to run at least one statewide candidate earning 1% or more of the vote. We ran 3 statewide candidates, and all of them exceeded 1%.
Our candidates for U.S. Representative did even better, earning from 3.1% to 4.2%. We cross-nominated the Democrat, Peter DeFazio, in the 4th Congressional District, and he won with 59% of the vote.
| Our Candidate | Office | Vote | |
|
Rocky Anderson Robert Wolfe Cameron Whitten Chris Henry Steven Reynolds Woody Broadnax Peter DeFazio |
President Secretary of State, Oregon State Treasurer, Oregon Attorney General, Oregon U.S. Representative, 1st Dist U.S. Representative, 3rd Dist U.S. Representative, 4th Dist |
0.2% 1.3% 2.4% 1.7% 4.5% 3.7% 59.1% |
Also, the candidates we endorsed in non-partisan races did well. Brad Avakian won the statewide Labor Commissioner race. Amanda Fritz won re-election to the Portland City Council.
Willamette Week Article on Our Candidate, Robert Wolfe
Submitted by info on Wed, 10/31/2012 - 17:08
Big Bad Wolfe: An activist launches a campaign to oust Secretary of State Kate Brown
Willamette Week October 31, 2012
by Nigel Jaquis
A light drizzle fell on Bob Wolfe as he stood outside a citadel of the Portland establishment like the lupine nemesis in the story of the Three Little Pigs.
Wolfe was rattling the doors of the Portland City Club’s luncheon debate Oct. 26 at the Governor Hotel between Secretary of State Kate Brown and her Republican challenger, Dr. Knute Buehler. Wolfe is also on the ballot as the Progressive Party’s candidate. But no matter how loud he knocked, the City Club would not let him in.
City Club officials denied Wolfe access because (as they said in an Oct. 17 email to him) he isn’t a “viable candidate.”
Wolfe won’t win, but his only goal is defeating Brown, whom he accuses of suppressing Oregon voters by routinely invalidating tens of thousands of petition signatures.
He barreled into the secretary of state’s race late, on Aug. 28, after Brown’s office said a measure to legalize marijuana, for which he was chief petitioner, didn’t qualify for the November ballot. He now wants to draw votes away from Brown using the potency of Oregon’s marijuana legalization supporters.
In the May primary, Wolfe helped raise $200,000 in national marijuana money for now-Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum (who’s married to WW publisher Richard Meeker). He spent another $50,000 on radio ads bashing her opponent, Dwight Holton, who as U.S. attorney for Oregon targeted medical marijuana clinics.
“We killed Holton’s candidacy,” Wolfe says. “Now we’re hoping to motivate people to vote no on Kate Brown.” Read more ...
Check out our YouTube Channel
What exactly does the party
What exactly does the party mean when they say that they oppose the use of mercenaries. Because the entire U.S. military today is made up of mercenary soldiers. They are paid to fight for our country. By opposing mercenaries, does the Progressive Party oppose the use of these people paid to fight? Do they want a strictly volunteer army? Or is it that they want the U.S. to stop using private armies run by individuals?
Progressive Party opposes military private contractors
Our shorthand "oppose use of mercenaries" means that we oppose the U.S. military hiring private companies to kill people or "provide security." It is not a comment about a volunteer army. We also advocate the quickest possible withdrawal of all foreign military forces from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Generally it's a politics and
Generally it's a politics and it's there since then. It's a very old brand new things to us. It repeats again and again. The bottom line is what we can do the best is to help our nation. Let change starts at ourselves and spread it eventually. Big change always has a small beginning.