- Email Signup
- Contact Us
- Progressive Party Positions Table
- Iraq & Syria
- Progressive Party 2014 Voter Pamphlet Statement
- Cease negotiations of TPP
- Ferguson & Inequality
- Police Body Cameras
- 28th Amendment to U.S. Constitution
- Health Care
- Environment (draft)
- Financial (draft)
- Foreign Relations (draft)
- Labor (draft)
- Market (draft)
- Political Reform (draft)
- Social Issues (draft)
- End Political Repression
- Joint Terrorism Task Force
- Pembina Propane Export Terminal
- Trans-Pacific Partnership
- Progressive Platform
- Register to Vote
- Press Coverage
- About OPP
- Flyers, Buttons, Posters, Videos
Campaign Finance Reform
Submitted by info on Wed, 11/09/2016 - 03:30
In the midst of the disaster of Trump triumph, our measures and candidates have done well.
A top priority was Multnomah County Measure 26-184, the campaign finance reform measure that passed by 89-11%. Chris Henry so far has 72,000 votes for State Treasurer (5% of the vote). His performance was needed for the Oregon Progressive Party to maintain its status as a recognized political party in Oregon for the next 4 years.
David Delk earned 7.3% of vote against Earl Blumenauer in Congressional District 3.
James Ofsink earned 14% in Oregon Senate District 21.
Sami Al-AbdRabhun earned 15% in Oregon House District 16.
Cynthia Hyatt earned 16% in Oregon House District 15.
Fergus McLean earned 10% in Oregon House District 7.
The above are all record high numbers for candidates of the Oregon Progressive Party.
We also cross-nominated some candidates who are affiliated with other parties.
Peter DeFazio (D) won easily in Congressional District 4.
Joe Rowe (PGP) earned 18% in Oregon House District 44.
Jill Stein (PGP) earned 2% for President.
Brad Avakian (D) earned 43% for Secretary of State but is 4 points behind Dennis Richardson (R) there.
Submitted by info on Fri, 07/08/2016 - 01:57
Measure would limit campaign contributions in Multnomah County candidate races and require that political ads disclose their largest funders
The Multnomah County Charter Review Committee (MCCRC) on July 6 voted to send to the voters a measure to limit political campaign contributions in Multnomah County candidate races and require that political ads in those races disclose their largest funders.
The Charter Review Committee is a special board of up to 15 persons, assembled once every 6 years, that has authority to place measures on the November ballot (pursuant to Section 12.70 of the Charter). A MCCRC Subcommittee unanimously adopted and forwarded to the full Committee a measure to enact limits on political campaign contributions in Multnomah County elections, similar to those adopted last year in Seattle, and to require that political advertisements identify their true largest sources of funding.
The full text of the proposal, the Subcommittee's report, and a 2-page summary, and other memoranda are at http://mccrc.fairelection.org.
Submitted by info on Wed, 05/25/2016 - 17:08
In a stunning display of democracy suppression, this afternoon the Secretary of State of Oregon refused to issue a ballot title for Initiative Petition 77 for 2016, which would amend the Oregon Constitution to allow limits on political campaign contributions and expenditures and allow laws requiring disclosure of the true sources and amounts of such contributions or expenditures in the communications they fund.
The Secretary of State claims that the Initiative would constitute more than one "closely related" amendment to the Oregon Constitution.
"When a similar contention was made against Measure 46 (2006), the Oregon Supreme Court rejected it in Meyer v. Bradbury (2006)," noted attorney Dan Meek. "This decision now requires the chief petitioners of Initiative Petition engage in costly litigation to defend the right of the people to amend their own Constitution to achieve campaign finance reform."
Submitted by info on Wed, 04/13/2016 - 18:46
Submitted by info on Sun, 01/10/2016 - 19:48
Submitted by DavidDelk on Thu, 12/24/2015 - 10:53
The Oregon Progressive Party has begun actively collecting signatures on a new statewide initiative petition (IP 77). This petition would:
allow Oregon to join the ranks of 46 other states with limits on money in the political process, and
- ensure that the actual sources of that money are disclosed to the public.
Oregon is the only state whose constitution has been interpreted to prohibit limits on contributions and expenditures to influence the outcome of elections, be they candidate elections or initiatives/referenda. As a result, Oregon elections are among the most expensive in the nation. The Oregonian reports that only New Jersey campaigns are more expensive on a per capita basis.
The chief petitioners are:
- Liz Trojan, State Council, Oregon Progressive Party
- Rob Harris, IPO Caucus, Independent Party of Oregon
- Seth Woolley, Member, Coordinating Committee, Pacific Green Party
We Need Your Help
We need to collect 1,000 valid Oregon voter signatures in order to get a ballot title for the initiative. You can help us with this effort. Please contact David e. Delk, Co-Chair of the Oregon Progressive Party, for instructions and petition sheets. David can be contacted at email@example.com or 503.232.5495.
How the Petition Reads
It is a model of simplicity. It reads:
Be it enacted by the People of the State of Oregon, there is added an Article II, Section 25, of the Constitution of Oregon:
Oregon laws consistent with the freedom of speech guarantee of the United States Constitution may:
1. limit contributions and expenditures (including transfers of money or resources) to influence the outcome of any election; and
2. require disclosure of the true sources and amounts of such contributions or expenditures (a)to the public and (b) in the communications they fund.
Thanks to Reps. DeFazio and Blumenauer for Sponsoring Constitutional Amendment to Nullify Citizens United and More
Submitted by info on Fri, 07/31/2015 - 03:55
July 31, 2015
Contact: David Delk
The Oregon Progressive Party commends Oregon U.S. Representatives Earl Blumenauer and Peter DeFazio for recently signing on as co-sponsors of the “We the People” proposed U.S. 28th Constitutional Amendment (HJR 48).
Since the January 2010 U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision much interest has been expressed in Congress and by citizens working at the local and state level in amending the Constitution to address the granting to corporations of the right to freely spend corporate funds on elections campaigns. The Court did so by concluding that corporations have constitutional rights--that they are in effect human beings with constitutional rights.
Oregon and 15 other states have now called for a constitutional amendment to at least overturn Citizens United. The “We the People” proposed amendment would go further by amending the U.S. Constitution to say that corporations are not people and money is not speech. Such an amendment would overturn court decisions going back to Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886), which gave 14th Amendment human rights to corporations, and would include more recent decisions like Buckley v Valeo, First National Bank of Boston v Bellotti, and others.
Submitted by info on Sat, 04/25/2015 - 02:08
Governor Kate Brown and Democrats in the Oregon Legislature are getting lots of laudatory press about proposing campaign finance reform. But their bill, SB 75, is 100% loophole and 0% limits. The only thing it would actually accomplish is repeal of the meaningful limits and disclosure requirements adopted by Oregon voters as Measure 47 of 2006. See the Testimony of Daniel Meek.
Submitted by DavidDelk on Fri, 02/20/2015 - 00:23
IN a letter to the editor of the The Oregonian, OR Progressive Party state council member wrote:
The Oregonian continues to repeat Kate Brown's talking points of favoring campaign finance reform. The record suggests that is a smoke screen to get votes. In fact, as Secretary of State, she has had the opportunity to enforce Measure 47, passed in 2006 by the state's voters, with strict limits on campaign contributions and expenditures. She has chosen not to enforce the law.
In the present legislature she has proposed two bills - one a constitutional amendment to allow limitations on contributions in candidate elections only. An effective amendment would also cover independent expenditures in candidate elections as well spending on initiative campaigns. The second would set some contribution limits in candidate elections but leaves gaping holes, and then, to add insult to injury, would overturn those limits contained in the voter approved Measure 47.
If Ms. Brown were truly in favor of campaign finance reform, she would have enforced the law which already exists instead of trying to eliminate it.
Submitted by info on Sun, 01/18/2015 - 06:16
January 16. 2015
by Jeff Mapes
Spending on Oregon legislative campaigns appeared to rise to a record level last year – but this time Democrats had a decided financial advantage.
An analysis by The Oregonian/OregonLive of campaign disclosure reports shows that legislative candidates spent about $23.7 million last year running for office.
That's an increase from the nearly $23 million spent by candidates in 2012, according to a similar analysis by The Oregonian/OregonLive two years ago. Studies done in past years by the National Institute on Money in State Politics, which focused on fundraising instead of spending, add to evidence that Oregon's legislative campaign spending hit a record last year.
Submitted by info on Sun, 09/14/2014 - 18:07
On September 11, the U.S. Senate voted 54-42 to break the filibuster on the resolution to send to the States a proposed constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. The Democrats all voted to break the filibuster but did not invoke the "nuclear option" that would allow that 54-42 vote to prevail. Instead, the Democrats allowed the Republicans to "win" with only 42 votes, thereby blocking a vote on the resolution itself. Thanks, Democrats. Of course, since such a resolution requires 2/3 affirmative votes in both houses of Congress, it would not be adopted by the current Congress.
The piece below shows that the resolution left much to be desired, anyway.
-- Dan Meek
As the US Senate moves to vote on the Udall proposed constitutional amendment to address the effects of the US Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, let's be clear.
by David Delk
We need a single constitutional amendment that says:
*Corporations are not people and do not have constitutional rights, and
*money is not speech, it is property and shall be subject to regulation at all levels of government.
*money is not speech, it is property and shall be subject to regulation at all levels of government.
From the sounds of the letters received as well as the emails, our democracy can only be saved from the plutocrats and corporatists if we sign the petitions and contribute some money to endorse passage of Senate Joint Resolution 19, the so-called Udall amendment. According to the letter dated August 13, 2014, from Public Citizen, “Senators Cantwell and McCaskill just announced that they will vote for our constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, McCutcheon and all the other disastrous Supreme Court decisions that are handing effective control of our democracy over to giant corporations and a tiny cabal of super-wealthy individuals.”
We agree with Public Citizen that this is a crucial time for our democracy and that urgent action is required. But is Senator Tom Udall's (D-NM) Amendment (SRJ19) the right amendment? Will it do what it is hyped to do?
Oregon Progressive Party says “Get some teeth in that”
We need a proposed constitutional amendment with some teeth, something that will really do what Public Citizen suggests the Udall Amendment will do, but actually would not.
Submitted by info on Sun, 06/08/2014 - 01:58
Big special interest money and national/multinational corporations dominates the political process. We need our democracy back! Now!
It is time to amend the U.S. Constitution.
This Public Service Announcement directs you to Movetoamend.org to support amending the constitution to say the corporations are not people and money in politics is not speech and should be regulated.
Produced by David Delk and Geoff Holland.
Submitted by info on Thu, 09/20/2012 - 05:21
OPP candidate for Secretary of State, Bob Wolfe, issued this press release on September 19. It was quoted by the Oregonian at Oregon Secretary of State candidates trade tough words over campaign spending limits.
Kate Brown today announced that her campaign for Secretary of State will limit its spending on the general election to $1 million. "This is a cynical political trick and does not reflect any concern for the huge influence of big money in Oregon elections," said Bob Wolfe, the candidate for Secretary of State of the Oregon Progressive Party.
“Brown has already spent millions promoting her name to Oregon voters, and her pledge won’t restrain limitless spending by public employee unions, her biggest supporters,” Wolfe said. Her pledge does not stop unions or corporations or other entities from making unlimited "independent expenditures" that would not be counted toward the $1 million limit.
In fact, Kate Brown refuses to enforce Oregon Measure 47, adopted by voters in 2006, as a solution to independent expenditures. That requires that every ad funded by independent expenditures prominently disclose the names, business interests, and amounts donated to the independent expenditure campaign by the top 5 donors to the campaign. This would let voters know where the money is coming from, which Kate Brown apparently does not want.
"If Kate Brown were concerned about money in politics, she would be enforcing the contribution limits and other provisions of Measure 47 (2006) instead of attacking that measure in court," Wolfe said.
Kate Brown has already spent over $2.6 million since 2000 promoting her name to Oregon voters. Now she wants all other candidates to comply with her spending limit going forward. That is like cutting the rations for everyone after only you have eaten a series of huge meals.
Brown’s ‘limit’ of $1 million this year comes on top of the $1.2 million Kate Brown spent in 2008. “Kate Brown is a poster child for excessive spending and the current record-holder for campaign spending in Oregon for any State office except Governor,” says Wolfe.
Brown has also avoided all opportunities to reform campaign spending in Oregon. According to Willamette Week (April 25, 2012) , "Brown has been silent on campaign finance reform and otherwise largely invisible."
“She has neither pursued nor accomplished anything on campaign finance reform during her 20 years as a candidate and state office-holder. Now she is suddenly concerned about money in politics? The only reason appears to be that for the first time one of her opponents might outspend her,” said Wolfe.
Submitted by info on Thu, 05/24/2012 - 04:29
AP reports: "The states who filed the brief in support of Montana are New York, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia and the District of Columbia." Not Oregon. Shame on Oregon.
See this ThinkProgress Article.
Submitted by cwclothier on Sat, 01/15/2011 - 15:56
Because of the extreme polarization of the political parties and our society, it appears we will never solve the long list of problems plaguing our country. Moreover, getting mad and yelling at the idiots on the other side only adds to the volume of all this crazy rhetoric and propaganda; and that solves nothing.
The solution is to change how our Representatives get elected and conduct business by enacting Campaign Finance Reform and eliminating the absurd amount of money corporate lobbyists spend for control of the political parties, and by extension, OUR government. Until there is a fair and level political arena for our Legislature to work in, I suspect all hope is lost. Moreover, since the Supreme Court strengthened the concept of corporate personhood, then corporations ought to be limited to the same rights and abilities to persuade our representatives as every person in this country has, no more and no less.