Tag Archives: oregon

by - 0 comments

Sen. Jeff Merkley: leading the way in partisanship

So much for working well across the aisle for the common good.

Jeff Merkley, D-OR, is one of the most partisan U.S. Senators, according to a just compiled Bipartisan Index that measures members of Congress. Of 100 Senators, Merkley ranked 93rd in bipartisanship.

Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-OR, a true blue partisan.

Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-OR, a true blue partisan.

A low score indicates that a legislator is viewing his or her duties through a partisan lens, rather than prioritizing problem solving and being open to working with the other party when possible, entertaining a wide range of ideas, and prioritizing governance over posturing.

The Lugar Center, a non-profit organization focusing on global policy issues, teamed up with the McCourt School of Public Policy at Georgetown University to develop a Bipartisan Index to measure members of Congress. The ranking of all senators, released for the first time on Tuesday, rates lawmakers by how their legislation does in attracting co-sponsors from the other party as well as how often they sponsor legislation proposed by members across the aisle.

“…sponsorship and co-sponsorship behavior is especially revealing of partisan tendencies,” said former Senator Richard G. Lugar, President of The Lugar Center. “Members’ voting decisions are often contextual and can be influenced by parliamentary circumstances. Sponsorships and co-sponsorships, in contrast, exist as very carefully considered declarations of where a legislator stands on an issue.”

Berkeley’s abysmal ranking in the Bipartisan Index suggests that he’s more interested in making political points than being an effective legislator. Partisan bills certainly have their place, but as Lugar said in his Introduction to the Bipartisan Index, “…at the beginning of the legislative process, when effective governance would argue for broadening a new bill’s appeal, too often the opposite is happening.  Bills are being written not to maximize their chances of passage, but to serve as legislative talking points.  Taking a position is not the same thing as governing.”

by - 0 comments

The Oregon Convention Center Hotel: paying off the unions

Ask any informed person without a vested interest in the proposed Oregon Convention Center Hotel whether they think it will be a fiasco and you’re likely to get a loud and clear, “Yep!”

But public opinion has little to do with whether the hotel will get built. The fix is in, with Metro, liberal politicians and labor unions joined at the hip.

Metro Council President Tom Hughes, the hotel’s principal cheerleader, was first elected to Metro in 2010 with the strong support of labor organizations; they continued that support in his successful 2014 race.

“I want to build a hotel,” Hughes once told union workers. “I want it to be built by union workers, and I want union workers running it.”

unite here

Portland has just three union-operated hotels, all organized by Unite Here Local 8: the Benson; the Paramount; and the Portland Hilton Hotel and Executive Tower.

The unions got their first break on the Convention Center project when Metro mandated that the hotel be built by union building trades.

Prospective developers were also told to bid the privately-owned and operated project under union-supported prevailing wage guidelines where wages are set artificially high above the market.

Metro stacked the deck in favor of the unions again when the Council required that Hyatt sign a labor peace agreement with Unite Here before Metro would begin negotiating the details of the project. Hyatt, long a non-union hotel chain, subsequently agreed to a national labor peace agreement with Unite Here.

Metro also gave unions an edge in organizing the eventual hotel workers by requiring that they use a voting process despised by employers and many workers called card check. Under card check, instead of holding a federally-supervised secret ballot election, workers get to vote under the watchful eyes of union organizers, Lucky them.

Once a majority of employees have signed cards, the union is immediately recognized.

As the AFL-CIO’s Southeastern Oregon Central Labor Council put it, the hotel workers “…will come into a workplace where their management has promised to leave any decisions to the workers without wasting money on deceiving anti-union campaigns.”

Yep, folks, the fix is in.

by - 1 Comment

Subsidizing electric cars in Oregon: a shockingly bad idea

Batteries don’t charge up electric cars; government subsidies do. At least that’s what supporters of a bill now before the Oregon House seem to believe.

The bill, H.B. 2092, would establish an Incentive Fund to make rebates of up to $3000 to purchasers of alternative fuel vehicles, including those that are powered by batteries or hydrogen fuel and gasoline-electric vehicles. Rebates from the fund could total as much as $30 million per biennium and would be on top of the already absurd federal subsidy of up to $7500.

Just what we need, a $30 million government subsidy to purchasers of pricey cars, when Oregon is already one of the top states for EV market share and the state has many other more pressing concerns to address.

The House Energy and Environment Committee held a public heating on the bill on April 2 and has a work session on the bill scheduled for today, April 16.

Under the bill, state rebates would help affluent Oregonians buy vehicles such as the $43,000 BMW i3 and $135,000 i8, the $42,000 Mercedes B-Class, the $106,000 Tesla Model S P85D, and the $35,000 Chevy Volt.

The purchaser of a $135,000 BMW i8 would be eligible for a $3,000 rebate from the state under H.R. 2092

The purchaser of a $135,000 BMW i8 would be eligible for a $3,000 rebate from the state under H.R. 2092

To put things in perspective, $30 million is more than the TOTAL state income tax liability of all personal filers in 16 Oregon counties in 2013: Baker County ($13.1 million), Crook ($18.2 million), Curry ($19.6 million), Gilliam ($12.1 million), Grant ($5.9 million), Harney ($5.1 million), Jefferson ($15.5 million), Lake ($6.2 million), Malheur ($17.6 million), Morrow ($11.1 million), Sherman ($2.6 million), Tillamook ($23.6 million), Union ($24.7 million), Wallowa ($6.1 million), Wasco ($23.6 million) and Wheeler ($1.3 million).

If I lived in one of those counties I wouldn’t look kindly on all my personal state income tax payments going to this alternative fuel vehicle boondoggle.

Let’s be honest here, folks. There are a lot of other places $30 million could be invested more wisely in Oregon.

Seven Oregon counties have been losing population, Coos, Baker, Wallowa, Malheur, Grant, Wheeler, and Sherman.

If the Legislature can find another $30 million to spend, why not use the $30 million to help these struggling counties attract businesses?

Deserving young people around the state are dealing with the stresses and strains of trying to find the money to pay for post-secondary education.

Why not put the $30 million in Oregon Opportunity Grants, the state’s need based financial aid program.

The state invests in Employment Related Day Care in support of the Early Learning initiative, providing greater access to quality childcare for Oregon’s working families.

How about adding $30 million to the budget for that?

A potential decline in lottery revenues during the 2015-17 biennium is likely to present budget issues for the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department, Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, Department of Agriculture, Department of Environmental Quality, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Oregon State Police Division of Fish and Wildlife. In addition, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife is facing a significant budget shortfall.

The legislature could help out the Natural Resource Program area by adding $30 million to its budget.

The logical decision? Short-circuit this bill.

by - 1 Comment

We’re waist deep in the Big Muddy: the Oregon Convention Center hotel

The 990,000 sq. ft. Crystal Palace opened at Britain’s Great Exhibition of the Works of Industry of All Nations in London’s Hyde Park in 1851.

The 990,000 sq. ft. Crystal Palace opened at Britain’s Great Exhibition of the Works of Industry of All Nations in London’s Hyde Park in 1851.

For some reason, politicians are infatuated with building stuff. They’re objectophiles, aroused by, even obsessed with, things rather than people

In Portland, politicians have fallen head over heels in love with the idea of building a Convention Center hotel. The object of their desire is a subsidized $212 million 600-room Hyatt Hotel.

But the fact is, it was a bad idea right out of the gate and it’s an even worse idea now.

On the one hand, given Portland’s vigorous emergence from the Great Recession and a skyline brimming with construction cranes, the assumption that government-mandated subsidies are critical to building a convention center hotel is outdated if Metro believes the hotel’s success is a slam dunk. On the other hand, if the growing competition in the convention market will make adding a subsidized hotel a foolish gamble, then why do it at all?

“Faced with convention centers that are routinely failing to deliver on the promises of their proponents and the forecasts of their feasibility study consultants, many cities wind up, as they say, “throwing good money after bad,” said a Brookings report. “Indeed, weak performance—an underutilized center, falling attendance, an absence of promised private investment nearby—is often the justification for further public investment. A new center is thus often followed by a subsidized or fully publicly-owned hotel…”

A May 2013 rendering of a proposed Hyatt hotel at the Oregon Convention Center.

A May 2013 rendering of a proposed Hyatt hotel at the Oregon Convention Center.

So here we are.

The Portland project would be funded with $60 million in Metro-issued revenue bonds, backed by taxes the hotel would generate, plus $18 million in grants and loans from Metro, the Portland Development Commission and the state lottery.

But there are problems with Portland’s hotel proposal, as well as with the arms race of convention center-related construction going on around the country. According to CityLab, there simply aren’t enough big conventions to justify all the convention center expansions. Since 1995, convention space in the United States has increased by 50 percent, but convention growth hasn’t kept pace. “So many were saying, ‘all you have to do is get one percent of the national market and you’ll do just fine,'” he says. “Three hundred cities bought the same logic.”

In fact, the number of conventions in the United States has fallen over the past decade, as has attendance at the largest conventions.

The optimistic predictions for the Oregon Convention Center and an associated hotel neglect to consider that lots of other cities are expanding, too.

Boston is considering a $1 billion expansion of its convention center with a massive 1,200 room $800 million hotel. A Marriott Marquis Hotel is expected to open in 2016 across from the George R. Brown Convention Center in Houston. Hotel operators Omni, Hyatt, Starwood, Peabody and Marcus have shown interest in a request issued by Oklahoma City to develop a 500- to 800-room downtown convention hotel to go with a $287 million convention center scheduled to open in 2019.

Even Des Moines, Iowa is in the game. In Feb. 2015, city and county officials approved a $101 million 10-story 330-room convention hotel project attached to the Iowa Events Center. Officials said they expected the project would draw many more national events to Des Moines and add considerable revenue to the property tax base.

And the list goes on and on.

But not to worry. Portland has advantages because it’s a happening city – food, culture, livability, young professionals – enthused the Oregon Convention Center’s ebullient 2013-2014 Annual Report. That year, the Center hosted 343 events attended by 549,762 people, many of them first time visitors to Portland, the report proclaimed.

But dig deeper into the dry numbers at the end of the report and you’ll find a less glowing story.

The number of events at the Oregon Convention Center actually shrank from 469 in FY2011 to 392 in FY2012, 377 in FY2013 and 343 in FY2014. Meanwhile, net operating results showed losses growing from $10 million in FY2011 to $11.6 million in FY2014.

Despite these numbers, and continuing controversy over the planned subsidized hotel, Metro president Tom Hughes calls critics “short-sighted and selfish” for wanting a public vote on the hotel project.

The hotel plan “promises generous returns for many years to come,” Hughes has said.

So we slog along.

Waist deep! Neck deep! Soon even a

Tall man’ll be over his head, we’re

Waist deep in the Big Muddy!

 

by - 0 comments

Stuck: running in place in Oregon

I work in Hillsboro, OR where evidence of a strong economy is everywhere. It’s tempting to assume that family income must be growing by leaps and bounds in Washington County, too, and to extrapolate and assume all is well statewide.

Not so much.

In fact, even Washington County isn’t doing that great, despite the presence of Intel, which has been growing like kudzu, feverishly sprouting buildings and good jobs.

Way back, growth in the U.S. economy was accompanied by income increases across the board, improving the lot of the poor and expanding the middle class. Everybody shared in the rising tide.

middle_class_family

But that hasn’t been happening for a long time. Now a lot of people find themselves working harder, but just treading water.

“Over the past 25 years, the (U.S.) economy has grown 83 percent, after adjusting for inflation — and the typical family’s income hasn’t budged,” according to a recent analysis by the Washington Post. “In that time, corporate profits doubled as a share of the economy. Workers today produce nearly twice as many goods and services per hour on the job as they did in 1989, but as a group, they get less of the nation’s economic pie.”

The result? In 81 percent of America’s counties, median family income is lower today than it was 15 years ago, the Post analysis revealed.

What about in Oregon? I decided to look deeper. The data shows that in 25 Oregon counties, the inflation-adjusted median family income is lower today than it was 15 years ago.

That’s true even in Washington County where median household income, adjusted for inflation, actually peaked in 1999 at $72,787. That year was also the peak for such wildly dispersed counties as Clackamas, Deschutes and Malheur.

The situation is even worse in counties such as Baker and Lake where median family income, adjusted for inflation, hit its peak 35 years ago.

If you really want to hit bottom, there are six counties, including Curry, Lane and Wheeler, where medium family income, adjusted for inflation, peaked 45 years ago. That’s right, almost half a century ago, when Richard Nixon was inaugurated President and the Apollo 11 astronauts, Neil Armstrong and Edwin E. Aldrin, Jr., took their first walk on the moon.

So what we have in Oregon is an economy in which few of us are really better off economically then we were years ago.

Here’s the county-by-county breakdown of when median household income, adjusted for inflation, peaked in each of Oregon’s 36 counties and the level at which it peaked.

Oregon-county-map

County Peak Year Amount
Hood River 2013 $56,725
Sherman 2009 $52,664
Washington 1999 $72,787
Clackamas 1999 $72,264
Columbia 1999 $63,555
Yamhill 1999 $62,070
Polk 1999 $59,218
Benton 1999 $58,558
Deschutes 1999 $58,159
Multnomah 1999 $57,733
Marian 1999 $56,673
Linn 1999 $52,326
Crook 1999 $50,759
Jackson 1999 $50,734
Clatsop 1999 $50,289
Jefferson 1999 $49,678
Tillamook 1999 $48,026
Wallowa 1999 $44,726
Josephine 1999 $43,406
Malheur 1999 $42,525
Morrow 1979 $57,126
Wasco 1979 $54,645
Harney 1979 $54,318
Umatilla 1979 $50,513
Lake 1979 $49,714
Grant 1979 $48,786
Union 1979 $48,006
Lincoln 1979 $47,053
Baker 1979 $42,760
Lane 1969 $52,736
Coos 1969 $52,171
Gilliam 1969 $49,892
Klamath 1969 $49,511
Curry 1969 $49,042
Wheeler 1969 $40,675

SOURCES: U.S. Census and American Community Survey. Amounts in 2013 dollars.

by - 0 comments

Who owns Chuck Riley?

Democrat Chuck Riley’s defeat of Republican Bruce Starr on Nov. 4 for Oregon’s 15th District Senate seat cost a ton of money. Now, like a company that’s gone public, his key supporters are going to expect a return on their investments.

rileySenate

As of Dec. 8, 2014, Riley’s campaign committee, Friends of Chuck Riley, had raised $913,372.33 and spent $889,757.01, according to records on file with the Oregon Secretary of State. The onslaught of campaign cash was so great that the contest ended up being the most expensive state Senate race in Oregon history.

But it was also a very tight race, with Riley finally coming in ahead by just 287 votes out of 39,734 cast. Likely costing Starr the race was the Libertarian candidate, Caitlin Mitchel-Markley, who captured 3,593 votes.

That suggests the next race will be hard fought as well, particularly if no 3rd party candidate runs, and that it will again require a substantial war chest. To create that war chest Riley will have to placate some big givers. After all, it was the big givers who filled his coffers, not the little people.
So who does Chuck Riley owe for his victory?

The biggest cash/in-kind contributors to Friends of Chuck Riley were Riley’s own Democratic Party, unions, a climate change activist, trial lawyers, and two national gun control groups.

The money from the Democratic Party came from two groups, the Senate Democratic Leadership Fund ($174,585.50)
and the Democratic Party of Oregon ($107,577.56), which received significant contributions from some of the same characters as Riley’s committee.

For example, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s gun control group, Everytown for Gun Safety, donated $75,000 directly to Friends of Chuck Riley and $50,000 to the Senate Democratic Leadership Fund.

Michael Bloomberg

Michael Bloomberg

Riley’s committee also pulled in $10,000 from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Other big contributors to Riley’s Committee included:

• Service Employees International Union (SEIU) $204,460.39

This includes: $193,661.96 from Citizen Action for Political Education of SEIU Local 503; $10,798.43 from Committee on Political Education of SEIU Local 49.

seiu

• Oregon League of Conservation Voters PAC $191,120.02

OLCV made an in-kind contribution of $127,498.50 in the form of a TV ad. The balance was in the form of: cash; in-kind field work, postage, preparation and production of advertising and a phone program. The TV ad money came out of a $130,000.00 contribution to OLCV from NextGen Climate Action Committee, established by billionaire Tom Steyer to help candidates who support the need to deal with climate change.

Oregon_League_of_Conservation_Voters-270x222

• Oregon Trial Lawyers Association PAC $38,477.87

otla_logo

• Oregon American Federation of State, County
and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Council 75
Political Soft $17,500.00

afscme

• Oregon Education Association – People for
Improvement of Education $8,342.00

OEA_logo

• Other unions $10,500.00

Joint Council of Teamsters No. 37 Political Fund
$1,750

United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local
555
$4,500

Oregon School Employees Association – Voice of
Involved Classified Employees
$1,000

International Union of Operating Engineers, Local
701 Misc PAC
$250

American Federation of Teachers-Oregon Candidate
PAC
$3,000

All of the above contributions totaled $752,563.34. That’s 85 percent of total expenditures by Riley’s committee.

Compare that with the amount that came in from contributors of $100 or less, about $8000. That’s less than 1 percent of total expenditures by Riley’s committee. Even if all the small contributors had bundled their money in an effort to enhance their potential influence, they would have been a small player. They might as well have spent their money on a nice dinner out.

So, how are we going to know the influence of the big donors on Riley? It’s not going to be easy.

First of all, it’s not clear that the size of Riley’s war chest was the key determinant in his victory. There’s no hard evidence of a constant linear linkage between campaign money and victory, although a candidate does need enough money to deliver key messages to critical audiences.

But now that Riley has been elected, the major donors are likely to influence positions Riley takes.Equally important, large donations to Riley are likely to give certain interests better access to him to influence public policy in general.

Big donors will also probably have an ability to influence the shape and specifics of legislation that’s before Riley much earlier in the legislative process, when it’s harder for the public to detect.

Large donations may also carry the day on critical votes where Riley’s one vote for or against can determine the fate of a bill. “These low salience critical votes present the most likely circumstances for members to repay groups for their financial support,” according to Lynda Powell at the University of Rochester in a paper on The Influence of Campaign Contributions on Legislative Policy.

One thing is clear – the big donors are going to be keeping an eye on Riley, just like big investors keep an eye on the stock market. All investments carry some risk, but the reward for risk can be a great return.

return-on-investment1

by - 0 comments

Over the top: Oregon’s $10 million State Senate election

“There are two things that are important in politics,” U.S. Senator Mark Hanna said in 1895. “The first is money and I can’t remember what the second one is.”

Candidates for Oregon’s state Senate showed the truth in that observation in their 2014 races, which led to campaign spending of $10 million. That’s right, $10 million to decide the winners of just 16 Senate seats in a state with a smaller population than Kentucky.

Oregon Senate

Oregon Senate

That’s $10 million, enough to cover the annual tuition and fees of 1026 students at the University of Oregon.

But wait. There’s more. Candidates in 3 of those 16 races ran unopposed and candidates in 7 others were in such uncompetitive races that the victor won by more than 15%. That leaves just 6 seats with real races.

Here are the 6, with the expenditures by each candidate and the winning margins:

Screen Shot 2014-11-22 at 5.42.14 PM

Of the 6 competitive races, the Democrats won 4 and the Republicans 2, giving the Democrats more solid control of the Senate.

Based on filings with the Oregon Secretary of State, the committees of all the candidates for the 16 Senate seats spent a combined total of $7,816,657.33 in the primary and the general elections.

The most expensive race in terms of candidate committee spending expenditures was the one between Bruce Starr and Chuck Riley with total expenditures of $1,794,346.39. That made it the most expensive State Senate race in Oregon history.

Bruce Starr (L) and Chuck Riley

Bruce Starr (L) and Chuck Riley

On top of these candidate committee expenditures, the Senate Republican and Democratic Party Leadership Funds spent a bundle.

Figuring out how much they spent beyond the spending of the candidate committees gets a little tricky here. That’s because some of the money spent by the Senate Leadership Funds came from contributions by candidate committees. These contributions also show up as expenditures by the candidate committees, so counting them also as expenditures by the Leadership Funds would be double counting. Therefore, in order to accurately figure out additional spending by the Leadership Funds you have to subtract the money they received from the candidate committees. Got it?

In the case of the Senate Democratic Leadership Fund, the contributions it received beyond donations from the candidate committees include $50,000 from Everytown for Gun Safety (former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s operation), $100,000 from the Democratic Leadership Campaign Committee (A Washington, D.C.-based group that works to win state legislative seats and chambers for Democrats), and $50,000 from the Oregon Priorities PAC.

Michael Bloomberg

Michael Bloomberg

After the election, Everytown for Gun Safety, which also contributed $75,000 to the successful State Senate campaign of Chuck Riley-D and $250,000 to Gov. Kitzhaber, boasted of its campaign influence. “…the election of Rep. Sara Gelser (who received $186,014.40 from the Senate Democratic Leadership Fund) to the state Senate signals a pro-background check majority in 2015, which clears the most significant roadblock in Everytown for Gun Safety’s work over the past two years to pass a background check bill there,” Everytown said.

The extra expenditures by the Senate Democratic Leadership Fund, beyond contributions it received from candidate committees, totaled $1,140,387.53.

In the case of The Leadership Fund for Senate Republicans, major contributions, beyond donations from the committees of the candidates running in 2014, included $15,000 from the Oregon Sportsmens Association PAC, $45,000 from the Oregon Family Farm Association PAC, $25,000 from the Taxpayers Association of Oregon PAC and $20,000 from the Pacific Seafood Group Employee PAC.

The Republican Leadership Fund, just like the Democratic Leadership Fund, also received substantial sums from current state senators not running in 2014. Friends of Ted Ferrioli, for example, raised $305,298.28 in 2014, then turned around and donated $213,500 of that to the Republican Leadership Fund.

Using the same formula as with the Senate Democratic Leadership Fund, the extra expenditures by The Leadership Fund for Senate Republicans totaled $1,222,851.

Add it all up and you have $10,179,985.80.

And that doesn’t even count money spent by other groups in support of Senate candidates, including some so-called dark money which will never be disclosed.

Clearly, Oregon is headed for the big time. The question: what are the big contributors going to expect as a return on their investments?

by - 1 Comment

Climate change and guns: the long arms of out-of-state billionaires reach into the Oregon Senate

What do Tom Steyer of San Francisco (and Lake Tahoe and Pescadero) and Michael Bloomberg of New York (and Bermuda, London, Colorado and Florida) have to do with Oregon politics? A lot it turns out.

Their money helped the Democrats strengthen their hold on the Oregon Senate and potentially push through controversial environmental and gun control legislation.

Bloomberg is the billionaire co-founder of Bloomberg L.P., a privately held financial software, data and media company based in New York City, and a former mayor of New York City.

Michael Bloomberg

Michael Bloomberg

Steyer is a billionaire who co-founded the $21 billion Farallon Capital Management fund. He spent an estimated $65 million this election through his NextGen Climate political action committee (PAC) to help candidates who support the need to deal with climate change.

Tom Steyer

Tom Steyer

Steyer spent $8.5 million in Colorado to help Democrat Sen. Mark Udall in his losing race against Republican Cory Gardner.

He also spent $11 million in Iowa to help Democrat Bruce Braley in his losing Senate race against Republican Joni Ernst.

His ambitions in Oregon were considerably more modest, but could still have a big impact. Here his NextGen PAC spent $130,000 to help Democrat Chuck Riley in his race against Republican State Senator Bruce Starr and Democrat Sara Gelser in her Senate race against Republican Betsy Close.

Riley defeated Starr in a squeaker by just 221 votes, 17,930 to 17,709; Gelser handily defeated Close by 27,375 to 21,571.

Riley’s campaign finance report doesn’t show any contributions from Streyer’s out-of-state PAC. That’s because the PAC donated the money to the Oregon League of Conservation Voters (OLCV) PAC, which is for all intents and purposes an arm of the Democratic Party. The in-state OLCV PAC then used the funds to support Riley, giving him a total of $191,120.02.

To further bolster the Democrat’s cause, Steyer’s NextGen Climate Action Committee also gave $100,000 to the Democratic Party of Oregon.

Gelser’s campaign finance report doesn’t show any contributions from Streyer’s out-of-state PAC either, but it does show $76,755.36 from the OLCV.
.
Meanwhile, Bloomberg’s EveryTown for Gun Safety Action Fund sent $75,000 to Riley’s campaign, as well as $250,000 to Gov. Kitzhaber and $50,000 to the Senate Democratic Leadership Fund.

Everytown for Gun Safety was created earlier this year by combining a Bloomberg-backed group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, with Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, a movement that grew out of the Newtown shootings in 2012. The two groups have been working together since December.

Did the Steyer and Bloomberg money make a difference?

According to filings with the Oregon Secretary of State, Riley raised a total of $891,153.99 for his campaign and Starr a total of $901,097.63. That means a significant portion of Riley’s campaign money came just from Steyer and Bloomberg.

Add whatever impact Steyer’s $100,000 donation to the Democratic Party of Oregon had on Riley’s race and these two out-of-staters likely played a huge role in Riley’s victory.

According to filings with the Oregon Secretary of State, Gelser raised a total of $843,711.67 for her campaign. Of that, $76,755.36 came from the OLCV. Close raised significantly less, $556,628.14.

The Steyer/OLCV money probably didn’t play as much of a key role in Gelser’s victory, but it surely helped expand her advantage.

Oregon tried to limit the influence of out-of-state campaign contributions in 1994 when it passed Ballot Measure 6 that amended the Oregon Constitution to limit out-of-district contributions to 10 percent of the total. But a federal appeals court ruled in 1998 that the limit violated the First Amendment and was unconstitutional.

So expect more of the same in future Oregon elections, and then some.

by - 0 comments

Merkley loses

As of Oct. 15, 2014, Senator Jeff Merkley’s Leadership PAC had given out contributions to other Senate Democrats running for office in Nov. 2014. Based on the results of the election, he didn’t make very good investments. And now he’s going to be in the minority, too. Tough luck.

merkleySenate

Total to Democrats: $91,000
Total to Republicans: $0

Recipient Total

Begich, Mark (D-AK) $10,000 LOST
Braley, Bruce (D-IA) $ 1,500 LOST
Coons, Chris (D-DE) $ 5,000 LOST
Franken, Al (D-MN) $ 5,000
Grimes, Alison (D-KY) $ 5,000 LOST
Hagan, Kay R (D-NC) $ 7,500 LOST
Landrieu, Mary L (D-LA) $ 7,500 WILL LOSE
Markey, Ed (D-MA $ 2,000
Nunn, Michelle (D-GA) $ 5,000 LOST
Peters, Gary (D-MI) $ 1,500
Pryor, Mark (D-AR) $ 7,500 LOST
Reed, Jack (D-RI) $ 5,000
Schatz, Brian (D-HI) $ 2,500
Shaheen, Jeanne (D-NH) $ 7,500
Udall, Mark (D-CO) $ 5,000 LOST
Udall, Tom (D-NM) $ 3,500
Walsh, John (D-MT) $ 5,000 WITHDREW
Warner, Mark (D-VA) $ 5,000

Based on data released by the FEC on October 25, 2014.
Center for Responsive Politics.

by - 0 comments

In responsione: OSU and state support for higher education

After I wrote about Oregon’s abandonment of higher education, focusing on the situation at the University of Oregon, Steve Clark, Vice President for University Relations at OSU, responded to me with some informative comments.

Steve Clark, Oregon State University

Steve Clark, Oregon State University

Mr. Clark agreed to let me share them:

Like you, at Oregon State, we worry about the cost of higher education for Oregonians. I would like to share with you a number of steps we have taken to minimize the impacts of this change in state funding, but we do realize that there is more work to do in this regard. And while our efforts are many and have had a positive impact, we continue to urge Oregon legislators to restore higher education funding at least to levels provided in 2007.

Weatherford Hall at Oregon State University

Here is some information that I hope aids you and shows how Oregon State remains a public university for Oregonians.

I realize that while your column largely shared statistics about the University of Oregon, your point was that all of Oregon’s public universities are public in name only.

While OSU’s out-of-state and international enrollment has grown over the past decade, OSU’s undergraduate enrollment is still 74% made up of Oregonians. That percentage has declined over the past decade, but we have pledged to not let it fall below 66%. That’s our land grant mission.

Meanwhile, we have launched OSU Open Campus to bring educational programs directly to Oregon communities in partnership with local school districts, ESDs and community colleges. And we have dual degree partnerships with all of our Oregon’s 17 community colleges … so students can simultaneously enroll at OSU and the community college near their home and then transfer after a year or two of community college to attend Oregon State without losing credits. In some cases – such as in an agricultural sciences program with Klamath Community College – a student can graduate in four years without ever having to come to Corvallis, but instead take community college courses for two years or so and then complete their degree taking OSU on-line distance learning classes.

We do recognize tuition and fees are expensive. OSU’s in-state tuition and fees are $9,123 per year compared to the $9,918 you pointed out about UO. Still that is a lot more than students paid 7 to 10 years ago. Out-of-state tuition at OSU is $26,295 per year compared with $30,888 at UO.

With such a heavy tuition load in mind, we launched many years ago our Bridge to Success program. It enables 2,600 to 3,000 Oregonians per year to attend OSU without paying any tuition and fees. The program combines Oregon Opportunity Grants, federal Pell funds and university funds. And then there is our OSU Foundation philanthropy – The Campaign for OSU has raised more than $183 million for student scholarships.

Yes, there is a significant issue with how the state funds higher education in Oregon and we are working with the legislature to change that. Time will tell about such efforts. Meanwhile, as Oregon’s statewide university, we will not abandon Oregonians. And we will work hard to moderate costs, bring higher education to many Oregon communities, and grow funding for financial aid for students.

Steve Clark