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.
With all of the enthusiasm with this election cycle, what are you going to do to reach out to young voters so that this elevated level of participation is not a fluke and is sustained and hopefully even increased from here?
?You may call them special interests. I think they?re special,? Brown said.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Emily Harris better correct her studderring, ahh,ahhahhahhahhahha, I just can't stand it much longer. I realize she is enthusiastic but her constant jitterring is tearing the show apart. I like the show but really she must listen to herself and take some corrective therapy. Just being honest.
Thanks and PLEASE FIX IT!
I would like to know from each candidate what the two biggest issues are which they wish to address during their administration as Secretary of State.
Their personal top two priorities.
Well, we got their top priority!
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?
How prepared are we, "rainy day fund"-wise, for the rainy days ahead, given the strong signals we are either in, or about to enter, a recession? Are we prepared for less federal funds coming from Washington? Are we looking at property and income tax increases, or just an end to kicker refunds?
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.)
On this now!
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?
The Secretary of State is the head of the Sustainability Board. What are your specific plans for the sustainability board and how can we give the board some teeth to actually effect change.
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?
Vote by mail is great and I'm proud that Oregon is leading the way on this. But in this world of secure online banking, has there been any significant discussion in Oregon regarding online voting?
Much has been discussed about online voting. Although very attractive, computer science and voting experts agree that there is no current way to securely vote online.
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??
Comments are now closed.