Sizemore Hijacks the Oregon System

Article by Nancy Haque

Would it surprise you that one man, Bill Sizemore, is the author and chief petitioner of five of the nine ballot measures that Oregonians will be voting on this November? And that just four months ago (July 2008), the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that Sizemore has engaged in fraud, forgery and racketeering in his signature gathering process? Just the fact that one man is behind the majority of this year’s initiatives shows just how broken the ballot measure system has become. A small number of people out to manipulate the ballot measure system have created big problems we all have to pay for.

The Ballot Measure System Hasn’t Always Been this Way

Ballot measures came about with a very “Western” sense of democracy by the people. Ballot measures have been part of Oregon’s history for over 100 years and are so much a part of our history that people inside and outside Oregon refer to ballot measures as “The Oregon System.”

“The Oregon System was the creative response to a mix of ideologies and discontents. It broke the power of many special interests and old political coalitions. It became a model for the rest of the country and was emulated in dozens of states and cities drawing inspiration from the power of a determined citizenry.” – Oregon Blue Book

The idea was that any group of people – a “determined citizenry” – could get together and propose new ideas for all voters to consider. In Oregon, our “determined citizenry” has put forward some progressive ideas over the years. For instance, women in Oregon got the right to vote eight years before it was guaranteed by the US Constitution in 1920 because it passed via ballot measure. More recently, the successful 2002 ballot measure to raise the minimum wage has kept Oregon’s minimum wage one of the highest in the country.

But increasingly, measures which actually help everyday Oregonians are few and far between. Rather than having dozens of “citizen lawmakers” putting ideas on the ballot, we have only a handful of right-wing activists who propose dozens of possible ballot initiatives every cycle and then see which proposals they can raise enough money to get past Oregon voters. Once these proposals become law, then all Oregonians foot the bill.

The Real Cost of Ballot Measures

These ballot measures have a huge effect on our state General Fund. Our state General Fund pays for education, public safety and vital services such as health care. Let’s look at just two of Sizemore’s latest measures and what they would to do to our state funds. 

Ballot Measure 59 officially says it would “create an unlimited deduction for federal income taxes on Oregon income-tax returns filed by individual taxpayers.” Sounds like a tax cut, and it is – for the wealthy. On average, most Oregonians would save less than $1. But it would reduce taxes for a small number of wealthy people.

Ballot Measure 58 would prohibit Oregon’s schools from keeping immigrant children in English Language Learning programs for more than two years. This would require schools to change their current programs and institute costly new English immersion programs. It would also take away the power of teachers, parents and even school districts from having a voice in a student’s education.

If passed, just these two ballot measures will cost us billions. Ballot Measure 59 would reduce the state budget by a projected $3.7 billion over the next four years. That would create shortfalls so large that the state would no longer be able to receive federal matching funds for much needs programs like medical services for the disabled.

Ballot Measure 58, if passed, could cost the General Fund over $1 billion over those same four years. That’s an estimate based on a similar bill that was passed in Arizona. Together, these bills would do irreparable harm to our state General Fund and more importantly, to the people whose lives depend on state services. Add in the damage that will be done if Kevin Mannix’s Measure 61 passes and the state will have to borrow the estimated $1.1 to $1.3 billion that new prisons will cost.

The Money behind the Measures

Mannix and Sizemore are behind most of the measures on the ballot this fall. What’s surprising is how much money they are able to raise to manipulate the ballot measure process, given their backgrounds. Mannix has lost five separate bids for public office, and Sizemore has substantial legal troubles – including the recent verdict by the Oregon Supreme Court that Sizemore ran a sham charity organization. In May of this year, Sizemore was also held in contempt of court for refusing to pay a $2.2 million judgment against him and his organizations that a jury awarded to two teachers unions, The Oregon Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers – Oregon. Sizemore has not paid a dime of the money he owes.

So how are they able to get money to wreak havoc on our state? From a very small circle of right-wing funders. According to the non-partisan group Democracy Reform Oregon, more than half of the funding behind this year’s ballot measures comes from out-of-state businessman Loren Parks. Parks lives in Nevada but owns a medical equipment company in Oregon and gives large amounts of money to conservative ballot measures and candidates here. Just leading up to this fall’s election, Parks has contributed $1,352,500 to support measures by Kevin Mannix, Russell Walker and Bill Sizemore.

Another major contributor to the Sizemore initiatives is called Hire Calling Public Affairs, which gave $325,000 to fund initiative campaigns. Hire Calling Public Affairs has connections to Richard Wendt, who is a founder of the Jeld-Wen window company and a well-known conservative activist. John Courtney connects these two companies – he has worked as a lobbyist for Hire Calling Public Affairs and is a lawyer representing Jeld-Wen. Hire Calling Public Affairs is located in Klamath Falls, Oregon, where Bill Sizemore and his family moved in 2006.

And that’s just the money to get initiatives on the ballot; once they’re on the ballot, the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ sides can spend millions through political action committees (PACs). Again, the funds come from generally a small group of donors. In 2006, 14 of the 17 PACs got the majority of their funding from ten or fewer donors.

In big ballot measure campaigns, such as the “Healthy Kids” initiative last November, which would have raised tobacco taxes to help pay for children’s health insurance, the opposition, big tobacco, outspent the Healthy Kids campaign 4-to-1, pouring $12 million into the fight.

The 2008 ballot measure season will similarly see millions of dollars spent advertising these measures, at a time when many Oregonians are worried about the basics: how to afford filling their gas tank and the weekly trip to the grocery store.

Ballot Measures Can Still Return to Serving the People

There is (hopefully) a silver lining to this story. The 2007 legislature passed a bill reforming the ballot initiative petition process. The new laws are designed to limit fraud by requiring campaign finances to be more transparent and require signature gatherers to get training and wear an identification badge.

The new laws also require that campaigns get a minimum of 1,000 signatures to file a ballot title, rather the old system’s 25 signatures, which will stop the practice of “ballot title shopping.” Ballot title shopping is when a petitioner will try dozens of different titles, trying to find one that’s acceptable and increases the odds of a measure passing – at great cost to the taxpayer.

The reforms also include ways to make the process more accessible for true “citizen lawmakers” instead of the small number of people who dominate the process now. Of course, Bill Sizemore doesn’t like these reforms and filed lawsuits against them.

Unfortunately for us, many of Sizemore’s measures already had enough signatures before the reforms took effect on January 1, 2008. So we are faced with one last election cycle that Sizemore has manipulated. The reforms enacted so far may not be enough for the “determined citizenry” to completely take back control of the ballot measure process, and there’s more to be done, but at least they are a step in the right direction.

Nancy Haque directs the Civic Participation Program for Western States Center.

This article first appeared in the Fall 2008 Issue of Justice Matters