OREGON VOTERS issued a rebuke to corporate lobbyists, the right, and the Oregonian‘s editorial board on Tuesday night, January 26, by upholding a 2009 decision made by the Democratic legislature to modestly increase taxes on the wealthy and corporations.
Statewide news outlets called the election just 15 minutes after polls closed on Tuesday night, when the “Yes” campaign led with a 54 to 45 percent margin. The tax increases will patch a $730 million hole in the Oregon state budget. State employees and service providers were bracing for severe cuts in the case of a loss.
“In the course of this campaign you have been maligned, you’ve been disrespected,” Steve Novick—the former Democratic candidate for the US Senate and a spokesman for the “Yes” effort—told the ecstatic crowd packing the victory party at the Wonder Ballroom. “You’ve been cheated, you’ve been mistreated. But tonight, the voters of Oregon let you know that you are loved.”
The crowd broke into thunderous applause, stomping the ballroom floor, screaming congratulations, and ultimately singing “Oregon, My Oregon,” the state song. What began as a statewide election captured national attention over the past week, following the defeat of Democratic senatorial candidate Martha Coakley in Massachusetts. A Fox News blog noted on election day that the Republican National Committee had lent out a staffer to the “No” campaign, hoping to “build on the momentum” of the Massachusetts result. “What happens here may be closely watched elsewhere,” wrote William Yardley in the New York Times, on Sunday, January 24.
The union-backed Vote Yes For Oregon campaign outspent its opposition group, Oregonians Against Job Killing Taxes, $6.8 million to $4.56 million. Its volunteers knocked on over 300,000 doors statewide and called over a million people to boost voter turnout.
The campaign grew increasingly bitter as election day neared. The state attorney general’s office began investigating local teabagging group Americans For Prosperity on Monday, January 25, after it paid for robo-calls to voters on the federal “do-not-call” list. Secretary of State Kate Brown also rebuked lobbyist Mark Nelson of the “No” campaign in January, after he mailed out campaign material that resembled fake ballots.
Three days before the election, “Yes” Campaign Director Kevin Looper described Oregonian Publisher N. Christian Anderson III as “chickenshit” after Anderson’s advertising staff censored a “Yes on 66/67” ad in the state’s biggest daily, claiming that it was “misleading.” On the other hand, the paper allowed misleading claims in the “No” campaign’s ad to be printed without a hitch—their ads falsely claimed the measures protected salary increases for state employees and would lead to massive job losses statewide.
Looper’s censored ad took on the paper’s endorsement of a “No” vote in the election and suggested that Anderson’s recent hiring from a conservative paper in Orange County, California, swayed the Oregonian editorial board. It also attacked Anderson’s change in the paper’s policy on running front-page “spadea” ads from political campaigns, which could confuse some voters.
The next day, in a publisher’s note, Anderson printed a denial of allegations that he was a “right-wing nut.” The paper’s editorial page editor, Bob Caldwell, also called Looper’s claims that he is “terrified for [his] job” a load of “pure B.S.” Managing Editor Therese Bottomly said her reporters had not been told to avoid mentioning Anderson’s name in their stories, either, as Looper had suggested.
It also emerged on Monday that the Oregonian‘s General Advertising Manager Debi Walery sits on the board of the National Grocery Association, the largest donor to the “No” campaign and the group that also wrote the check for the two Oregonian front-page “No” ads. Walery did not return a call for comment by press time. Adding to the advertising controversy is a recent change in state election law that made the price of political advertising less transparent. As of January 1, Oregon political campaigns no longer have to break down how much they spend with specific media outlets. The Oregonian eventually caved to pressure and coughed up the price of the two ads bought by the “No” campaign: $44,700 in total. Looper’s ad, he said, cost $20,000.
The Mercury recommended a “yes” vote on the measures [“Stop The Chicken,” News, January 14].
“I hold in my hand, from June 21st, the Oregonian headline saying ‘Democrats Bet Against History on Tax Hikes,'” said Looper, prompting boos and hisses from the crowd at the victory party. “If this victory says anything, and I think it says a lot, it says that when leaders actually have the courage to stand up for the little people, when they give them something to vote for, the people are with them.”
Would it be possible for the two of you (Ms. Mirk and Mr. Davis) to do some follow up reporting regarding the impact these taxes will have on the state budget. Although we know what the projected sum I wonder how many businesses will either leave the state or find loop-holes.
A break down of total tax liability (payroll, this new gross sales tax, et cetera) of some sample businesses would be interesting as well. (I would be happy to provide my own corporate return as a case study; you could also include some other small businesses with a greater income than my own and a couple of big businesses.)
I also wonder which of the two taxes will bring in more revenue (actual and not projected). It would be nice if the topic wasn’t dropped just because they passed. I never really understood either measure that well.
Finally it would be nice to see the specific programs these revenues will fund (more specific than ‘schools’).
Thanks!
Yeah, the Oregonian has 0 credibiity as a news paper. It’s been several monthes since i actually read the big “O”, but none of what i’ve read in this here article surprises me. Within monthes of moving to portland, i picked up that the Oregonian was a bias, centrist RIGHT paper whose editorial board could hardly be trusted.
And to think – 2 years ago it was TWICE the paper it is now & costs HALF as much!
Thank you C – the byline states “What Victory on Measures 66 and 67 Really Means” and then the entire article is a recap of a political cat fight. Huh? What impact will these taxes have on our state?
C & predator, all that info is available. to know how a business is affected, you just have to know how it’s structured: single-owner? LLC? S or C corp? only C corps pay more than $150, and that depends on sales/profits. plenty of samples of real-life businesses were provided throughout the campaign. OCPP provided simple flowcharts to guide people thru how a business would be affected. all this has been easily available for months.
as for the programs being funded, it is more a matter of what will not be cut: teachers, staff, programs, in-home care for seniors & the disabled — not to mention the 1,800 prisoners who’ll stay in jail. programs throughout the state had been preparing a list of cuts (on top the $800 mln cut at the end of 2007-09 biennium and the $2 bln cut at the start of this one). the Leg was going to have to spend February deciding on what to cut. now schools & agencies can simply move forward without making cuts, albeit with budgets that had already been slashed (overall General Fund spending down this biennium).
the reason for the headline is that in terms of the budget, the outcome is simple: no more cuts (for now). the political battle was the real story, however: the corporate powers & their lobbyists first bought these ballot measures and then tried to lie, bully and fearmonger Oregon voters into doing great harm to their own state. we beat their asses, not by returning in like kind but through months of patient, face-to-face, personal campaigning. this is huge not for the policy outcome but because the progressive movement has finally won a victory through a statewide grassroots effort.
you had to be there to appreciate it. it was freaking awesome.
Oregonians voted against BIG business and corporations-against the Wall Street thieves.
Oregonians were not duped by Knight and Boyle-they shipped our jobs overseas years ago.
The vote was not in favor of teachers, health care and services.
The vote was against corporations who have eroded jobs for the sake of their own wealth.
Join our new Facebook group, The Oregonian Stinks! I just posted a link there to this article.
Yes, tabarnhart, thank you for the links. I was hoping to see more of a follow up though. I would like to know where the money (specific programs) is going. Also I would like to know what businesses will actually pay and how many will find ways of not paying. Although projected revenue is great, it doesn’t always come out the same as the figures.
PS – I just read an interesting point regarding incarceration in the US. Although we have ~5% of the global population we house over 25% of the worlds prisoners. It is amazing we have sooooo much crime here in the US, isn’t it.
Don’t forget Columbia Sportswear. The Boyle family threw gobs of money at the no on 66 & 67 campaign. Columbia Sportswear and the Oregonian do not support the fabric of society that makes or breaks Portland’s future, our children. Our children are our future, Columbia Sportswear and the Oregonian do not support educating our children.
BOYCOTT COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR!!! Even though we won, they need to go.
THE OREGONIAN? It only costs a buck to open a newspaper machine and piss into it, or set the papers on fire. They’re are gonna be gone soon. Let’s help speed it up!