Carl Reynolds wrote in response to http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2009/08/oregon_conservatives_launch_no.html Sunday, August 2, 2009 Jeff Mapes' front page news article, "Oregon conservatives launch nonprofits to push initiatives" states: "All of them lost (Bill Sizemore's five initiatives in 2008) after opponents, relying heavily on money from Oregon's powerful public employee unions, urged voters to defeat anything tied to Sizemore." How does Mapes know that union money was decisive? In effect, Mapes' statement, while purporting to be a news article, certifies as a matter of fact the main argument of the new conservative group seeking to resurrect the right wing reputation regarding the initiative process. The question is , should such a certification be part of a news article? Controversial specifics that are ignored by Mapes in making his supposed factual report. 1)"Powerful" is a highly relative term. Recent history shows the public employees' union, along with all other worker unions, losing influence and membership and political influence. Ths is clearly reflected in the drastic reduction by the Oregon legislature of members' bargaining rights. In particular, the ongoing limitations sought and achieved by business and conservative political organizations on the issues available for contract bargaining. One very specific example: teachers, ( represented by Oregon Education Association,OEA, and other unions) have in recent years lost all rights to bargain over classroom and teaching methods and practices. 2) Mapes claims the money from public employee unions was a decisive factor in the defeat of Sizemore's initiatives. Proving this claim would require some considerable research, with statistical analysis and would most likely never be decided with any certainty. 3) What business is it of The Oregonian's news reporter to accept and certify without question the main argument of a new group seeking to define itself? Quite possibly the voters rejected Sizemore's initiative proposals just because they were bad ideas, not having much to do with the fact that Sizemore was the sponsor.. Responsible journalism would confine such opining to the editorial section. Sneaking such opinions into news reports is one of the more deceptive tactics of successful propagandists. Carl Reynolds Sherwood, Oregon Carl, I don't see the statement "relying heavily" as inaccurate. In my research, I've found that union money represented the first money for almost any Democrat running for office, if they didn't already have seed money from a previous campaign -- and even then they were usually the first to donate upon their entrance into a particular race. Following that union money was a fundraising apparatus that broadened the funding sources using union resources, connections, and other administrivia. As a supporter of union rights, it alarms me greatly that unions have the sole power to make or break Democratic politicians (and initiatives) in this state. That is the honest truth, and Mapes was just honestly reporting it. The checks the unions gave to Kate Brown to run for Secretary of State, the office that controls the initiative process, was with the expectation that she would advocate "reforming the initiative process" -- where they have been attacked and had much of their resources drained. Almost every fiscally (and in some cases socially) conservative ballot measure has been mainly opposed by the unions if you look at the major donors. In the No on Measure 65 campaign, it was essentially unions that ran the only printed literature against it, for just one example. Against the anti-tax measures, expect the unions to spend whatever they've got left in the kitty. Their membership has the most to lose by repeal. I will be on their side in this match, but I feel insignificant against their gargantuan power regarding initiatives. The union Dems already tried to gut and stuff HB2414 (a bill I was watching closely in its original form) to reverse the language of the repeal so that it would be more likely to fail (turning it from an affirmation to a rejection measure). Brown will be doing all the parliamentary tricks she can do -- and she's taken hundreds of thousands from unions. Even if she would have done so anyways, now at least it looks terrible and awefully similar to a bribe a priori. Also, the biggest opponents of campaign finance reform from the left *are* the unions, who believe they will lose any influence they have left. The unions are a conservative force when it comes to CFR and our democratic initiative rights. They're liberal with lots else, but they really aren't endearing anybody to support them with that behavior. Knowing all I know about the initiative process and campaign finance reform, I don't know how you can claim it's not how it really is and call out Mapes for what's simply the honest truth. We should be using our energy opposing the "tax breaks for the rich" measures directly. I don't see ANY value in going off-message. You should say, yes, the unions have exercised a lot of influence, but it's no worse than the corporations bankrolling the other side. And furthermore, the unions happen to be right because of X, Y, and Z. Defending the unions for the sake of defending them just makes people cynical of the rest of your argument. I always try to rely on honest and factual arguments, rather than calling upon somebody to re-check their facts without giving any of your own to counter. You need to make the argument *not* about unions. Your argument here just continues the debate to be about unions. That's a losing strategy. Defend Oregon is doing the right thing -- they are coalition building and making it look like there's a whole lot of supporting groups who realize what the legislature did was both necessary and fair. The appearance will be true and no doubt that's a direct refutation of the corporate argument that it's just unions exercising their influence. We can point to California and laugh at them while patting our legislature on the back, saying the corporations would merely prefer we look more like them all in the name of corporate profit and greed. And if you like unions so much -- when we win this fight, the unions look like they are fighting the hard fight for a better Oregon, and the tarnish will instead end up being a vindication. So why not let them try to waste their energy on it while we talk about every service that was saved, and all the classroom hours saved, and all the projects putting people back to work, and all the ... you know ... The positives! Note that you end saying that "Quite possibly the voters rejected Sizemore's initiative proposals just because they were bad ideas, not having much to do with the fact that Sizemore was the sponsor." If that were the case, then why worry about the attack on the unions? If their strategy is going to be a success, then the unions were right in attacking Sizemore as they were also effective. I don't see how you can get it both ways. You seem to defeat your own argument here. So I'd say, 1) the unions do influence politics greatly in Oregon, with zero campaign finance restrictions and heavy "power-play" spending, 2) union money was decisive in defeating his initiatives, but if it is not then your letter is moot anyways, and 3) the business group can fairly criticize the unions and have it reported as fact just as the unions criticized Sizemore and had it reported as fact when it was fact. You didn't actually say it wasn't a fact -- you brought up an unrelated point about union growth (fact is that, good or bad, union political donations have steadily increased). The statistics are complicated, but the more I look, the more I see. Kate Brown's rise to power is an example of union contribution influence. Even Willamette Week called her out on it, despite endorsing her for essentially everything she's ever run for. Want to know who influences the power brokers? See who brokered them into power by being the first to donate their seed money.