|
BEWARE OF MEASURE
59 We have sponsored initiatives on radioactive waste and nuclear power plants. We wish to preserve the viability of the initiative process for all Oregonians, including those without big money to buy media campaigns. The Voters' Pamphlet allows anyone to distribute to all Oregon voters a half-page argument for or against a measure, at the cost of $300 or 1,000 signatures. Measure 59 would stop that. The attorneys for the Oregon Legislature (Legislative Counsel) agree in their draft explanatory statement: This measure prohibits several activities currently allowed under Oregon Law. For example, under this measure it would be illegal...to print voters' pamphlet statements supporting or opposing candidates or ballot measures. The Voters' Pamphlet could contain no arguments and no statements of candidates' qualifications or policies. Measure 59 is written very broadly to insert into the Oregon Constitution: Section 10 (1) No public funds shall be spent to collect or assist in the collection of political funds. It defines "political funds" as any money spent "supporting or opposing a candidate for public office or a ballot measure." "Public funds" include "public employee time, public property, and public equipment and supplies." Thus, Measure 59 would prohibit any government entity from collecting funds to be used to print statements that support or oppose candidates or measures. This would gut the Voters' Pamphlet, leaving only a list of candidate names and a list of ballot measures and their titles. Your piece admits this is "certainly a problem" but says we "downplayed" Measure 59's other effect of preventing public employee union members from payroll deducting their contributions to union PACs. We also stated that effect (even though Measure 59 does not include the terms "union" or "payroll" or "deduction"). Why, then, would you award us "Rogue" honors for pointing out that Measure 59 would gut the Oregon Voters' Pamphlet? Does WW think that gutting is a good idea or that this effect of Measure 59 should be concealed from voters? Apart from the "Rogue" piece, WW has not mentioned the effect of Measure 59 on the Voters' Pamphlet. We agree that voters "deserve to hear an honest debate on the central issues, not the sideshows." What is not "central" or "honest" about pointing our that Measure 59 would destroy the Oregon Voters' Pamphlet? Dan Meek IN WU'S DEFENSE For example, David Wu and I and other Asian Americans recently participated in the 6th Annual Asian-American Youth Leadership Conference held at Lewis & Clark College. The Conference brought together Asian-American high school students from the Portland-area schools to allow them to speak and interact with Asian-American professionals. David Wu spoke to this group of young people, sharing his own educational experience and urging them to excel in high school and to prepare themselves for college. In doing so, David Wu made a positive impact on the younger generation, stayed connected to the Asian-American community and reaffirmed his commitment to education. Bill Chin THE BIG PICTURE Yes, the move toward energy deregulation has been driven by Enron and other big companies, almost entirely outside public scrutiny, and yes, they've once again prevented public policy decisions from being made in the normal open forums established for that purpose. But this isn't just a question of what government bureaucracy decides what, and when; the future of Columbia River salmon and who gets to buy and sell the region's hydropower are ultimately at stake here. The main decisions will probably be made in Washington, D.C., in the next few years, and I'd be greatly surprised if we're still able to get priority access to Bonneville's cheap power a decade from now unless we prevail in that arena. Here are some of the important issues yet to be resolved: Who will control the river's flow, and to whom will they be accountable? Will our cheap hydropower be marketed all across the country? Will irrigators and shippers who use Columbia River water have to contribute to future fish recovery costs? Will BPA's transmission customers have to make up the difference if their energy sales don't raise enough money to save the salmon? Should any of the Snake River dams be breached to help the fish? And who will pay the debt on the one functioning nuclear plant, not to mention its decommissioning costs, or the two that were never completed? Changing the rules in the middle of the game creates more problems than most people realize. When Congress passed the Regional Power Act in 1980, it created a stable balance amongst the various parties. Public utility districts were balanced against private utilities; conservation and other public purposes were supported; BPA's decision-making process became more open; energy forecasting became more scientific and accurate; a commitment was made to save the salmon; and the electric energy industry got the assurance of greater predictability by ending the prospect of limitless lawsuits from anti-nuclear forces. In 1992, however, Congress passed the National Energy Policy Act (without any public discussion here in the Northwest), allowing private utilities to use BPA's power lines. Then, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission told Bonneville to separate its power sales and transmission businesses, moving us down the road to the nationalization of the energy industry. Companies like Enron have pushed for the change to a free market in electricity, with customer choice for us and the opportunity for them to make as much money as they want, irrespective of decisions made by Congress over the past six decades or the values our Public Utility Commission is set up to maintain. There's still one question I've not heard anyone ask yet: When heat waves like the one last month in the Midwest drive wholesale energy costs sky-high, who will end up paying the bill, and who will decide how those costs get covered? I'd say that anyone who believes deregulation will give us lower electricity prices is living a fantasy. They can just as well expect to win the next big lottery. Glen Swift
originally published August 12, 1998 |
