|
BY BOB YOUNG |
|
|
SIDEBARS Dave
vs. Molly Great
Minds?
|
At a time when the biggest political question of the day centers on how to remove a semen stain from a dress, you might think candidates would jump at a chance to answer queries that focus strictly on policy issues. But that's not quite the case. This summer every Oregon congressional and legislative candidate was urged to participate in a political-awareness test. The goal: to provide voters with an objective view of candidates' positions on the state and country's most important issues. The interrogator: Project Vote Smart, a bipartisan national group based in Corvallis, whose founders include Mark Hatfield, Bill Bradley, Geraldine Ferraro and Newt Gingrich. While most Oregon candidates did respond to the challenge, 37 others "flunked" (according to Project Vote Smart's criteria) by refusing to take the test, the results of which will be posted on the World Wide Web later this week. Flunkies include four congressional candidates and three leaders of the House Democratic caucus. So are these candidates scoundrels, chickens or just plain smart? "Probably all of the above," says political scientist Bill Lunch. "They are calculating it won't hurt them as much to ignore the test as it will to take the test and reveal views that their opponents can use in 30-second ads." Although Lunch believes that few voters are likely to use the test to shape their opinions in 1998, he feels it does have merit. "To voters who take seriously the responsibility to cast an informed vote, this test can be useful in comparing candidates," Lunch explains. "The problem is that most voters don't do that." Still, says pollster Tim Hibbitts, more information is better than less. "The bottom line is: Anything that opens up the process to the voters and increases access is a good thing," Hibbitts says. Topping the dishonor roll are U.S. Rep. Darlene Hooley and her Republican challenger Marilyn Shannon, who are locked in a battle for the 5th Congressional District, which reaches from the dairy farms of Tillamook County to the suburbs of Salem. Hooley's refusal to take the test (candidates are given six weeks and several reminders to fill out the five-page questionnaire) surprises and disappoints test director Adelaide Elm. "I met directly with her in March and I thought we had a commitment from her to make this kind of information available," says Elm. After all, Elm notes, the "honorable thing is for a candidate to run an issue-oriented campaign and help voters get this kind of information any time they might want it." Hooley's campaign manager, Lisa Sherman, admits the test asks some "very good, in-depth questions." But, Sherman claims, "we just didn't feel like it was the best use of our time." Really? Hooley could find time to meet with $1,000 donors at a posh, closed-to-the-media event in Portland on June 12, yet she couldn't answer questions that had been approved by a committee of political scientists, local journalists and Vote Smart founders such as Hatfield? "We feel enough information is out there," replies Sherman. "Constituents can always call or write letters to get Darlene's positions on specific issues." Shannon offers a similar defense--but with a paranoid twist. The conservative state senator fears her answers could be used to hurt her. "What if I changed my mind? It could be used against me," she says. "It can be horrible if you experience a change of mind. People call you a liar or disingenuous. It's easier not to put your name on something." Congressman Earl Blumenauer also snubbed Vote Smart's test. His chief aide, Bob Crane, says, "generally Earl's view is that the information is available to anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the Internet and he's got other things to do [besides filling out questionnaires]." Elm calls such excuses "ridiculous" because not all candidates have taken clear stands on the test issues. Trying to sort through voting records is difficult and time-consuming, and they can be easy to misunderstand, she says. Some politicians also complain that the test is too rigid and too simplistic to capture their sophisticated views. That's the rationale used by state House minority whips Dan Gardner and Jo Ann Bowman, both Portland Democrats, and Andrea Hungerford, a Democratic House candidate in West Linn. They object to Vote Smart's format, which asks candidates to put check marks next to the statements that best describe their "inclination" on an issue. On abortion, for instance, the test offers eight options, ranging from "Abortions should always be legally available" to "Abortions should be limited by waiting periods and notification requirements as decided by each state government." "If I can't put it all in my own words, I don't see the point of it," says Gardner. Elm stresses that questions are kept short and firm because the "whole idea is to compare candidates' responses to the same questions so voters can figure out which comes closest to their own view on an issue." Candidates can also add a short sentence to clarify their stance on a particular issue. To their credit, at least Bowman, Gardner and Hungerford explained their reasons for not taking the test. Other candidates, such as Republicans David Mayfield of Oregon City and Cletus Moore Jr. of Portland, didn't even return WW's call. Mayfield and Moore did, however, each send Vote Smart alibi letters that were suspiciously alike. (See "Great Minds?") Obviously, many candidates didn't find the test so flawed or threatening. Gov. John Kitzhaber, Sen. Ron Wyden, House Speaker Lynn Lundquist, House Majority Leader Lynn Snodgrass and 71 percent of all Oregon candidates did complete the test. Also included on Vote Smart's "Honor Roll" are combatants in Oregon's hottest race, the 1st Congressional District contest between Molly Bordonaro and David Wu. In their case, the test shows voters clear differences between the candidates on a variety of issues (see "Molly vs. Dave," page 16). The same kind of distinctions are easily discernible in state legislative races, such as the hard-fought battle in Lake Oswego's House District 24, where Republican Stan Ash is challenging Democrat Richard Devlin. The full test results of these races and others will be posted by August 15 on Vote Smart's Web site (www.vote-smart.org). also on the Web site are incumbents' voting records, ratings by special-interest groups and campaign-contribution information, along with biographis of all candidates. "I understand some folks' reluctance and frustration to participate," says Kitzhaber's campaign manager, Curtis Robinhold. "But the governor is a big fan of the concept, which is: Give voters the tools they need to make decisions, and they'll make good ones."
Dave
vs Molly * ABORTION: Wu says abortions should always be legally available; Bordonaro says, "only when the pregnancy results from incest, rape or when the life of the woman is endangered." * BUDGET SURPLUS: Bordonaro says it should be used for tax cuts; Wu says it should be invested in education. (Both agree that any surplus should also be used for debt reduction and shoring up the Social Security system.) * CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM: Wu wants to ban so-called "soft money" contributions from unions, corporations and individuals; Bordonaro wants to limit them. * CRIME: Wu wants to offer job training to prisoners; Bordonaro doesn't. Wu wants to increase penalties for illegal firearms; Bordonaro doesn't. * EMPLOYMENT: Wu wants to hike spending for job-training programs and boost the minimum wage; Bordonaro doesn't. * ENVIRONMENT: Wu wants to increase mining fees on public lands and impose more limits on clear-cuts; Bordonaro doesn't. * GUNS: Wu wants to require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms; Bordonaro doesn't. * HEALTH CARE: Wu wants to implement a universal health care program to guarantee coverage to all Americans; Bordonaro doesn't. * WELFARE AND POVERTY: Wu favors more spending on homeless shelters and low-income housing projects; Bordonaro doesn't. * EDUCATION: Bordonaro supports giving parents tax breaks to send their children to private and religious schools; Wu doesn't. Bordonaro supports voluntary teacher testing with merit pay as a reward; Wu doesn't. * IMMIGRATION: Bordonaro wants to establish English as the official
language of the U.S. government; * SOCIAL SECURITY: Bordonaro favors allowing workers to invest their
payroll tax in private accounts; * Bordonaro deserves bonus points for pinpointing her positions on a handful of questions that Wu did not. She wants to increase defense spending and stiffen penalties for drug crimes; she supports NAFTA and "fast-track" trade authority; and she outlined stands on foreign policy and tax cuts, which Wu did not. The National Political Awareness Test allows candidates like Wu to leave 30 percent of questions unanswered and still make their honor roll. --BY Great Minds?Republican candidates David Mayfield of Oregon City and Cletus Moore Jr. of Portland want to make important decisions for thousands of Oregonians. Yet it appears they're incapable of thinking independently; check out the nearly identical statements they made in letters to Project Vote Smart. Either Mayfield and Moore are psychic or someone scripted the letters for them. But who? Mayfield and Moore didn't return our calls, but one likely culprit is Majority '98, a campaign that provides assistance to all GOP House candidates. Majority '98 executive director Larry Harvey did not return WW's calls. Moore: "While I appreciate your efforts to inform the voters as to candidates' various positions of issues. I am very uncomfortable filling out your questionnaire that leaves so much to the imagination...even with your space for essay answers. I do not believe that this questionnaire can truly capture the message and vision of my campaign and the people who live in House District 16.... I will be more than happy to share my entire outlook with you, but only in total, not via piecemeal questioning that stereotypes the issues in my district with narrowly focused and structured surveys." Mayfield: "While I appreciate your efforts to inform the voters as to candidates' stands, I am very uncomfortable filling out your questionnaire that leaves so much to the imagination. I do not believe that this questionnaire can truly capture the message and vision of my campaign.... I will be more than happy to share my entire outlook with you, but only in total, not via piecemeal questioning that stereotypes the issues in my district." --BY
originally published August 12, 1998 |
