 Arno Political Consulting |
For veteran rogue-rousters, some activities naturally set off alarm bells. Take signature-gathering: Although the recent ban on per-signature bounties appears to have greatly reduced the amount of fraud, it hasn't eliminated another problem--the misleading sales pitch.
In recent days, the petitioners for Measure 36 have stepped up their signature-gathering on Portland streets. Like its predecessor, Measure 7, the measure would require that government reimburse property owners if their property value is affected by a regulation.
But, as Katy Daily, a politically savvy downtown pedestrian, noted, you'd have a hard time figuring that out based on what some signature gatherers (also known as "circulators") are saying.
Daily called the Rogue Desk to suggest we check out the circulators--who are on the payroll of Arno Political Consulting of Sacramento. Last week, we approached three separate circulators to see how they explained the measure.
In the first instance, the circulator at the corner of 10th Avenue and Yamhill Street told us the measure would prevent the government from devaluing your land, then taking it over using the courts--a process known as eminent domain.
"So this is about eminent domain?" the Rogue operative asked.
"Yeah," said the circulator.
That's not true. The misinformation was repeated by two other signature gatherers we interviewed and, according to Daily, several others near Pioneer Courthouse Square.
Oregonians In Action, the group sponsoring the measure and paying Arno, wasn't pleased to hear about this. "It absolutely concerns me if the signature gatherers are misrepresenting the measure," says OIA director Dave Hunnicutt. "I don't see a connection between this measure and eminent domain. If [misrepresentation] is happening, we will stop it."
Bill Arno, co-owner of Arno Consulting, told WW the "eminent domain" line isn't coming from his shop.
"We actually give people written pitch sheets that say nothing about eminent domain," Arno says. "If they are saying anything about eminent domain, then they have independently arrived at that conclusion and we'll take corrective action in our crew."
How about not turning in the signatures that were gathered dishonestly? "That's certainly something that we'd consider," says Hunnicutt. "I have no idea how to figure out how you would do that."
.nar.jpg)
Having helped closely on those campaigns, I know that fraud by pay per hour petitioners was much higher, as they had to achieve quotas or lose their jobs. Most of it went unreported.
The intent of the ban was to eliminate all metrics, neutering professional activism. It's a dangerous trend, because most people do not have the free time to dedicate to making a political difference. If the lobbyists who marketed that ban really cared about the process, they would have pursued different measures. Effective disclosure of who's financing the campaign and mandatory background checks on paid petitioners, for example. The biggest problem in Oregon is rampant drug abuse, which makes for a bad mix with fast money.