Monday, February 13

Doctor Groups Flex Muscle In Capitol: $2.3 Million in Campaign Cash to Influence Health-Care Reform

News The State Capitol has been abuzz the last couple of days because of a hot list (PDF) circulating in ... More

Feb 10, 2012 06:00 pm by NIGEL JAQUISS  | Comments 3
 

Nonsense Knows No State Boundary: Washington Legislators Get Bogus Job Claims on CRC

News Up north of here, Washington legislators in Olympia are debating whether or not they should authoriz... More

Feb 10, 2012 09:09 am  | Comments 1
 

Occupy Arrestees Win Their Right to Full Trials—Even Though They May Not Need It

News The estimated 160 people arrested during Occupy Portland protests in the past five months have won t... More

Feb 9, 2012 01:24 pm by HANNAH HOFFMAN  | Comments 2
 

Almost Live: Rockets at Blazers

News So I'm having a bit of trouble with the picture, which is coming from my phone (I drew it on my way ... More

Feb 8, 2012 07:09 pm by CASEY JARMAN  | Comments 0
 
 
 
Home · Articles · News · Rogue of the Week · League of Women Voters of Oregon
October 4th, 2006 Claire Trageser | Rogue of the Week
 

League of Women Voters of Oregon

4 Comments
     
Tags:
If you thought a well-respected group like the League of Women Voters of Oregon would get a free pass from Rogue consideration, think again. The League earns dishonors by saying in its Oregon Voters' Pamphlet statement on Measure 39 that the measure was "mostly paid for by out-of-state lobbying interests."

The measure's sponsor, Oregonians in Action president David Hunnicutt, disputed that claim during a recent endorsement interview with WW on the proposal, which would put limits on property condemnation. Turns out he was right that the League, which you'd think would be a more careful advocate for its political stances, was wrong.

When the League wrote its statement, fundraising reports showed that 14 percent of Measure 39's money was out-of-state and 86 percent from Oregon. Even if you accept the League's argument that a $52,000 loan from the Oregon Family Farm Association should be considered out-of-state because the association received $100,000 from Nevadan Loren Parks, the percentage of out-of-state money would still be 33 percent. (The latest fundraising reports filed Monday show only $12,000 more was raised, all of it from Oregon.)

League president Margaret Noel says the "mostly" statement was based on media reports, statements from other Measure 39 opponents and fundraising reports. Noel now says she no longer considers "mostly" accurate, and that the League regrets the error.

Noel considers it accurate to say the measure is funded "largely" by out-of-state interests and called the Elections Division on Monday to see whether the word could be changed. The Elections Division says a correction isn't possible since the Voters' Pamphlet is already being printed in preparation for mailing next week.

The Secretary of State's Office doesn't endorse the accuracy of measure arguments in the Voters' Pamphlet. A complaint would have to be filed as a private lawsuit, and the plaintiff must prove a false claim was made "knowingly or with reckless disregard." Oregonians in Action has considered that step but is leaning against it. "The world has enough lawsuits," Hunnicutt says.

 
  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
 
 
 

 

 
10.04.2006 at 08:02 Reply
Common WW. If you were to hold your publication to the same standards WW could be it's own "rogue of the week" every week.

 

10.06.2006 at 11:56 Reply
Twenty years ago, the League was a very well-thought of organization. Now it's just another reliably liberal front group. This lie (or "honest mistake") is evidence enough that the League's word is not what it once was. If they want to regain their former stature, they could begin by not taking positions on issues and staying out of the voters' pamphlet.

 

10.06.2006 at 04:31 Reply
Tim
I'd like to start a "grammar rogue", starting with people who continually fail to use "its" correctly. Is there noone left who understand that "it's" is a contraction and NOT a possessive pronoun?!? Sorry, couldn't resist. :)

 

10.08.2006 at 07:47 Reply
Ed
"Is there noone left who understand that "it's" is a contraction and NOT a possessive pronoun?!? Sorry, couldn't resist. :)"

Wow Tim! Your bold display of grammatical prowess sure is impressive!!! :) ??

 

 
 

Web Design for magazines

Close
Close
Close