Friday
Editor in chief: Jack Clifford
Managing Editor: Jessica Blanchard
Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Room 300, Erb Memorial Union
P-O. box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
E-mail: ode@oregon.uoregon.edu
EDITORIAL EDITOR: MICHAEL J. KLECKNER opededitor@journalist.com
Three measures present voters with
choices about political involvement
In order tor the American system of
representative democracy to work ef
fectively, people must participate.
How is the system working now? Ac
cording to the magazine Mother
Jones, the National Republican Con
gressional Committee has established
a program where, for $25,000, you can
dine with Republican leaders in Con
gress. The Democratic National Com
mittee has a similar program, where
for $100,000, donors get weekend re
treats with party leaders and dinner
with the president. Who do you think
is buying this political involvement?
It isn’t college students.
Support for Ralph Nader’s inclu
sion in the presidential debates and
the popularity of John McCain’s cam
paign finance reform efforts is evi
dence that Americans want more
voices to be heard in the political
process. And a few of the legislative
candidates the Emerald interviewed
in the past week have mentioned their
desire and their efforts to have more
citizen involvement.
With that in mind, we look to Mea
sures 92, 98 and 6. Measures 92 and
98 would limit citizen involvement
by making it more difficult for specif
ic groups of citizens to be involved in
both politics and charities. Measure 6
is a welcome attempt to expand in
volvement by offering candidates for
state offices the choice to limit indi
vidual contributions and then receive
taxpayer funding for their campaigns.
Measure 92 would amend the Ore
gon Constitution to prohibit organiza
tions from collecting payroll deduc
tions for political purposes without
the employee signing an authoriza
tion form every year. This sounds in
nocuous at first, but upon closer in
spection, it hampers the ability of
organizations to collect funds and the
ability of employees to give funds.
The measure’s supporters say that
r
unions are using employees’ money
to further a political agenda against
employees’ wishes. This isn’t true.
Union members can opt out of politi
cal expenditures and pay union dues
for only non-political purposes. And
if union employees don’t like their or
ganization’s political activities, there
are ways to be more involved in the
process and have their voices heard.
They can go to union meetings, be
come union leaders, rally support
from other employees and fight to
change the system. That’s involve
ment. To stifle involvement would be
un-American.
Measure 92 gets onto dangerous
ground, as does Measure 98, with
charities. First, all employees already
have to authorize payroll deductions.
No one is taking money without em
ployees’ permission. Organizations
such as the Muscular Dystrophy As
sociation and the American Red Cross
collect funds through payroll deduc
tions; some charities occasionally lob
by legislators on behalf of their caus
es. Even if the lobbying is a tiny
portion of the good work these organi
zations do, the money is “used for po
litical purposes” and would have to
be authorized with a specific form
used solely for that purpose every
year. Charities don’t have the time to
collect permission slips from thou
sands of employees on a yearly basis.
This is why the employee can choose
whether to sign up for payroll deduc
tion or not.
Measure 98 takes the silencing of
employee voices a step further. This
measure would single out public em
ployees and tell them they cannot
have money deducted for political
purposes because to do so would use
the state’s payroll department (and
thus taxpayer money) to deduct the
funds. So one group of people is de
nied this avenue of political involve
ment because of where they work.
The state, similar to any other em
ployer, should have the right to allow
payroll deductions. State employees
should have that right. It’s that sim
ple.
There is a voice of sanity crying
out in all of this. Measure 6 offers the
chance for more voices to be heard. If
candidates for state office voluntarily
limit their campaign fundraising to
$100 donations from individuals or
political action committees, and if
they raise enough $5 donations from
individuals, then Measure 6 would
give them money from a special cam
paign finance fund that the state l\as
established. The money for the cam
paign finance fund comes from elim
inating the tax deduction that people
now use to deduct massive contribu
tions to candidates from their state
tax bill.
Measure 6 would limit the influ
ence of big money donors on candi
dates and require that they raise
funds from ordinary citizens — a
candidate for governor, for instance,
would have to raise 8,000 $5 dona
tions from electors. This demon
strates support and levels the playing
field of influence on our politicians.
If a representative democracy is go
ing to work, everyone needs to be
represented equally by the elected of
ficials. Measures 92 and 98 work to
limit that influence of ordinary citi
zens. We urge you to vote no on 92
and 98. Measure 6, by contrast, is a
novel idea for a system of equal influ
ence and taxpayer-funded campaign
finance. We recommend you vote yes
on 6.
This editorial represents the opinion of the
Emerald editorial board. Responses can be
sent to ode@oregon.uoregon.edu.
MUST MAKE NEXT
&EAt>\JINE.. Ast&vv)
Letters to the editor
We the people
Mr. Payne’s “A Historical
Interpretation of the Second
Amendment” (ODE, Oct. 16)
really misses the target — he
even misquotes the Second
Amendment, which actually
reads:
“Amendment II. A well
regulated Militia, being nec
essary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people
to keep and bear Arms, shall
not be infringed.”
The Founding Fathers un
derstood who “the people”
were. The word “people” is
used once in the Preamble to
the Constitution, once again
in Article I, Section 2, and
five times in the Bill of
Rights: once each in Amend
ments I, II, IV, IX, and X. If the
word “people” is universal
ly accepted to be the mean
ing described in a standard
dictionary, that meaning
must be applied consistently
across all uses of the word as
it appears in the Constitu
tion, including the Second
Amendment.
According to Merriam
Webster Online, “people”
are defined as “the body of
enfranchised citizens of a
state.” If the definition of
people is consistently ap
plied, the Second Amend
ment cannot be interpreted
in any way except as a funda
mental right retained by in
dividual citizens. No com
pelling reason can be offered
why the Second Amend
ment should not be held on
an equal footing to the other
uses in the Constitution of
the word people.
Sean Walston
graduateassistant
physics
What you don’t know can
hurt you
Measure 9 doesn’t protect
children; it puts them at risk.
HIV Alliance exists be
cause we believe that HIV is
preventable. Our mission is
to provide HIV education to
all levels of the community,
including our middle-school
and high-school-age citizens.
HIV Alliance believes that
people make healthier be
havioral choices with access
to accurate information in a
setting allowing for ques
tions and responsible discus
sion.
HIV Alliance believes that
programs like our Speakers
in the Schools protect the
lifelong health of our young
people by arming them with
facts about how HIV is con
tracted and transmitted. Re
search shows that the infor
mation and discussion the
nationally recognized
Speakers in the Schools pro
gram provides helps stu
dents make better choices
about their behavior.
HIV Alliance believes that
Measure 9, called the “Stu
dent Protection Act,” will
have a chilling effect on our
children’s ability to receive
objective information about
the transmission of HIV or
any aspect of sexual health.
We believe that Measure 9
may interpret health educa
tion as promoting sexual ac
tivity.
HIV Alliance believes that
open discussion, coupled
with responsible, factual in
formation about the nature of
HIV and the behaviors that
can lead to infection, is the
right of every citizen.
HIV Alliance believes that
denying information and
discussion to young people
who are making decisions
daily about their social be
havior threatens the future
health of the entire commu
nity.
Therefore, the Board and
Staff of HIV Alliance strong
ly oppose Measure 9 as it
protects no one - unless
keeping people ignorant is
considered protection.
Leslie Habetler
community relations
coordinator
HIV Alliance
Right to bear arms
I was appalled at Pat
Payne's recent column re
garding the Second Amend
ment. Our country was
founded for freedoms he
seems eager to relinquish.
Why? Following his logic,
we have the right to free
speech so long as it’s not over
a telephone, on the radio or
via a computer because these
hadn't been invented when
the Constitution was written.
Will more gun laws deter
criminals? Hello? They don't
follow laws. That's why
they're criminals. More laws
will only stop law-abiding
citizens from protecting their
lives. Does he think self de
fense is only justified with
fists or words?
Heaven forbid that a
woman (or any of us) should
be allowed to defend her life
effectively against a larger,
more physical attacker.
"The police can protect
her."
Right.
"She can talk her way out
of it."
Right.
"She shouldn't have been
there."
Right.
Like it or not, a gun is one
of the few things that can
equalize a 110-pound
woman in a fight with a 225
pound man. Rape happens.
In Eugene.
If I were his friend, I
wouldn't want to depend on
the self-proclaimed Captain
Sensible's pleadings for mer
cy as help in a crisis. While
CS will, no doubt, count me
among the “tanked-up red
necks,” as far as I’m con
cerned, if a woman is physi
cally attacked, she should
have the right to defend her
self effectively and put a
large hole through the [per
son] anywhere she chooses.
I, for one, will applaud her
when she does.
Mick Briscoe
graduate student
fine art