The National Popular Vote bill, House Bill 3077, passed the House with bipartisan sponsorship and support. It has been sent to the Senate Rules Committee where it is not likely to get a hearing. This bill appears unlikely to move to a floor vote.

HB 3521, a bill sponsored at the request of Secretary of State Kate Brown (D-Portland), would allow for universal, opt-out voter registration. Anyone who has any interface with a state agency – driver’s license, welfare office, hunting license – would automatically be registered to vote as a non-affiliated voter. This bill has been scheduled for a work session on Wednesday.

HB 2738, removing the election of precinct committeepersons from the general ballot, has failed to make it out of the House Rules Committee.

HB 2199 would remove the requirement to destroy all unused ballots at 8pm on election day. Election integrity watchdogs have fought several versions of this bill that have been introduced over the years. This bill passed the House with amendments in April, and has been tentatively scheduled for a public hearing on Wednesday, May 22.

HB 2988, passed by the House in March, is also scheduled for a public hearing on Wednesday the 22nd. This bill would allow anyone 16 years or older to register to vote.

Note: bills in the Revenue Committee and those that have been referred to the Rules Committee are alive until Sine Die. Also, just because a bill is dead, doesn’t mean it’s totally dead. It could be just “mostly dead” – any bill can be gut and stuffed into an existing bill, or fast-tracked as a Christmas Tree bill that moves quickly into and out of committees at the end of the session.

House Bill 3510, co-sponsored by Rep. Julie Parish (R, West Linn/Tualatin) and Jennifer Williamson (D, Portland), was given a public hearing on May 13th. Several citizens and organizations testified in opposition to this bill.

The bill would prohibit anyone other than an “authorized reseller” from selling an event ticket that has not yet been released for sale. Although the term “released for sale” is not currently defined in the bill text, it can be surmised from the text that the intent is to prohibit ticket scalpers from selling tickets before they are made available for purchase from “authorized resellers” like Ticketmaster, Stubhub, and Ticketcity.

However, due to the phrasing of the bill, this could also prohibit season ticket holders from selling their tickets unless they have been granted access to comprehensive data on seating arrangements including, as written in the text of HB3510, “the exact number and location of spaces at the venue, on the date and at the time specified for the entertainment event, that remain unsold.”

Without compliance with these specifications, any ticket sold by an unauthorized reseller would be considered counterfeit.

When questioned on the inspiration behind HB3510, Rep. Parish’s office stated that a family member of an aide within Rep. Parish’s staff had attempted to purchase tickets to an event through an unauthorized ticket reseller, and later discovered that they had been charged more than the face value of the ticket.

The testimony submitted by Rep. Parish at the public hearing on Monday, May 13th 2013 contained screenshots comparing several ticket listings for an upcoming concert, as well as two online search engine result listings, hand marked to indicate the “authorized resellers” in the search results.

Seven individuals and groups testified at the hearing opposing the bill, including Economic Fairness Oregon, OSPIRG, and eBay. eBay happens to own StubHub, a ticket reseller that, under HB3510, could be deemed “unauthorized.” Conversely, three testimonies were made in support of the bill – Rep. Parish, Metro (a government council that, through the Portland Center for the Performing Arts, manages performance venues in the Portland area), and a Tualatin resident named Kathy Walter.

Walter’s testimony references an instance in which she attempted to purchase tickets through an online ticket resale marketplace, and was charged more than the face value of the ticket. Walter states that she contacted the owner of the website in question seeking a refund, and that the owner refused and “blamed [her] for not reading the disclaimer (the one offered in tiny, grey print).” Walter says that she “was appalled to learn that this is perfectly legal.”

Discussing the inspiration behind the bill, Rep. Parish’s office also referenced the “tiny grey print at the bottom of the page” while discussing the unauthorized ticket resellers, and expressed a desire by the representative to use HB3510 to crack down on ticket scalpers and unauthorized resellers.

While many of the citizens who testified against HB3510 appreciated the intent of the bill, almost all agreed that HB3510 contained enough vague and broad language to warrant withholding support.

Dustin Brighton, Director of Government Relations for eBay Inc./StubHub, stated in his testimony that “House Bill 3510, as well intentioned as it is written would invariably allow those in the primary market to pick and choose who “wins or loses” in the secondary marketplace.”

He noted that eBay Inc./StubHub does “not support technologies when they are used to block consumers from using competing marketplaces and artificially raise prices to consumers,” and expressed a concern that HB3510 could further what he calls a “monopoly” for larger, primary market ticket sellers. The term “monopoly” was also used by Angela Martin, the executive director of Economic Fairness Oregon, referring to the overwhelming advantage HB3510 would give to large-scale authorized ticket sellers.

HB3510 declares an emergency. As stated in the bill text, “being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist.” Rep. Parish’s office states that it is uncertain whether this bill will make it out of Rules Committee before the cutoff on May 20th, 2013, but that at this time it seems unlikely.

WatchdogWire Oregon has previously reported on the abuse of the Emergency Clause in this legislative session.

Sens Udall, Schumer, Merkley discuss campaign finance reform.

scrutiny, Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) released a statement on May 15. While Merkley’s statement denounced the actions, he left more questions than answers regarding a 2012 letter he cosigned that demanded action by the IRS to create more disclosures by tax-exempt groups. These disclosures demanded by Merkley and several other Senators align with the actions by the IRS against conservative groups.

The statement released on May 15 says,

Merkley Statement on Inspector General IRS Report

 Washington – Oregon’s Senator Jeff Merkley issued the following statement after the release of an Inspector General report that the IRS was inappropriately targeting conservative groups for reviews of their tax-exempt status.

“What the IRS did was wrong. Targeting groups by their name or their ideology is absolutely unacceptable. The IRS has a lot of power and it is imperative that it be used evenhandedly. A full investigation should be conducted, responsible people should be punished, and action should be taken so that this inappropriate targeting doesn’t happen again.

“The IRS dropped the ball when it failed to create clear standards for the kinds of election activities tax-exempt groups can participate in. The IRS should have written clear rules and requirements for 501(c)(4)s years ago. There is no doubt we have political groups that are inappropriately masquerading as ‘social welfare organizations’ to claim tax-exempt status and keep their donors secret. We need criteria with clear bright lines laying out what groups with tax-exempt status are allowed to do and not do, regardless of the groups’ political views, so that decision isn’t left with IRS bureaucrats.”

While Senator Merkley states that the actions taken by the IRS were “absolutely unacceptable”, he goes on to say that the IRS should determine “clear bright lines laying out what groups with tax-exempt status are allowed to do and not do”.

This is consistent with a letter he signed in May 2012, authored by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), that according to the Washington Post, demanded stricter IRS standards for tax-exempt groups. Indeed, the letter reads as a threat to create legislation if the demands of the senators were not met:

The lawmakers promised legislation if the IRS failed to address the issues with specific measures, namely clarifying how much political activity is acceptable for tax-exempt groups, requiring the organizations to document how much of their work is dedicated to non-political purposes and demanding that they tell donors what percentage of their contributions can be claimed as deductions.

“We urge the IRS to take these steps immediately to prevent abuse of the tax code by political groups focused on federal election activities,” the senators said.

When reached for comment on the morning of May 15, Senator Merkley’s office was quick to provide the original statement. However, as of this writing, repeated followup requests for comment on the 2012 letter have gone unanswered.

As reported late this afternoon in the Chinook Observer,

CHEHALIS — The 15-year-old son of state Sen. Brian Hatfield, D-Raymond, pleaded guilty Tuesday in the juvenile division of Lewis County Superior Court to four counts of first-degree rape of a child and four counts of first-degree child molestation for crimes that reportedly took place in Hatfield’s home, according to court documents.

According to the Centralia Chronicle, the 15-year-old was taken into custody and booked into the Lewis County Juvenile Detention Center before being released into his father’s custody.

In a story initially brought to light late last week by KIRO Eyewitness News in Seattle, this already bad situation is complicated by the fact that Hatfield and the victim’s mother did not report the abuse to authorities when it came to their attention this February. This omission was corroborated by a Lewis County Sheriff’s Office report cited Tuesday.

According to court documents, the victim is also a member of the family, more than 3 years younger than the perpetrator. The incidents of abuse only came to light when the victim reported it to school authorities in Chehalis, WA. According to the detective’s report,

Initial information provided by school personnel indicated that [victim] disclosed sexual abuse by [perpetrator] … The Hatfield’s [sic] maintain residences in both Raymond, WA and Chehalis, WA.

[Victim] is very articulate and intelligent for his age, and had no problem speaking to [detective] on a technical/clinical as well as conversational level. [Victim] demonstrated the ability to differentiate between truth and lies, and promised to tell the truth.

[Victim] related that most of his contact with [perpetrator] was at the Hatfield residence in Raymond, Pacific County. [Victim] described his relationship with [perpetrator] as uneventful until November, 2012 when [perpetrator] began to make sexual contact with him.

It is notable that the abuse BEGAN in Pacific County, but the Pacific County authorities have stated that they will not pursue the case, according to the Chinook Observer – opting instead to allow the authorities in Lewis County to handle the prosecution.

The details of the abuse related to the detective in Chehalis include coercion, detention, forced participation in watching pornography, and threats of retribution if the abuse were reported to adults:

The last time it happened, in the Chehalis home in February 2013, the mother walked in on the two of them while it was going on. The mother “immediately ordered [victim] out of the room, telling [perpetrator] to stay in the room until further notice. [Victim] said [mother] then took him downstairs and asked what was happening. [Victim] stated he told [mother] what was going on when she entered his room, and that there had been numerous times the abuse had occurred. [Victim] admitted he did not disclose the entirety of the abuse to [mother] at the time. [Victim] told [detective] that [mother] told him that she and Brian Hatfield were attempting to get [perpetrator] into therapy, and would be having him turn himself in to authorities. [Victim] told [detective] to the best of his knowledge no punitive action had been taken by Brian and [mother], except to cease all contact between [perpetrator] and [victim].

According to Washington state law,

     (d) The reporting requirement shall also apply to any adult who has reasonable cause to believe that a child who resides with them, has suffered severe abuse, and is able or capable of making a report. For the purposes of this subsection, “severe abuse” means any of the following: Any single act of abuse that causes physical trauma of sufficient severity that, if left untreated, could cause death; any single act of sexual abuse that causes significant bleeding, deep bruising, or significant external or internal swelling; or more than one act of physical abuse, each of which causes bleeding, deep bruising, significant external or internal swelling, bone fracture, or unconsciousness.

Hatfield’s attorney, Christine Beckwith of Tacoma, put out a statement this afternoon refuting the claim that he and his wife were criminally negligent:

The Hatfield family has been asked to respond regarding Senator Brian Hatfield’s son being accused of criminal offenses.  Senator Hatfield was told by his wife that she had witnessed some inappropriate behavior by his son B.A.H. towards the end of February 2013.  In abundance of caution, Senator Hatfield called our office for a consultation for his son to see what the best course of action would be.  I privately interviewed B.A.H. in a conversation that is and was protected by attorney/client privilege.  That information was never disclosed to Senator Hatfield or his wife.  There was never any information that was disclosed to Senator Hatfield that would trigger a legal requirement for him to report any conduct to legal authorities.  Upon my advice, Senator Hatfield changed his supervision plan for his son and was in the process of setting up appropriate counseling at my direction.  When those things were in place it was the intention of B.A.H. to turn himself in to the proper authorities to address the underlying criminal offenses.  Prior to being able to do that there was a report to law enforcement, and B.A.H. turned himself in to law enforcement without incident.  B.A.H. is a minor and no different than any other juvenile offender other than his father being an elected official.  The Hatfield family hopes that B.A.H. will be treated fairly and justly under the law, and not given a more severe penalty than other similarly situated juvenile offenders.  Because all the parties that are involved in this case are minors, the families are hoping that the media respects the unique nature of juvenile crimes.  The purpose of the juvenile justice system is to rehabilitate offenders so that they can go on to be productive law abiding adult citizens.  B.A.H., has had several catastrophic loses including his mother dying at a young age.  His extremely difficult childhood is a contributing factor in this case, and is not an uncommon history of other juvenile offenders.  The family hopes that the media will be cautious in the printing and disseminating the names of juveniles that ultimately may have the opportunity for the sealing of the criminal record in the future.  Every measure is being taken to ensure that this matter is dealt with in an appropriate and thoughtful manner for all involved parties.

The question seems to revolve around this statement by Hatfield’s attorney: “There was never any information that was disclosed to Senator Hatfield that would trigger a legal requirement for him to report any conduct to legal authorities.”

Specifics may not have been disclosed by the attorney to Hatfield, but the police report clearly states that both Hatfield and his wife were already aware of the abuse, and in fact, Hatfield reported the abuse to the attorney by her own admission. This is all public information, clearly not privileged, and clearly known by both Hatfield and his wife at the time. It remains unclear that Hatfield would avoid charges under the requirement to report statute.

This is not the only question about this case that remains unresolved. The failure of the Pacific County authorities to pursue this case has drawn scrutiny, given the entrenched status of the Hatfield family in county politics. Gail Hatfield, Brian’s mother, served several terms as the County Clerk, and several other members of the family have been elected to office over the years.

According to the Chinook Observer article previously cited, “Hatfield is chairman of the State Senate Agriculture Committee and has been a key legislative vote on various matters, including the recently passed Senate budget.” The recently ended session has been remarkably contentious according to media reports, and the legislature failed to pass the politically charged funding of the Columbia River Crossing project. A special session has been called that will take up unresolved budgetary items. Hatfield is a longtime insider in the Washington State Democratic Party, having worked as a legislative assistant for the legendary Sid Snyder. He also worked as a legislative and community relations liaison for Washington State Lieutenant Governor Brad Owen from 2004 to 2006.

Late breaking reports indicate that Hatfield may be considering resigning.

In recent years, the Hatfield family has experienced numerous hardships, adding a layer of difficulty to the reporting of this tragic story. Hatfield’s first wife succumbed to cancer in 2007, impacting the entire family. Hatfield’s mother, Gail, has been in public service for many years in Pacific County and is also battling cancer.

As the weather gets warmer and summer approaches, it becomes more common to see homeless people in forested camps close to the road, especially at the intersection of Forest Road 19 and Highway 126, near the Cougar Reservoir.

This area, along with areas along the McKenzie River, can bring in more than 100 people living in makeshift camps. The estimate comes from Dave Sanders, a planner with the National Forest’s McKenzi­e River Ranger District, as reported by the Register-Guard.

Sanders explained to the Register-Guard that the Forest Road 19 and Highway 126 intersection is a prime location for homeless camping because of a bus stop at the intersection, as well as its close proximity to a store and several restaurants. A report done by graduate students at the University of Oregon found that the area also has a “longstanding reputation as a place to party and easily access drugs,”and generally draws in both underage and adult men.

One of the other appealing factors of these locations is the nearby bodies of clean, clear water. However, Sanders says that poses a problem.

“These camps tend to occur close to fresh water, mainly the McKenzi­e River and the south fork of the McKenzi­e River,” Sanders told the Register-Guard. “These are very sensitive watersheds. They are renowned for clarity and water quality, but there is evidence that the rivers are used to dispose of garbage and fecal waste.”

As the law stands currently, it is illegal to camp in any location – developed or not – for longer than 14 days. “After that, you are asked to leave because then it becomes more of a matter of lifestyle than camping,” Katie Isacksen, a spokeswoman for Willamette Forest, told the Register-Guard. Isacksen pointed out that the primary reason for concern is over the impact on the area’s vegetation and watersheds, which can suffer long-term damage due to improper disposal of waste.

Enforcement of the law is currently up to the discretion of the officer on site. “We do a lot of educational contacts where we ask compliance,” Isacksen told the Register-Guard, “but do not necessarily fine the person [...] whether or not a fine will be issued is up to the discretion of a forest protection officer or law enforcement officer.”

Those who camp in the area illegally face a $100 fine. The new proposed ban would remove the 14 day grace period, banning camping in these specific areas completely.

However, advocate groups for the homeless claim that a ban would harm the homeless community by taking away a place for them to live. The Eugene City Council is considering a new homeless camping program, due to increased numbers of homeless people camping out in city parks. City officials estimate that the city has spent close to $300,000 cleaning up homeless camps in public areas.

Parks Director Mark Schoening told the councilors at a recent meeting that the prevalence of homeless campers is driving people away from the parks.

Due to this issue being, as Sanders describes, a “broad and complicated problem,” discussion is being left open until May 17th, allowing the public plenty of time to weigh in on the pros and cons of this ban.

The Marketplace Fairness Act, put forward once in the U.S. House of Representatives and twice in the U.S. Senate, as bills HR684, S336, and S743, respectively, would give states the authority require online businesses to charge sales tax. The Statesman Journal, in an article posted Thursday, spotlighted the two senators and their efforts to stop the tax.

With bipartisan support, the Marketplace Fairness Act was proposed by Michael B. Enzi, a Republican from Wyoming, and has received support from President Barack Obama, as well as the majority of Senate Democrats, including Dianne Feinstein, Elizabeth Warren, Al Franken, and South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham.

Many large online businesses, including eBay, have spoken out against the potential law. Among the opponents of the bill, notably, are Oregon senators Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley. Wyden and Merkley, both Democrats, have come out in vocal opposition to the Marketplace Fairness Act, citing a number of potentially damaging effects it would have on Oregon’s economy.

Despite Oregon’s lack of a sales tax, the senators pointed out on the Senate floor the effect that the act would have on Oregon-based businesses – both brick-and-mortar with an online store and those that are purely web-based. This, they said, would have a negative impact on Oregon’s economy, as well as e-commerce as a whole.

A particular emphasis was given to the effect on small businesses – under the Marketplace Fairness Act, any business with more than one million dollars annual gross income from any state in which a sales tax would normally not be required – Oregon, Delaware, New Hampshire, Montana, and Alaska. Any business that has a larger gross income would be required to collect sales tax, which opponents of the bill say would stunt the growing online sales industry.

As the law currently stands, only brick-and-mortar businesses are required to pay the sales tax, leaving online businesses exempt due to the idea that online businesses would not be able to effectively comply with the tax laws of multiples states.

Wyden drew attention this issue as well, expressing concern over the requirement for Oregon businesses to potentially comply with a very large number of state and local tax codes, and doubted that the law’s requirement for states to simplify their sales-tax code would make a difference.

Instead of the current proposal, Wyden suggested a system where individual states could voluntarily engage in an agreement to enforce these online sales-tax laws within their borders.

Both senators voted no on the motion to move the bill forward to a floor vote. Jeff Merkley criticized some of his colleagues, who went unnamed, for not standing by their principles. He claimed that several senators have been vocal opponents of higher taxes and increasing government size, while promoting the Marketplace Fairness Act, which Merkley views as a step in that direction.

“We have all these senators . . . enforcing not only extensions of their own states’ wasteful sales tax systems but imposing that upon the small businesses of Oregon,” Merkley said, as reported by the Statesman Journal.

15.064 Possession of a Loaded Firearm in a Public Place.
(A) It is unlawful for any person in a public place, to carry a firearm upon the person, or while in a vehicle in a public place, unless all ammunition has been removed from the chamber and from the cylinder, clip, or magazine. A person who violates this section is subject to penalty even if the person did not know that ammunition was in the cylinder, chamber, clip or magazine.
(B) The prohibitions of subsection (A) of this section do not apply to or affect:
(1) Those listed in ORS 166.173(2).
(2) Licensed hunters engaged in lawful hunting.
(3) Persons engaged in target shooting at an established shooting range, shooting gallery or other area designed and built for the purpose of target shooting.
(4) A government employee authorized or required by his or her employment or office to carry firearms.
(5) A security guard employed at a financial institution insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation while the security guard is on duty.
(6) A person with written authorization from the Multnomah County Sheriff or his designee.
(C) It is unlawful for any person who possesses a firearm, clip or magazine in or upon a public place, or while in a vehicle in a public place, to refuse to permit a peace officer to inspect that firearm, clip or magazine after the peace officer has identified himself or herself as such. The prohibitions of this subsection do not apply to or affect the persons listed in subsection (B) of this section.
15.065 Discharge of a Firearm.
(A) It is unlawful for any person to fire or discharge a firearm within the boundaries of the County.
Page 4 of 5 – Adding new ordinances to Chapter 15 and amending §15.051 to address firearm safety in
Multnomah County.
(B) The prohibition of subsection (A) of this section does not apply to or affect those listed in ORS 166.171(2).
15.066 Endangering a Child by Allowing Access to a Firearm.
(A) A person commits the offense of endangering a child if a person fails to prevent access to a loaded or unloaded firearm by a minor without the permission of the person, a parent or guardian, when the person knew or reasonably should have known that a minor could gain access to the firearm.
(B) Subsection (A) of this section does not apply when:
(1) The minor obtains the firearm as a result of an illegal entry into any premises under the person’s custody or control.
(2) The firearm is kept in a locked container or in a location that a reasonable person would believe to be secure from entry by the minor.
(3) The firearm is locked with a device that has rendered the firearm inoperable and is designed to prevent minors and unauthorized users from firing the firearm. The device may be installed on the firearm, be incorporated into the design of the firearm, or prevent access to the firearm.
(C) Penalty: Violation of subsection (A) of this section is punishable by incarceration for not more than 10 days and a fine of not more than $500.
15.067 Failure to Report Theft.
(A) Any person who possesses, owns or controls a firearm in the County shall report the theft or misplacement of the firearm to law enforcement and provide a description of the firearm, within 48 hours of knowing, or having reason to know, the firearm is stolen or cannot be located through reasonable effort.
(B) A person who possesses, owns or controls a firearm in the County and fails to provide the serial number of the firearm when reporting the firearm in accordance with subsection (A) of this section is subject to a $200 administrative fee.
(C) Violation of subsection (A) of this section is punishable by a fine of $2,500.
Section 2. Amending MCC Chapter 15 relating to the Curfew for Minors:
(Language stricken is deleted; underlined language is new)
§ 15.051 CURFEW HOURS
For the purposes of this subchapter, the applicable hours of curfew shall be:
(A) As to minors under 14 years of age who have not begun high school, the hours shall be between 9:15 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. of the following morning, except that during the months of June, July, and August, the hours shall be between 10:15 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. of the following morning, except as further limited by subsection (C) of this section.
Page 5 of 5 – Adding new ordinances to Chapter 15 and amending §15.051 to address firearm safety in
Multnomah County.
(B) As to minors 14 years of age or over who have begun high school, the hours shall be between 10:15 p.m. Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, and 6:00 a.m. of the following morning, and between 12:00 midnight on Friday or Saturday, or any legal holiday, and 6:00 a.m. of the following morning, except that during the months of June, July and August, the hours shall be between 12:00 midnight and 6:00 a.m. of the following morning, except as further limited by subsection (C) of this section.
(C) For minors who have been found by a court to have possessed, purchased, used, transferred or transported a firearm unlawfully and are under the jurisdiction of the court as a result of that adjudication, curfew is between 7:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. of the following morning except for minors meeting the exception of §15.050 or with written permission of the minor’s probation or parole officer or juvenile court counselor.

Critics were quick to condemn the new restrictions, stating that these new restrictions would do nothing to curb violence, and actually would have the opposite effect of making Oregon’s largest county LESS safe. Kevin Starret, Director of Oregon Firearms Federation, said in an email,

Today, the Multnomah County Commissioners unanimously passed an ordinance to demonize gun owners while having no effect on criminals or the violently mentally ill.

Open loaded carry will now be illegal in Multnomah County for non-licensees.

Only security guards who work at banks will be allowed tobe armed. Armed guards elsewhere would be prohibited   (Apparently much of the “gun violence” is being committed by security guards.)

It will now be unlawful for a person without a CHL to have a loaded magazine or speed loader in any public place, including your car,anywhere in the county.

It will now be unlawful to refuse to allow the police to inspect a magazine you have…even if you don’t have a gun!

It will now be a crime to allow a minor to have access to one of your firearms, unless of course, you’ve given him permission to have it.(We know, it makes no sense.)

This won’t apply if the minor was on your property illegally.  This won’t apply if your gun had a trigger lock.  The County has not explained how they will prove your firearm did NOT have a trigger lock.  We are confident that all guns that are obtained by minors from this point on, will be reported to have had trigger locks.  (It would appear that none of the County Commissioners are Mensa candidates.)

If your firearm is stolen and you don’t report the theft within 48 hours of “knowing or having reason to know” that it was stolen,you face a $2,500.00 fine.  We predict there will be lots of people who didn’t “know” their guns were stolen.

If your gun is stolen and you can’t provide a serial number, you will be charged a $200.00 “administrative fee.”  They don’t say what that fee is supposed to cover.

All in all, pointless rules that are only intended to harass and demonize gun owners. The Sheriff of Multnomah County thinks these rules are a great idea. The County has no rules punishing people who allow minors access to their car keys.

Reports are that the overwhelming majority of people who testified were in opposition.

As we posted earlier, County Chair Jeff Cogen did not disagree with the critics of these new restrictions, saying that it would indeed not reduce gun violence, but that it was important to do something that “reflects what community values and community standards should be”. Speculation is already rampant that these ordinances won’t pass constitutional muster and will be overturned in court. As Starrett pointed out in his email, the overwhelming consensus of those who gave public testimony before the vote were in opposition to these bills, despite Cogen’s claims that the overwhelming majority of citizens favor ‘sensible gun restrictions’.

One thing is for certain – whether it is via ballot initiative or lawsuit, the fight over this new ordinance has only begun.

However, prominent Republicans sharply criticized the bill and the process by which it was passed, and even some Democrats are uncomfortable with the bill. According to the Capitol Currents blog, Speaker of the House Tina Kotek (D-Portland) has angered legislators on both sides of the aisle:

Kotek said that she wants it to go through as it is, without any major amendments.

“I’m not open to any changes,” she said.

The bill has been bashed repeatedly from both sides, but the Democrats’ have balanced their budget on this bill and a plan to save $275 million by closing some tax loopholes. Kotek said both proposals would need bipartisan support to pass and said the budget can’t be balanced without both.

“I think it’s a little like a poker game,” she said. “We’re trying to figure out how you play and win the pot.”

Even so, she said the current PERS proposal is as far as she’s willing to go on the subject, especially after listening to hours of testimony from retirees who said the cuts would hurt them financially.

“That helped firm up for me that what we’re doing is reasonable,” she said, arguing that anything more would be too harsh for retirees who have done nothing wrong. She said the key is “shared sacrifice,” which will mean closing tax breaks for the private sector as well.

And she acknowledged that no one likes the bill.

“No one is happy with Senate Bill 822,” Kotek said. “We’re clearly doing something right if no one is happy.”

In an email interview, Dennis Richardson (R-Central Point) strongly criticized the missed opportunity to make more fundamental changes to PERS:

The Democratic leaders in the Legislature are proposing SB 822 as a PERS fix.  In reality, SB 822 merely delays payments on $350 million of PERS debt for two years, and proposes $455 million of PERS “tweaks,” which are less than 1/2 of the $906 million PERS cost increases that will occur just in the next two-year budget–2013-15.

The most important issue for the Legislature to face this Session is to “FIX PERS.”  SB 822 is “PERS-Lite” and it is not a good-faith attempt to address the PERS crisis.  Such a low contribution toward the $14+ billion PERS unfunded liability is an obvious cowering of Democrat politicians to their public employee union masters.

SB 822 does not “fix PERS” and I will stand with Legislators who demand REAL PERS Reform by voting against this thinly-veiled appeasement to the public employees’ unions.  We  should not let the Democrats settle for anything less than actually “Fixing PERS.” The days of kicking the PERS cost can down the road to future Legislatures must end.

Even Democratic Governor John Kitzhaber has said that this bill does not go far enough to rein in the costs of PERS, though he has signaled that he will sign it if it hits his desk. The bill now moves to the Oregon House, where it is expected to be voted upon next week.

And whenever you work to uncover backdoor deals and government corruption, someone will try to silence you - such is the calling of an investigative news organization committed to the TRUTH.   

Last week a lawsuit was filed against The Franklin Center’s professional reporting team at Watchdog.org for stories pursued in Virginia that exposed potential problems and questionable business dealings with a green energy company called GreenTech. 

What makes this story important is the close ties this company has with “former” chairman and Democratic Gubernatorial Nominee Terry McAuliffe and the fact that Hillary Clinton’s brother is also involved with this company.

The investigation obviously struck a nerve.  So much so, that attorneys for the Clinton/McAuliffe tied company are suing us for $85 Million. Yes you are reading that correctly …. $85 million.

They want to shut us up. But we will not be silenced. We will continue to report on this and any story that is important to the public.

Here’s how YOU can Stand With the Franklin Center and defend the freedom of the press:

1.    Sign the Stand With Franklin Center pledge and defend the freedom of the press. If they can silence us they can silence anyone who dares to oppose bigger government and crony capitalism and those who work to expose waste and corruption.

2.    Help keep our investigative efforts alive by giving $15, $20 or whatever you can afford. Because we are a non-profit, we depend upon generous donations from the public who share our core mission.

3.    Help us spread the word. We need to send the message that we will NOT be intimidated. We have the TRUTH on our side and facts to back up our story. For more information, see what Michelle Malkin is saying here. Also, please consider sharing this story with your friends.

Thanks for standing with the Franklin Center as we continue to write the tough stories that hold go untold. As citizen journalists, YOU are on the front lines of your community to help hold government accountable.

Here’s to being watchful.

1. What kind of role do you play a role in shaping or implementing your state’s tax policy?

The Oregon Department of Revenue administers the tax policy set by the Oregon State Legislature.

2. What are some of the most common misconceptions citizens have about state taxes?  What are some of the most common mistakes you see citizens make when filing their tax returns?

The most common mistake taxpayers make on their return is not claiming the correct amount of estimated tax payments they made during the year. Taxpayers can remedy this by keeping careful records of the payments they’ve made or by signing up on our website to check their tax account before filing their return.

3.  How do incentives work? Credits? Sales tax holidays? Do you think these help the state?

We produce a Tax Expenditure Report that details all of the state’s tax credits and incentives. The report includes information on how they work and reviews their effectiveness. You can find the latest version of the report at http://www.oregon.gov/dor/STATS/Pages/tax-expenditure-report-2013-2015.aspx

4.  How can we make our tax code simpler and more citizen-friendly? What changes would you suggest?

We do not set tax policy. You should put this question to state legislators or the Oregon Legislative Revenue Office. Their website is http://www.leg.state.or.us/comm/lro

5.  Is your agency doing all it can to collect the taxes it is owed?  What is the consequence for not paying taxes on time?

People who do not pay their taxes on time are subject to penalties. They also can be charged interest on the amount owed to the state, which will accumulate until their tax debt is paid.

Since Question #4 was unable to be answered, this will be addressed in a future post via an interview with a state legislator.