Not being a Legislature regular — I've been four or five times, for just a short time — I have not had much experience with lobbyists. I've seen them on tv and read their words in various places, but damn; it's nothing compared to seeing one in action. And I gotta tell: I did not like what I saw.

The Senate Consumer Protection Committee held a public hearing on SB 1045, sponsored by Senator, and Committee Chair, Diane Rosenbaum. The bill would block the use of credit reports in a job application process. There are a number of problems with credit reports: they are prone to many and serious errors (approximately one-quarter to one-third of entries are wrong); they reveal unnecessary personal info (Sen George and I were both surprised to learn that you could discern a person's sexual orientation by who they have credit cards, mortgages and other loans with); people don't even bother to apply for jobs they may be qualified for figuring ahead of time, why bother; and many of the legitimate issues noted on a credit report have nothing to do with a person's fitness for a job (an expensive family illness or divorce). There are many reasons to keep credit reports out of most job applications (the committee passed an amendment to cover jobs where a report would refect "substantially job-related" information).

That's not how the flak for Transunion saw it. Representing one of the three major credit reporting firms, he brushed aside the concerns and critiques with no evidence beyond the steady, assured tone of his voice. He told the committee the U.S. Government Accounting Office had found credit reports reliably accurate (the studies that found errors were, he proclaimed, based on faulty data —amateurish data, in fact). In fact, he assured the committee, if a person is turned down for a job because of a credit report, they are supposed to receive a notce of adverse action from the employer. It'll be too late to get that job, of course, but they can see what the problem was and fix it in the future.

Prof James Moore in the "Sunday Oregonian”:

The public employee unions won. It appears that the union message that corporations were getting away with $10 a year in taxes, and that very few people were in the higher income tax bracket, swayed a large number of voters. Voters bought into the idea that the new taxes would bring specific services to communities.

This election to defend the public employee unions looked more like the possible beginning of a new political era, one in which unions could more confidently push for their goals.

So, a victory for the unions, right?

The biggest mistake being made in analyzing the outcome of Measures 66 & 67 is that this was a union battle won by the unions. The unions made possible the victory with their support and funding, but the unions on their own would have lost this election. Battle. This election was won because the unions were the starting point.

This campaign was not won because of mailers or ads on tv and radio; No votes almost triumph in those circumstances, and Oregonians are just as gullible as anyone else when an election is being based on ads. Both sides had effective ads, and I know from talking to voters (anecdotal information here, not data) that the No ads sowed seeds of confusion and doubt that added to the Yes campaign’s already difficult task of getting voters to approve a tax increase - even when that increase was not on themselves (congratulations to the voters of Douglas County, standing tall for the vast numbers of wealthy people in their population; good job taking care of yourself and your kids).

I attended a volunteer orientation held by The Archimedes Movement (aka We Can Do Better) this afternoon; really, a dry run of future orientations. A good idea, something more organizations should do: monthly opportunities for people to learn about an organization and find out how to get plugged in effectively. It also allows the organization the opportunity to connect with new volunteers and ensure they become plugged-in and are not allowed to drift away because of organizational indifference, ineptitude, business, etc.

At one point during the orientation, AM staffer Julie Magers said “There is a difference between a social movement and a campaign”. Ding ding. Absolutely, and it’s something we discuss too little. Her example was Health Care for America Now, a powerhouse group that focused on the public option — and then found itself foundering when the option finally disappeared from sight. Progressives need to learn this lesson because what we are pursuing is not a campaign but a permanent change in how America operates.

So, by the way, is the Tea Party Movement. Just so we’re clear what the stakes are.

Campaigns are necessary, of course, and for the obvious reasons: we have to get people elected, ballot measures, tax measures, getting Congress or the Leg or City Council to take (or not take) action. Campaigns raise awareness, inform, raise money, gather volunteers and supporters, push issues forward and do other important work. Campaigns that are lost can either diminish support or galvanize the “true believers”. Campaigns come and go; one morphs into the next. They have a short-term focus, and too often are disconnected from longer-term concerns.

Campaigns are not social movements. A social movement is in it for the long-term. The civil rights movement; the women’s movement; the gay rights movement; we label these such because their goals reach far beyond any campaign that arises in support of some short-term goal. The campaigns matter, often hugely so, but in the fervor to win a campaign, and the emotional response to the outcome, remembering why the campaign was waged in the first place is difficult. But the campaign is only a means to a greater end; that end is the movement.

Both require dedication, but of different sorts. Dedicating oneself to a campaign can mean giving evening evenings and weekends to the work needed, whether a few times or relentlessly until Election Day. Movement dedication is not unlike getting religion: you have to have faith in what you’re doing, day after day, year after year, not quitting because things get tough, because campaigns are lost, because you are tired. Campaign dedication is a wonderful thing; the thousands of Oregonians who dedicated themselves to winning Measures 66/67 are heroes and deserve gratitude.

Anger over the U.S. Senate’s use of the filibuster, in particular how the GOP can now use it bring all legislation to a grinding halt, is understandable and well-placed. More insidious, and even less democratic, is the rule that allows a Senator — one single Senator — to place on hold the President’s nomination for appointed office. While the rule serves a good purpose in keeping an unfit person from office, the rule is being abused beyond defense.

Forget the filibuster. Change this rule.

From TPMDC:

Sen. Richard Shelby's (R-AL) office has confirmed to TPMDC the reports that Shelby has placed a hold on President Obama's nominees over a pair of government programs set to be based in Alabama. He did not confirm that Shelby has taken the rare step of blocking all of Obama's nominees, as was reported yesterday.

Until Sen Ron Wyden forced through a rules change recently, these holds were anonymous. Reporters would guess at who the Senator was, trying to tease out the info from sources, including other Senators who frequently did not know themselves. Now, at least, we now that Sen Shelby is using this rule as a one-man veto of the President of the United States.

I cannot imagine James Madison doing anything other than recoiling in horror from such arrogance. I doubt any of the Founders believed a single Senator, acting with neither check nor balance, should wield such power. He is holding these nominations hostage in order to score political points and win a policy battle that he has lost under the law. He is using a Senate rule to act in a way that would be outside the law.

This Washington Post article makes clear that Senators of both parties, including former Sen Barack Obama, have used holds in the past. The difference, however, is huge. Just as the filibuster used to be reserved for “big” issues — LBJ had to overcome a 67-vote margin to pass the Civil Rights Act — holds have been used in the past to deal with single issues, and without bringing the government to a halt. But the Justice Dept has 4 assistant attorney general positions unfilled — because of holds. The problem has been growing since Obama took office:

It seems clear that Senate Republicans are prepared to take the partisan war over the courts into uncharted territory—delaying up-or-down votes on the Senate floor for even the most qualified and uncontroversial of the president's judicial nominees. If this continues, it will worsen an already serious problem of vacancies on the federal courts. And it will discourage from ever entering the confirmation process precisely the type of nominees both parties should want.

Sen Jeff Merkley, thanks for trying to deal with the filibuster, but the ability of a Senator, or a Senate minority, to overturn the will of the voters, and the majority of the Congress, and the President’s constitutional authority, is unconscionable. This rule has to be addressed and fixed — and the Democrats have to agree with it even if it limits their “power” in the future.

You gotta be here to appreciate the excitement.

Take the House Environment and Water Committee, chaired by the hunky (ok, that's enough of the America's-sexiest-teacher stuff) Ben Cannon. In less than ten minutes: introduce all the committee members, adopt committee rules, crank through a work session in which Rep Jefferson Smith "passionately" introduced two bills for the committee to address, Rep Bob Jenson commented that he is against bills that did not pass muster in the 2009 regular session being brought back up here — and gavel the sucker closed in under ten minutes.

Government efficiency in action.

Or perhaps, as Rep Deborah Boone suggested, don't stand between a committee chair and his lunch.

That's pretty much par for the course today. Committee introductions, rules adoption, preliminary set of bills to be worked on, adios. With twenty work days for the entire session, very little time for the niceties. Way too much to do in way too little time.

One thing I am quickly learning: be prepared. Know when the committee meetings are, know the room, be there and be ready. If you're going to testify, come early and turn your written testimony in ahead of time. The best preparation, of course, is to be in a position to get a heads-up from a legislator or staff; that's not very simple. They are all busy and there are a ton of people waiting to pounce at any moment. But by being here and by being politely aggressive — take any available opening, any gap in schedule or sycophants — you can say hello, have a quick work on a topic, get a chance to learn what you need.

What's great is that most of the electeds and staff want to help. Rep Brian Clem, without any prompting, let me know what his Ag Committee is addressing (Thursday 8am, rural-urban reserves; a big damn deal). I was able in my first hour to speak with Speaker Hunt, Rep Greg Matthew and Veterans Committee Chair Jean Cowan about the National Guard — and I got warm and positive feedback from all. If some of the good things we progressives would like to see advance do not, I do not believe it will be from either disregard for these issues or a negative attitude towards constituents and advocates; in this session, it's about having approximately 200 hours to get all this stuff done.

Stay tuned.

Yesterday, five members of the Supreme Court of the United States did a reprise of their 2000 coup: this time they decided to allow anyone with a lot of money to spend that money on election propaganda. In one ham-fisted, anti-democratic, precedent-busting move, they eliminated the already weak limits in place under McCain-Feingold, reasserted that corporations have the same Constitutional rights as actual human beings, and affirmed, beyond doubt, the possession of money as the most important resource in American politics.

Now we know why Roberts flubbed the Oath last year: he was eager to help destroy the nascent progressive movement that allowed Barack Obama to stand before him and take that oath. Now he’s done what he can to ensure Obama and others of his ilk are unable to forget their place and get uppity.

Not to mention, fuck “one person, one vote”. Now, more than ever, it’s the Golden Rule: “Those with the gold, rule”.

However, just like the defeat of Coakley in Massachusetts earlier this week, I refuse to let this be a setback. I am not going to join the woe-is-me, wailing and gnashing of teeth crowd. This is a horrible decision, and it does huge damage. But like every piece of shit that rolls down from on high, if we do not look for and build on the opportunity that is implied, we simply concede defeat and declare ourselves as morally bankrupt at the five who decided to fuck-over democracy in this manner. We only recognize light because of the darkness; these awful events eliminate confusion and, for those looking to move forward and do better, clarify what is possible.

Here in Oregon, in discussing our intramural difficulties, we refer to the “urban/rural divide” — the gap in attitudes and policy approaches between those in the cities and those in small towns and remote areas. However, in light of the arguments being raised as we complete the Measures 66/67 campaign, I think it’s clear we have a more significant divide to deal with: that between the public and private sectors.

Many Oregonians see the public sector as a feeding trough for powerful unions and their over-compensated members. The jobs that most public sector employees hold are necessary to maintain the safe and healthy quality of life Oregonians demand, whether urban or rural. At the same time, many liberals, who support almost uncritically the public sector, view the private with a jaundiced eye. The damage wreaked by financial corporations, developers, the auto industry and others does little to convince the critics of “business” that the private sector can be trusted.

Add to this an election about whether or not to raise business taxes, and the potential for the public-private debate to sour into toxicity is great. I’ve gotten involved in a number of conversations, far too many on Twitter, and rather than continue to try to state my view in 140-character bursts, I’ll set out some things here.

First and foremost, the public sector is absolutely vital to any modern, flourishing economy. Only the public sector can effectively, efficiently and — vital within a democracy — fairly provide services necessary for an economy to prosper: education, public safety, transportation and utility infrastructure, regulations to protect those vulnerable to the unscrupulous and careless, and the redistribution of wealth that prevents a few from gaining tyrannical power over the majority. The specific nature of the institutions and practices that accomplish these goals is a matter of on-going debate and experimentation; that such services can best be provided by government — I would argue, only be provided by government of, by and for the people — is a principle to which I gladly give allegiance.

Second, the private sector must be strong and healthy for a democratic, market-based society like the United States to survive, much less prosper. Most people work within the private sector; most wealth is produced by the private sector. More importantly, the private sector allows individuals to pursue goals and dreams: not just make a living but create a dynamic, fulfilling career. I have spent most of my life in the private sector and am trying desperately to make a career as a self-employed businessperson, so this is not just theory: it’s personal.

Last year, with massive publicity and a high level of public anger and disappointment working in their favor, the campaign to recall Sam Adams laid a big, fat egg. Since a democratic process failed to achieve their goals, the anti-Adams forces have decided to buy a recall.

The campaign will use a combination of paid and volunteer signature gatherers …. We raised enough funds to get the paid effort started but need more help from Portland business leaders and individuals who care about Portland’s future. I encourage those interested to send their contributions to Portland Future PAC….

Because that worked so well in California when money brought the Governator to office. Yea, let’s give that a go here. That’s clearly the right thing to do in the middle of an election year with the economy in the crapper: a referendum on the Mayor’s moral fitness for office.

Here is the disgusting part, courtesy of the Portland Tribune:

At this point it is unclear who will collect the signatures. One firm that has been contacted by the campaign is Voice of the Electorate, which is owned by three longtime conservative political activists, Kevin Mannix, Ross Day and Russ Walker. Day says his firm is ready to go and confident it can collect the required signatures, but it does not yet have a signed contract with the campaign.

Kevin Mannix, purveyor of Measure 11, currently bankrupting our state with out-of-control spending on innumberable prisons? Ross Day? Is Gordly out of her fucking mind? These are people who have spent their career attacking the State of Oregon, specializing in pushing policies and ballot measures that harm her former constituents more than anyone else. That she and Wurster, who at least showed a modicum of deference to the democratic process in the first recall attempt, would even consider hiring these political thugs is reprehensible.

Who they hire to do their dirty work really does not matter, of course. That they have to resort to a paid campaign shows both their desperation and the futility of the exercise. A recall that has a chance to win — that has the support of the voters — does not require a paid field staff of political hacks to get on the ballot. Oregon is already hurting enough from the checkbook initiative system. To drag the City into that mire is reprehensible. Why they feel so fervently that we need to be dragged through three months of signature gathering and then an expensive and divisive special election is beyond my ability to comprehend. Even if they succeed in driving Adams from office — and that’s not very likely — what good will it serve? We’ll elect someone whose lies we won’t know? We’ll all be aglow with moral superiority?

We got rid of that faggot?

I’ve been told that Adams’ on-going presence as Mayor is hurting the city. Me, I’d blame the massive global economic crisis, but what do I know? Apparently we’re losing tremendous economic opportunities because he’s mayor; most businesses certainly put moral issues above the chance to make money, so I totally get that. So what if he’s a guest in other nations, not to mention the City’s appeal to Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, on behalf of an Obama Administration that seems to like what Adams’ Transportation Dept is doing. But having a liar (not a queer, mind you; a man who told a lie so he could sucker the city and get elected) for mayor is just too much for decent entrepreneurs and business-types to stomach. “We have standards, you know.”

This just disgusts me. This is the base opposite of democracy: using the money of a few rich people to overturn the will of the people, expressed last year in a refusal to sanction a recall. Avel Gordly and Jason Wurster, shame on you. And thanks for dragging the city down with you as you descend into the muck.

How do we recall such reckless citizens?

Do you think it’s struck Joe lieberman yet that he’s the biggest loser in Tuesday’s election? Brown will get booted in 2012; he’s little more than a trivia answer in the making. But Joe: He was the Dog Wagging the Dems’ Tail. He held them hostage for his version of health care (and anything else for which zero Republicans would vote, which was everything). He had clout; he had meaning.

And now, he’s got dick.

Let’s be grateful: Joe Lieberman is no longer the 60th Vote; he has nothing with which to threaten Harry Reid and Barack Obama anymore. The GOP can now filibuster the shit out of everything to come before the Senate, and the only thing Joe can do is pretend he might get McCain or Graham, his threesome soulmates, to maybe consider possibly perhaps…. Everyone knows that the Dems’ agenda in the Senate, not to mention the Congress and the nation, is pretty well screwed in that regards. So Joe?

A big fat zero.

Same for Ben Nelson, and Mary Landreiu, and anyone else in the Democratic caucus who thought they could leverage that 60th vote for their own gain. It’s gone, and the wonderful irony is that had they not played that game, especially with health care reform, they might have undermined the momentum in Massachusetts that led independent voters to vote for Brown. They hoisted themselves on their own hubris.

I hope it hurts.