"Public Interest" Groups play hardball. It isn't pretty.

Endorsement seal of approval

Public Interest Lobby Groups don't seek a candidate's judgement.  They want the candidate's commitment.   

They want to pin them down.

In return they get an endorsement certificate, and maybe campaign money.

A close look at the League of Conservation Voters Endorsement Process.

Progressive voters hear frequently about the power of "special interest" lobbies.  They know that banks have their agendas regarding consumer protection, that pharmaceutical companies want to maintain high drug prices.  Voters consider these special interests to be dangerous and corrupting.  

Goldberg announces her endorsement.

Progressive voters also know the NRA to be heavy handed. They lock legislators into promises to opposed all gun control efforts, period.  Deviation is punished with a well funded primary opponent.  The NRA does not want candidates who are flexible or who respond to events like a shooting in Florida.  They want people who are steadfast.

Progressive "good guy" groups--like every other powerful special interest group and PAC--want people who will win, and who will play ball on their issues.

This week the Oregon League of Conservation Voters endorsed Athena Goldberg and Jeff Golden for the Democratic nomination for the open State Senate seat.  This means they did not endorse Julian Bell, whose reputation is based on his primary focus on climate and environmental issues, nor Kevin Stine, whose positions on environmental issue appear to close observers to be identical to Goldberg's.

What is going on?  

Endorsements of candidates are not to be understood as descriptions of them.  They should be understood as tools to attempt to influence them. There is a big difference.

There is a process, starting with a questionnaire.  It's purpose is not to discern whether a candidate is pro-environment. The public records of all four Democrats, in their websites and Facebook pages, show them all to be at the forefront of environmental thinking.

Golden endorsed.

The questionnaire is about pinning candidates down with a specific commitment.  The questionnaire asks 17 detailed questions on very specific bills: "Did you sign or or publicly give support of the Clean Energy Jobs bill either as Senate Bill 1070 or for the 2018 session?"  "What, if anything, will you do to stop rollbacks or end-runs around Oregon's land use system, including when a bill similar to SB 432 is brought back."  What about  HB 2269?  What about EJSCREEN?  What about HB 4040 and 2702 and 2705 and 1008 and 2693?

For example, the Oregon League of Conservation Voters has a position on Transit Passes for Portland-area high school students.  Will the legislator go on record in support?  It does not invite the candidate to hear from Tri-Met nor Portland-area school districts on what affect this might have on them or what intended or unintended consequences there are of the action. It asks for a commitment.  Now.

The League of Conservation seeks to endorse team-members of a Democratic-environmental team.  Golden and Goldberg are apparently on the team.  

Julian Bell: facebook

Julian Bell has pro-environmental views, but did not get the endorsement.  He has been a leading public advocate for environmental causes generally and climate change in particular.  He ran for governor in 2016 against Kate Brown, with the express purpose of raising the environment as an issue against a candidate he considered a moderate.  They endorsed her, not him.   

Bell filled out the questionnaire this year.  He told me he thought it was heavy handed and off-target, with its multiple questions on issues tangential to the environment. He says he is disappointed but not angry at not being endorsed.  No "sour grapes."

"I supported their mission. I have given them money.  I just think the League's interests are not what they purport , to be the leading advocates of the environment."  He says they look closely at who is tied in with the Democratic Party "establishment," not who is the real, long-term committed environmentalist. "They are actually a sort of sub-group of the Democratic Party of Oregon."  He said they like winners, and the status quo.  They want good politicians, not good environmentalists. 

Kevin Stine website

Kevin Stine has pro-environmental views, but did not get the endorsement.  Stine looked at the questionnaire and said he decided it a waste of time and insultingly heavy handed and controlling. He dismissed it. Bell told me he thought the same thing, but he soldiered through the seventeen questions. Stine told me it was obvious to him they wanted to back candidates who appeared to have a big campaign apparatus, and that they wanted people who were willing to play ball and take direction.


[Note and disclaimer.  I have donated money to the League of Conservation Voters PAC in years past.  I stopped doing it.  I prefer to give to candidates directly.  When urged by the League, saying that that LCV money sent a strong message of issue direction from a specific point of view, thus amplifying its power, I said I understood this, and that was the point of my objection.]

Below:  The League of Conservation Voters Questionnaire:

Candidate Signature (can be electronic or signed at interview): _____________________________________

1.     Climate change is the biggest issue we face. It threatens not just the environment and special places we cherish, but also our communities and future generations. A coalition of leaders on climate change along with over 50 organizations and over 700 businesses have come together to urge the Oregon Legislature to act now and pass the Clean Energy Jobs bill. This bill will ensure Oregon continues leading on climate change with a cap and invest approach, which ensures proceeds from greenhouse gas emissions pricing are reinvested into programs that: a) further reduce GHG emissions, and b) create opportunities for disproportionately affected populations, defined as low-income, rural, communities of color, and impacted workers. You can find more information about the Clean Energy Jobs bill here.

A.     For incumbents:  Did you sign on or publicly give support for the Clean Energy Jobs bill either as Senate Bill 1070 (2017) or for the 2018 session?  If not, will you vote yes for the Clean Energy Jobs bill? Will you advocate and lead to ensure Oregon passes the Clean Energy Jobs bill in 2018? If yes, how?

B.     For nonincumbents: Will you publicly give support for the Clean Energy Jobs bill? What actions will you take during the 2018 session to encourage its passage?

2.     As happened with Oregon’s Clean Fuels Program in the 2015 and 2017 sessions, the fossil fuel industry lobbyists and certain state legislators continue with attempts to rollback or even repeal our current environmental protections through hostage-taking maneuvers, which always pit environmental priorities against unrelated bills. In addition, the big toy manufacturers have recently been trying to weaken or repeal the Toxic-Free Kids Act, Senate Bill 478 (2015), which passed in 2015 with bipartisan support. Will you oppose any rollbacks to Clean Fuels, The Toxic-Free Kids Act, or any bill-trading deals that roll back the priorities of the environmental community? How will you work to ensure big polluters do not have outsized influence in Salem? You can learn more about Oregon’s Clean Fuels Program here and the Toxic-Free Kids Act here.

3.     Oregon’s Forest Practices Act (OFPA) is one of the weakest forest practices laws in the region and has not been substantially improved since it was enacted in 1972. Protections for drinking water supplies, soils, wildlife, fish, scenery, and climate fall far below scientific standards as well as standards adopted by the federal government and neighboring states. Some of the badly needed OFPA reforms include better protection of rural Oregonians from aerial pesticide spraying, protection of Native American cultural sites, adequate buffers for streams, rivers, and other water sources, and economic incentives for ending clearcutting and instead investing into forest practices that result in a continuous increase in carbon storage. Are you supportive of these and other reforms? And how will you help Oregon reform its OFPA to better protect Oregonians, our drinking water, and our forests from destructive logging practices? You can read more about OFPA reforms needed here and here.

4.     Oregon’s innovative land use planning system is critical for livable urban and rural communities, protecting family farms and forests, and conserving natural areas. All people deserve to share in the economic and ecological benefits of great communities and healthy working landscapes. In recent years, wealthy companies and land owners have chosen to go to the Legislature seeking exemptions to the State’s land use rules, including with SB 644 and SB 432 (2017), rather than going through local land use processes. What, if anything, will you do to stop rollbacks to or end-runs around Oregon’s land use system, including when a bill similar to SB 432 is brought back? Will you vote no on any rollbacks to Oregon’s pioneering land use system? You can also find more information on SB 432 and SB 644 here.

5.     Oregon is facing a serious housing crisis. Oregonians are spending more than ever on housing, and too many are being pushed out of their communities and farther from where they work as rent and homeownership costs soar. We need smart policies to ensure that every Oregonian has a secure and affordable place to live, in homes that meet their needs, and in neighborhoods with access to opportunity. Senate Bill 1051 (2017) was a step in the right direction for more abundant, diverse, and affordable housing options within every neighborhood. However, there is still more that needs to be done. What next steps would you support to in order to ease the ability for more diverse (such as duplexes in single-family neighborhoods) and affordable housing to be built in towns and cities? Do you support the tools proposed in Senate Bill 2007A with -4 amendments from the 2017 session? You can read testimony in support here.

6.     Diesel pollution from mainly older, dirtier diesel engines is causing a serious health risk to Oregonians. In fact, about 90% of Oregonians live in counties where diesel exhaust increases risk of cancer over a lifetime. And the highest concentrations of diesel exhaust from heavy duty trucks and construction equipment occur in communities of color and low-income communities. In 2017, the Oregon Legislature took a good, but small, step by passing Senate Bill 1008, which uses a portion (about one-third) of the Volkswagen settlement to upgrade school buses to cleaner engines. However, because of heavy pressure from the trucking and construction industries, many other important pieces were cut from the bill. With two-thirds of the $72.9 million settlement with Volkswagen remaining, Oregon has a critical opportunity to ease the transition to vastly cleaner diesel technology (newer diesel engines can reduce diesel particulate matter emissions by 85 to 98%). Will you support using the remaining VW settlement money for standards that include phase-out deadlines for dirty diesel engines? You can read more about diesel here.

7.     Regions in Oregon, such as Portland, have some of the worst air quality in the nation. Residents face serious and life-threatening illnesses every year as a result of poor air quality. Cleaner Air Oregon, a critical program for air quality monitoring, is a great step toward reducing toxic air pollution. Unfortunately, in the 2017 Session, the big business lobby and industrial lobbyists defeated HB 2269, which would have ensured the biggest polluters paid in order to fund Cleaner Air Oregon. Will you support a badly needed increase for air permit fees in order to fund this important initiative? You can find more information about Cleaner Air Oregon here.

8.     A nationwide study released fall of 2017, and led by the University of Washington and published in Environmental Health Perspectives, found that people of color are still far more likely to suffer from harmful air pollution than white people. Between 2000 and 2010, little progress has been made in reducing relative disparities between people of color and whites; and exposure to nitrogen dioxide (NO2) a key transportation-related pollutant, is significantly influenced by race, far more than by income, age or education. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has developed a new environmental justice (EJ) mapping and screening tool called EJSCREEN to better address the protection of public health and the environment. It is based on nationally consistent data and an approach that combines environmental and demographic indicators in maps and reports. How will you ensure Oregon is prioritizing Environmental Justice? Would you support stronger adaption of the EJSCREEN at the state level?

9.     Oregon has a limited supply of water. With mounting threats from climate change and an ever-expanding number of harmful pollutants from urban and rural sources, we need to do more to protect and promote clean and plentiful water throughout our state. In 2017, three bills (House Bills 2705 for measuring and reporting usage, 2706 for a water rights management fee,  and 2707 for groundwater study and analysis) were proposed which would advance sustainable management of Oregon’s critical water resources for growing communities, businesses, agriculture, native fish and wildlife. Unfortunately, all three bills died in committee. In 2019, will you support measures to improve sustainable water management, including requirements to measure water use and adequate funding for water studies and agency staff? Please explain.

10.  Predators play an important part in our state’s ecology by managing game populations in the wild. Wolves in particular also serve as iconic symbols of our state’s natural legacy. Yet, each legislative session bills are drafted and voted on that would make it easier to hunt and kill this important native Oregon species, including the passage of House Bill 4040 (2016). Would you oppose bills that roll back Oregon’s existing protections for predators and wildlife, including any proposal to allow for trophy hunting of wolves? Please explain how you will advocate for science and reality-based wildlife management in Oregon. You can read more about the history of wolves in Oregon here.

11.  It is important that the state agencies are funded so existing laws can be enforced and programs carried out to protect Oregonians, improve health and habitat, and promote clean air and water. What will you do to ensure that natural resource agencies and other programs that protect our environment have the funding they need?  Would you support increasing the budgets for Oregon’s natural resource agencies and other programs that protect our environment?

12.  In 2017, Oregon passed a significant transportation package, which OLCV and the Oregon Conservation Network supported. One piece still left to do on transportation is preserving and extending the YouthPass – House Bill 2693 (2017), free transit passes given to some high school students in regions with large nonwhite and low-income riders. The YouthPass is an important tool for developing the next generation of transit riders, decreasing greenhouse gas emissions from our transportation sector, and increasing opportunities for young people in primarily low-income communities and communities of color. Will you support preserving and extending the YouthPass? Are there any other next steps you would like to see for Oregon’s transportation system?

13.  Oil trains barreling through parts of Oregon continue to put our communities and our environment at risk. In 2016, an oil train derailed in Mosier, Oregon, in the heart of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. Yet, Oregon continues to have the weakest laws on the West Coast regarding oil train emergency response and assurance of railroad financial responsibility for a worst case derailment and oil spill. House Bill 2131 (2017) with the -2 amendments would have been a step in the right direction toward better oil train safety without triggering preemption under federal law. It included contingency planning and training to better prepare for containment and mitigation along our waterways, proof that railroads carry adequate insurance to address a worst-case oil train derailment, spill, and fire, and an assessment from the railroads based on high hazard train route track miles within the state to fund contingency planning training and exercises. However, this bill was weakened by industry lobbyists and ultimately died in committee. Will you support oil train safety reforms such as proposed in House Bill 2131 with the -2 amendments?

14.  According to a Mason-Dixon poll conducted in 2017, 80% of Oregonians, including 67% of Republicans and 79% of Independents, would be less likely to support a politician who votes to sell off public lands. Even with this overwhelming support, the Trump Administration and corporate special interests have been attacking our public lands at every turn. In Oregon, the Elliott State Forest was recently at risk of being sold off until a solution was reached to keep it public, and the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monunment remains under threat from the Trump Administration. As a state legislator, what will you do to protect public lands in Oregon?

15.  Cities and counties across the nation from larger municipalities like Las Vegas and St. Louis to smaller ones like Georgetown, TX to Ashland, OR are committing through resolution to the goal of getting 100% of its electricity from clean, noncarbon sources by a certain year – often 2035. Some, including Portland, OR and Multnomah County, take that a step further and are committing to the goal of getting 100% of all energy (including the transportation sector) by 2050 from clean, noncarbon sources. As a state legislator what actions do you intend to undertake to help them make this goal a reality? And, would you consider supporting a statewide effort to commit Oregon to these goals? You can read more about getting to 100% clean energy here.

16.  OLCV is committed to helping foster an Oregon where everyone is treated with dignity and respect. We believe our elected officials are models for their community and as such, should be held to the highest standards of conduct. As a state legislator, will you commit to serving as an example for your community and treat all others, including colleagues and staff, with dignity and respect?