Oregon Senate District 3: Candidate Jim Crary responds

Jim Crary says he's trying to win.

Crary is a candidate for senate in Oregon's Senate District 3. He is one of five Democrats in the race.

He says I got it wrong.

Crary, on his forest property on Highway 66

A Democrat has an excellent chance of winning in this district. The party has a registration edge: Democrats: 31,748. Republicans 25,188. Non-affiliated: 36,708. And this should be a good year for Democrats nationwide. Trump is a drag on Republicans and a turnout-motivator for Democrats. 

I wrote on Thursday that Jim Crary's campaign listed only two contributors after a month of active campaigning. I thought I was being generous to Crary by not presuming his campaign was floundering. I wrote that his campaign probably had another purpose: It is a platform to pitch his idea of higher alcohol taxes. I watched Andrew Yang in 2020 use the platform of running for president to introduce the idea of a universal basic income. The third-party candidacy of Robert Kennedy, Jr. gave him attention that led to his being put in Trump's Cabinet. A candidacy is a proven device for getting attention.

Crary's campaign introduced the alcohol tax idea to me, and having heard him make his case, I decided it makes sense.  Alcohol causes social problems that cost taxpayers. Alcohol should pay its own way. As I saw it, Crary's plan worked.

Crary wrote me to say I misunderstand him. He said his campaign is for real and his lack of contributors is a feature, not a bug. His campaign website is: https://www.craryfororegonsenate.org

Comment from Jim Crary

Your statement about my campaign contains several inaccuracies that I’d like to correct.

First, my campaign is not narrowly focused; rather, it is focused on solving two of the biggest challenges facing Oregonians: affordability and infrastructure. My proposal for funding my solutions to those challenges is straightforward: update Oregon’s beer and wine taxes (currently the lowest in the nation and unchanged for over 40 years) and use the resulting new revenue to fund $125 million in income tax relief for lower-income, working Oregonians and $100 million dedicated solely to repairing and maintaining our roads and bridges. Today, Oregon’s tax on a 12-oz beer is less than a cent (.79¢), and on a 5-oz glass of wine just 2.6¢. Updating those rates to 25¢ per drink would generate $306 million annually, in new revenue. So, the affordability and infrastructure funding would not require cutting any existing services or programs. It would also only move Oregon to the middle of the pack nationally on beer and wine tax rates.

Second, your inference that I am not making a serious effort to win is simply not correct. Offering specific, fully funded solutions rather than broad platitudes and slogans is definitely not the norm but I am doing that because I respect voters enough to be clear about what I will do and how I will pay for it.

Third, my campaign is intentionally built around direct voter engagement. Unlike most candidates who ask only for votes and donations, on my website, as you well know, I actively invite and answer voter questions publicly. That approach carries political risk as clear, direct answers won’t please everyone, but I believe voters deserve transparency and the opportunity to compare candidates based on substance.

As for campaign contributions, I have been very fortunate to have friends who agree with my positions and are willing to support me. They are not special interests seeking favors but truly altruistic friends.

I am running for State Senate for the same reason I’ve stepped forward before, because I believe public service is about solving problems, not building a career. Like Cincinnatus, I believe in doing the job and then returning to private life.

If you (or others) have questions, please call/text me at 541-531-2912; I would welcome the conversation.

Best regards,
Jim Crary

He later specifically addressed my question of why there wasn't evidence of typical campaign fundraising. He wrote:

Answer: That’s a fair question, but it reflects a difference in strategy—not a lack of seriousness. In addition to my own contributions, I’ve received support from five donors, which has allowed me to spend less time dialing for dollars and more time earning voter trust. 

 

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]