Below photo is the Progressive Party banner at the Albina Ministerial Coalition for Justice and Police Reform rally (here).
Photos of Progressive Party booth at the Portland Farmers Market many a Saturday.

Chris Henry     Oregon District 1 US Rep. Candidate

Occupation: Teamster Linehaul Driver, Yellow Roadway Corporation (YRC); Executive Director, Portland Metro Greens Chapter (PGP); Undergraduate Student, Portland State University (PSU)

Occupational Background: Union Truck Driver; Union Aircraft Mechanic

Educational Background: Portland State University, Communication Studies, emphasis: Conflict Resolution and Peace Studies; Clackamas Community College, Communications

OCCUPATION:

Volunteer attorney, Consumer Justice Alliance, Oregon Consumer League. Received Oregon State Bar Award for the Highest Level of Pro-Bono Service for "TOTAL HOURS OF PRO-BONO SERVICES" and "LEGAL SERVICES TO THE POOR" (3/4/04).

OCCUPATIONAL BACKGROUND:

Commander JAGC U.S. Navy (Ret.)(1944-70); volunteer WWll, Korea, Vietnam; public defender, prosecutor, attorney for disabled servicemen. Lewis & Clark Law School (1970-80) taught Consumer Law, Legal Ethics. Malheur County Counsel, Deputy D.A. (1989-91). Tree Farmer (1987-2007)(donated to Lincoln County, for all Oregonians, his reforested 185-acre farm on the Siletz River as a no-hunting, no-logging, nature park).

On August 30, the Progressive Party of Oregon, Working Families Party of Oregon, and State Senator Larry George (R) filed suit in Marion County Circuit Court to stop the Secretary of State from dramatically altering Oregon's general election ballot by removing from it all party names next to the names of candidates.

Vote for Candidates with “Progressive” or “PRO” next to their names. The Peace Party of Oregon was formed by voter petition in 2008. We changed the name from Peace Party to Progressive Party to reflect a boader agenda:  economic justice, human rights, environmental protection, and grassroots democracy, as well as avoiding military adventurism. We are very different from the Establishment parties.

Rick Staggenborg for United States Senate
Occupation: Physician

Occupational Background: Psychiatrist, US Army Medical Corps, Medical Director of a County Mental Health Agency, Veterans Administration (VA) psychiatrist and Acting Associate Chief of Staff for Mental Health Services for the Roseburg VA Health Service Center. Currently serving as a volunteer for the national council of the Alliance for Democracy and founder of Soldiers For Peace International.

Educational Background: Woodrow Wilson High School, Portland State University (BS in Psychology and Biology), Oregon Health Sciences Center (completed residency training at the University of New Mexico).

Prior Governmental Experience: No elective office, but extensive familiarity with Federal government bureauocracy through my work with the VA. * * *

The Progressive Party of Oregon has nominated the following candidates for the November 2010 general election:

        Oregon State Treasurer:       Walt Brown
        U.S. Senate:                  Rick Staggenborg
        U.S. Congress, 1st District:  Chris Henry
        U.S. Congress, 3rd District:  Michael Meo
        U.S. Congress, 4th District:  Peter DeFazio
        U.S. Congress, 5th District:  Chris Lugo

A party can nominate candidates only in "partisan" races. It can endorse candidates in any race. The Progressive Party has endorsed:

        Metro Council President:       Bob Stacey

Progressives: American Buffalo - The Spirit of America:

As Buffalo were the lords of the prairie, Progressives were once the lamplighters of the dawn of a revolution that brought constitutional representative democracy. This constitution brought together ideas from enlightenment along with concepts found in tribal co-operative agreements of the The Constitution of the Five Nations - or - The Iroquois Book of the Great Law. In it, you will find close parallels to our Executive, Legislative and Judiciary branches of government as originally described in our U. S. Constitution.

The nominating meeting will take place at 7:00 pm August 19 at:

320 SW Stark Street
Suite 200
Portland

Nominations may include all federal, state, and local partisan offices.

The Progressive Party of Oregon has preserved its right to nominate candidates for the November 2010 general election by growing from zero members in October 2009 to over 1,800 members today.

Anyone who wishes to run as a candidate of the Progressive Party should Consult this Page.

The organization began as the Peace Party in 2008. After party organizers filed well over the 20,000 voter signatures required to create a minor party in Oregon, the Party nominated Ralph Nader for President in 2008.

In September 2009, the Peace Party changed its name to the Progressive Party, because "Progressive" more accurately reflects the party's positions on social justice, consumer advocacy, environmental protection, and worker's rights, in addition to its dedication to peace. Unfortunately, the Oregon Legislature demands that, when a minor party changes its name, it loses its entire membership. Since then, the Progressive Party has rebuilt its membership to over 1,800 members. Because Mr. Nader received more than 1% of the vote in an Oregon statewide contest in 2008, the Party needed to achieve 1,380 registered members by August 4.

The Party will consider nominating a variety of candidates for the November 2010 general election.

Linda Williams, chair of the Independent Party of Oregon, and Dan Meek, Senior member, along with former Chair of the Federal Election Assistance Commission and current Chief Elections Officer of Everyone Counts Inc. Paul DeGregorio, announced the results of the Independent Party of Oregon's historic internet primary this evening in Portland, OR.

New hope: Nader

Most of us didn't realize that when Barack Obama talked of hope during his presidential campaign, it meant hope for insurance and pharmaceutical companies, the military-industrial complex, banks that were bailed out and the bankers who received huge bonuses.

But when consumer activist and third party presidential candidate Ralph Nader spoke in Portland on Saturday, I felt a sense of hope. It wasn't because he made promises. As a matter of fact, he talked a lot about what our president hasn't done.

Nader was in Portland to promote the Progressive Party. It was the audience reaction to his speech that inspired me, and the hope that perhaps Americans will stop watching sports and television long enough to sift through mass media information and learn what is going on in America and to care.

BEV ANSLOW
Gladstone

RALPH NADER IS COMING TO PORTLAND on Saturday, May 8!
First Unitarian Church Sanctuary
1211 SW Main Street, Portland
Doors/book signing at 7:30 p.m. Program at 8:00 p.m.

“Obama So Far . . . A New Strategy for Progressives”

Mr. Nader will discuss his book “Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us!” and
Ways to Democratically Mobilize the Country for Long Overdue Changes, including:

Wall Street: What Real Reform Would Look Like
Clean/Renewable Energy vs. Subsidizing Nukes and Coal Plants

Oregon Supreme Court Upholds Law Requiring Truthful Reporting of Sources of Political Contributions

but the unanimous decision does not address whether the current ban on anonymous contributions is valid
April 29, 2010

The Oregon Supreme Court today issued its opinion in State of Oregon v. Thomas Paul Moyer, in which a person accused of making political contributions in a false name challenged the the constitutionality of Oregon's statute that prohibits any political contribution from being made "in any name other than that of the person who in truth provides the contribution to." ORS 260.402. This law was enacted by voter initiative over 100 years ago and has never before been challenged. Local businessman Tom Moyer was accused by the Multnomah County District Attorney of contributing to a campaign for Mayor of Portland in the names of his relatives and employees.

The opinion is at: http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/supreme.htm#apr10

The brief of Amicus Curiae and other briefs are here: http://fairelections.net/court/moyer

The attorneys representing the defendants (Michael Garone, Ronald Hoevet, and Janet Lee Hoffman) argued that requiring anyone to truthfully identify himself as the source of a political contribution violates the First Amendment of the U .S. Constitution and the free speech provisions of the Oregon Constitution. The State of Oregon argued that the statute is valid, as did the Policy Initiatives Group and seven Oregon voters (the Amicus Curiae) represented by attorneys Dan Meek and Linda Williams, who also have represented FairElections Oregon (sponsor of Oregon's recent campaign finance reform statewide ballot measures).

The Multnomah County Circuit Court had ruled that the law is invalid under the Oregon Constitution's free speech provisions. This decision was reversed in January 2009 by a 6-4 decision of the Oregon Court of Appeals, but there was no majority of the 10 judges (en banc) in agreement on any single rationale for upholding this law. Instead, a combination of two rationales were cobbled together to uphold the law. The Oregon Supreme Court the granted review and held oral argument in September 2009.

In general, under the Oregon Supreme Court 's current analysis, any law that by design restricts speech is invalid, under Article I, Section 8, of the Oregon Constitution, unless the law comes within an "historical exception," meaning that it was the type of law that existed at the time of the adoption of the Oregon Constitution in 1859. The brief of the Amicus Curiae focused on whether the law at issue came within an historical exception. The Oregon Supreme Court agreed that ORS 260.402 did come within an historical exception. The Court also narrowed the sweep of its previous decision involving campaign contributions and expenditures, Vannatta v. Keisling (1997), noting that not all political contributions are "constitutionally protected expression."

The Amicus also pointed out that, if prohibiting campaign contributions in a false name is a violation of "free speech," then the government cannot require accurate reporting or disclosure of campaign contributions at all. Candidates in Oregon should then expect to receive massive contributions from "anonymous." They could reject the anonymous contributions but place themselves at a huge disadvantage to the candidates who accept them. And, if many Oregon politicians, from both major parties, decide to take the anonymous money, it will not be a potent campaign issue for their opponents to use against them.

If Article I, § 8, of the Oregon Constitution does not allow the government to require that campaign contributions not be made "in any name other than that of the person who in truth provides the contribution," ORS 260.402(1), then the government also cannot require that the sources of campaign contributions be accurately reported. If Article I, § 8, invalidates the requirement that a campaign contributor truthfully reveal her contribution, in her own name, then it would be impossible for a campaign to accurately report its contributors under the requirements of ORS Chapter 260.

The federal government and every one of the 50 states requires public reporting of political campaign contributions. Campaign Disclosure Project, Grading State Disclosure 2008 (Pew Charitable Trusts 2009). Of those states, 37 have freedom of speech clauses essentially identical to Oregon's. Each of them declares that every person has the right "to speak, write, or print freely on any subject." Some of them use the word "publish" instead of "print," but they are otherwise the same as Oregon's. [table omitted] We are not aware of any reported cases in which the political contribution reporting requirements of any of these states has been held to be invalid due to the free speech clause (or any other clause) in the state's constitution.

The Oregon Supreme Court in today's decision expressly did not reach the issue of whether the current ban on anonymous campaign contributions violates the Oregon Constitution, because ORS 260.402 (the statute at issue) does not ban anonymous contributions. Instead, it bans contributions "in any other name than that of the person who in truth supplies such money." "Anonymous" is not a "name." "No doubt someone now will challenge the constitutionality of the ban on anonymous contributions," said Dan Meek. "We will be there again to defend the right of Oregonians to know who is funding political campaigns in this state.

For more information:

Daniel Meek, attorney
(503) 293-9021
dan@fairelections.net

Linda Williams, attorney
(503) 293-0399
linda@fairelections.net