The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has for decades opposed limits on political campaign contributions and expenditures.  ACLU even filed an amicus brief on the side of the corporations in Citizens United, arguing that corporations have the rights of humans and the right to make unlimited expenditures in political campaigns.

If that was not bad enough, now ACLU opposes disclosure of the sources of those independent expenditures.  ACLU sent a letter to Congress on July 16, 2012, opposing the DISCLOSE Act.  The letter stated:

Although the ACLU supports measures to guarantee the independence of groups making independent expenditures, we are concerned that heavy-handed regulation will violate the anonymous speech rights of individuals and groups that associate with these independent expenditure groups, subjecting them to harassment and potentially discouraging valuable participation in the political process.

Who knew that the real problem is that those poor multi-billion dollar corporations could be subjected to harrassment, if they have to reveal that they are funding political campaigns.

ACLU not only urged Senators to oppose the DISCLOSE Act but urged them to allow the filibuster against it to succeed by voting "no" to cutting off debate ("cloture").

We urge you to oppose S. 3369, the Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections (“DISCLOSE”) Act, and to vote “no” on cloture if the bill is presented for consideration on Monday.    

Thus, argues ACLU, it is so important that political spending remain secret that a minority of the members of the Senate should thwart the will of the majority by using the anti-democratic tactic of filibuster--a filibuster for the sacred right of corporations to do unlimited, secret spending in political campaigns.

Thanks, ACLU, for again siding with the corporations and making clear your view that corporate rights are more important than democracy.

Today the Democrats in the U.S. Senate voluntarily allowed the DISCLOSE Act to fail, again. This is the bill that would require disclosure of the sources of some independent expenditures in races for U.S. Congress and President.

The Democrats allowed the Republicans to filibuster the bill. The vote to end the filibuster (called cloture) was 51-45 in favor of ending the filibuster and thus allowing a vote on the bill itself. The chair then declared that the cloture motion failed, because it requires a 60% affirmative vote.

At that point, the Democrats could have invoked the "Constitutional Option" and have challenged the ruling of the chair.  That ruling could be overturned with a simple majority vote, as it was last year when Harry Reid invoked that option (also known as the "nuclear option") to disallow introduction of a series of amendments to a bill about Chinese currency manipulation.  The Hill reported on Oct 6, 2011:

In a shocking development, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid triggered a rarely used procedural option informally called the “nuclear option” to change the Senate rules.

Reid and 50 Democrats voted to change Senate rules unilaterally to prevent Republicans from forcing votes on uncomfortable amendments.

Reid’s coup passed by a vote of 51-48, leaving Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) fuming.  The surprise move stunned Republicans, who did not expect Reid to bring heavy artillery to what had been a humdrum knife fight over amendments to China currency legislation.

The Democrats use "heavy artillery" on bills of marginal importance but wield a  rubber sword when it comes to campaign finance reform.

The deadline for Oregon minor parties to nominate and/or endorse candidates for the 2012 General Election is August 28, 2012.

The Oregon Progressive Party (OPP) shall conduct its monthly membership meetings on June 12, July 10, and August 14. At the July and August meetings, the Party may discuss candidates who are seeking the Party's nomination or endorsement and may recommend such nomination or endorsement of a candidate to the State Nominating Panel. The candidates to be discussed at any meeting are those who have completed the "Steps for Candidates" below at least 7 days prior to the meeting.

Steps for Candidates

1.    Determine whether you meet the legal requirements to run for the office you seek. For example, to run for a seat in the Oregon Legislature, you must have been a resident of the district at least since January 1, 2012. You may ask questions about the legal requirements by submitting them to legal@progparty.org.

2.    Complete the Candidate Questionnaire.

3.    Commit to supporting the OPP platform.

4.    Commit to complying with all laws pertaining to campaign finance reporting.

5.    Attend the subsequent OPP monthly membership meeting and answer questions by OPP members.

The San Jose Mercury News has this article, "California's minor parties facing extinction under new voting system." The founders and leaders of the Oregon Progressive Party led the opposition to adopting a very similar system in Oregon (Measure 65 of 2008), which Oregon voters defeated by 66-34%.

On the morning of May 29, 2012, OPP issued this press release entitled, "Portland City Council Declaring `Emergency' to Buy No-Bid Equipment from Company owned by Policeman." OPP was the only opponent of this item on the agenda. Within hours, the item was removed from the agenda and has not been rescheduled. The Oregonian reported on May 30:

Portland Mayor Sam Adams Wednesday morning [May 30] removed from the City Council's consent agenda an ordinance that would have allowed the Portland Police Bureau and other city bureaus to purchase gear from a company owned by a Portland patrol officer. In the face of opposition from the Oregon Progressive Party, Adams removed the ordinance from the agenda and sent it back to his office.

The press coverage was extensive, including The Oregonian, KXL, KATU, and the Business Journal (with a second article).

May 29, 2012   IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACTS:

Join Oregon Progressive Party to STOP Police Spy Camera Installation in Portland

City Council sent out the announcement 2:58pm, the Friday before Memorial Day Weekend, stating that the installation of spy cameras in Portland will be on the agenda for the City Council Meeting Wednesday May 30th at 9:30 am.  Nice timing, right!
 
They hope people won't be there for the vote to put cameras up in Portland.  They are wrong. 
 
There still is no policy in place that describes the limits on how these cameras can be used.

Portland Police (PPB) could access camera feeds through their phones with little oversight if any. 

We cannot allow this violation of our public and private spaces!!

Images collected would be deleted after 24 hours, ensuring video the PPB wants to keep will be saved but video that citizens would want to access (and any videos showing officers acting unlawfully) could be easily deleted.
 
STOP the SPY CAMS!!!
Wednesday, May 30th

8:30 am - Rally and Protest - Meet Outside City Hall (west side)
9:30 am - City Council Meeting Begins at the Portland Building

Portland City Hall:  1221 SW 4th Avenue, Portland, Oregon
The Portland Building:  1120 SW 5th Avenue (next to City Hall)
City Council Meeting is in 2nd Floor Auditorium
 
We do not need to spend city funds in spy cameras for Portland!! 

We need council members committed to providing social services not advocating for Portland joining the surveillance state.
 
The spy cameras give more power to the police but do not address any core issues relating to crime or substance abuse. 

Profiling tactics have proven dangerous to our community, and the use of these cameras will encourage profiling and threatens the civil liberties of all.

The Brennan Center has issues a report, Americans’ Attitudes about the Influence of Super PAC Spending on Government and the Implications for our Democracy.

Download the Summary [pdf]

Download the Appendix [pdf]

It shows that the spending of Super PACs in this year’s election cycle has given rise to a large, bipartisan consensus that such outsized spending is dangerous for our democracy. Historical polling has repeatedly shown that Americans believe elected officials favor the interests of large contributors to their own campaign war-chests.  This new poll reveals for the first time that Americans have similar fears of elected officials favoring big donors to nominally independent Super PACs — and also that many are less likely to vote because of Super PAC spending.  

The poll reveals that nearly 70 percent of Americans believe Super PAC spending will lead to corruption and that three in four Americans believe limiting how much corporations, unions, and individuals can donate to Super PACs would curb corruption.  Of those who expressed an opinion, more than 80 percent believe that, compared with past elections, the money being spent by political groups this year is more likely to lead to corruption.  And, most alarmingly, the poll revealed that concerns about the influence Super PACs have over elected officials undermine Americans’ faith in democracy:  one in four respondents — and even larger numbers of low-income people, African Americans, and Latinos — reported that they are less likely to vote because big donors to Super PACs have so much more sway than average Americans.

The Citizens United decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in January 2010 created the notion of SuperPACs.  So far, the race to replace David Wu for Oregon Congressional District 1 leads the way in SuprePAC money with almost $2.2 million spent.   That will change over the summer, as races in the November election come into play.

Joe Walsh writes:

On May 23rd, many of us who call ourselves progressives/activists attended a Portland City Council meeting to protest the raising of rates on water usage.  We were told, after our arrival,  there would be no testimony and the voting by the members of the Council would be at 2:00 PM.  Many of the members of  Friends of the Reservoirs were there to speak against this rate increase and fight against the EPA’s mandate to change our water delivery system.  The first indicator that the “Fix” was in was the missing sign up sheets.  Mayor Adams had no intention to allow anyone to testify against these rate increases; it was a done deal.  We listened for a time and then, when it was clear what was happening, I stood up and called for a point of order.  The Mayor acted in a dictatorial manner and ordered me to sit or be thrown out of  the hearing.  I stood my ground and two security men arrived at each side of me and ordered me to leave.  I fell to my knees and refused to go until the mayor answered my point of order.  He refused but did indicate that he would now let the citizens of Portland present their views on this outrage.  The confrontation was over.  Someone did call the police and about 6 cops showed up for one old guy on oxygen who was challenging mayor adams. 

http://www.katu.com/politics/Portland-City-Council-Portland-garbage-and-...

We did testify and as a result Commission Fritz, to her credit, requested a meeting with the rest of the Council to work on lowering the rate increase and try to come to some type of compromise.  We applauded her actions, but the fight has only just begun.

It was announced that on May 30 at 9:30 am next week the water rates would be taken up again, this is where you come in.  Will you come and join us at this hearing?  You have taken positions on the covering of the reservoirs, the building of a treatment plant at Bull Run and/or the destruction of a wonderful system to deliver drinking water to the residents of Portland.  I only speak for Individuals For Justice and the Oregon Progressive Party, however I can not imagine any organization that would not be proud if you came and sat during this next hearing.  I for one would be honored if you joined in and raised your concerns about a major mistake by the Water Department.  I know it is difficult to make these meetings, however this issue is of great importance to our city.

Thank you for you time and we’ll see you at the next city council meeting.

PS:  There is another item on the agenda that Oregon Progressive Party has come out against--installation of police spy cameras in the downtown area.  This is item 613 to be voted on sometime in the morning also. Remember that the City Council is meeting in the Portland Building (not City Hall) and will start at 09:30 am.

By Roberto Lovato

Dave, Howdy, Joe Walsh, Malcolm Chaddock, and I attended the 2:00pm city council rate hikes meeting at the Portland building yesterday.  Joe said that "if he was not allowed to testify",  then he would get arrested for speaking out. There was a confrontation with Mayor Sam, who relented and activists were allowed to speak after Department presentations were made. When activists were allowed to speak on the issues or water, sewer, and garbage rate hikes, they thanked Mr. Walsh for making a fuss to make testimony possible. Joe did not have to get arrested to make his point. I yelled out during the confrontation,"This is a democracy, not a dictatorship". I feel that, because of this action that Amanda Fritz voted no on the issue and the full rate hikes were not voted in. Check out the KATU Video .

AP reports: "The states who filed the brief in support of Montana are New York, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia and the District of Columbia." Not Oregon. Shame on Oregon.

See this ThinkProgress Article.

Civics for Adults: Workshops to Enhance Civic Knowledge and Inspire Political Engagement
An Occupy Portland – “Our School” Workshop Series

Participatory democracy is an illusion if people aren’t involved. Understanding how government works and meaningful civic engagement are necessary, especially in these times of powerful anti-democratic interests. We can’t just give up. If anything, we have to work harder. And, be smarter. And, work together. That’s what we’ll do in these workshops.

Facilitator: Donna L Cohen, M.Ed. M.L.I.S. dcohen@dcoheninfo.com
Tuesday nights, 6:30-8:30, June 19, 2012 – July 31, 2012 [except for July 3]
Concordia University, George R. White Library
NE 29th and NE Rosa Parks Way
Community Room [Ground floor, east end of the library, 29 th St side]

KOIN TV Coverage of Our Protest Against Police Spy Cams

Click on the title above to get the video. It does not appear to work well in Firefox.

Protesters gather to oppose Portland police plan for video surveillance cameras

May 09, 2012
Maxine Bernstein

The Oregon Progressive Party is protesting the Portland Police Bureau's proposal to place video surveillance cameras on private property in Old Town to help monitor drug deals.

"Instead of spying on our citizens and creating a police surveillance state in the vein of Orwell's 'Big Brother,' the PPB should be using their limited resources in prevention and treatment, not adding another weapon to the failed War on Drugs," said Phillip Kauffman, Oregon Progressive Party state council member.

About 20 people came to protest outside City Hall on Wednesday morning. Meanwhile, the mayor pulled the item from the morning's council agenda, and referred it back to his office. Last week, Commissioner Dan Saltzman said he wouldn't support the program unless Chief Mike Reese adopted protocol restricting the camera's use and stating the consequences of any misuse.

The chief has said the cameras, which can "pan, tilt and zoom," would focus on public spaces and the images could be monitored by officers' smartphones, mobile computers in their cars or laptops. He said the surveillance could be helpful in aiding police in drug and gang enforcement.

Roberto Lovato, among the protesters, said he had hoped the demonstration would put pressure on the mayor to halt the plan. "If they get the OK to put them up in Old Town and Chinatown, they'll put them everywhere," Lovato said.

The chief's proposal to hold private property owners harmless from any liability that might arise from the installation of the police cameras on their buildings had been placed on the council's consent agenda two weeks ago as an emergency ordinance.

Portland Copwatch objected, and it was pulled off the consent agenda last week and placed on the regular agenda last week allowing for council discussion. The American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon also has opposed the police plan, saying the surveillance is ineffective and a waste of resources.

The Citizens Crime Commission supports the proposal, saying it will increase security for area businesses and help police enforcement of street-level drug dealing in Old Town Chinatown.