Today’s Oregonian has an article about “Dueling Climate Bills” in the upcoming short session. Neither are good for Oregon. As if WE, one state in the United States could actually change the climate of the world? Do these people think that the “clean spot” over Oregon will just hover there and stay? What about China? India? Mexico and developing nations who laugh at us?
Well regardless, the point of this article is the sad fact that much of the legislation that is introduced or will be introduced is done so at the behest of large donors ie: AFSCME giving $100,000 to the Governor a day or two before her “minimum wage hike” proposal.
In this case it’s billionaire energy guy Tom Steyer. He makes money on fossil fuels and then funnels much of that money to places like Oregon Democrats for “clean fuels” bills. It was said back in 2008 about Steyer:
Hypocrisy is not in short supply in the political world, but Tom Steyer is in a class by himself. Now that he is enriching himself through “green” cronyism, coal is evil. Sure: like all hydrocarbons, it competes with the solar energy boondoggles on which he is making millions, with the aid of the Obama administration. But where was Steyer’s alleged social conscience when he was one of the world’s biggest investors in coal? And how substantial are his current holdings in coal projects? Is Steyer financing his anti-fossil fuel campaign on profits from past or, perhaps, ongoing investments in Asian and Australian coal? Inquiring minds want to know! Tom Steyer appears to have elevated political hypocrisy to an entirely new level.
This ARTICLE breaks down just how hypocritical this man is and even worse, that the majority party in Salem say they want “campaign finance reform” with their right hand while the left hand is behind them taking corporate money.
As I’ve been crying out about the “short session” over the last two weeks, trying to explain how it’s being misused and is NOT what the voters of Oregon approved in 2010, Sen. Doug Whitsett has written so much better than I on this subject:
Sen. Doug Whitsett of Klamath Falls
Oregon voters approved Measure 71 during the November 2010 general election. That Constitutional amendment established short legislative sessions in even-numbered years. Lawmakers will gather in Salem on the first of February to participate in the 35-day session that resulted from that 2010 vote of the people.
Legislative leaders sold Measure 71 to voters as a much-needed opportunity for legislators to make minor adjustments to state budgets, to pass laws that were already well vetted and limited in scope, and to address emergency situations.
I voted against Senate Joint Resolution 41, which referred the Constitutional amendment to the voters to decide, for three reasons. The first was that I was not convinced that the Legislative Assembly could demonstrate the discipline required to limit its scope of work during the short sessions. Moreover, I was concerned the short sessions would be designed to limit the opportunity for the public to participate in their lawmaking process. Finally, I feared that holding legislative sessions during election years would cause bills to be introduced in order to be used as fodder in political campaigns.
Those concerns and fears have now been fully demonstrated to be both legitimate and valid.
Read more of Sen. Whitsett’s thoughts HERE.