State of Oregon Archives: on Government Reform
Limit terms in Congress & the U.S. Senate
I support term limits. When our country was founded, those that served in Congress started out as successful business owners or members invested in their communities.
After time, the community members would come to them and say, "it's your turn", and the community member would serve a limited term in
Congress or the U.S. Senate, then come home and re-integrate themselves back into their community or run their business again. In present day, there are career politicians that have been in
Congress for 20, 30, or even 40 years, that literally have nothing to come back to in terms of their life before they served in Congress.
Source: 2016 Oregon Senate campaign website, CallahanForOregon.com
Oct 9, 2015
Founders never imagined a permanent political class
The problem with career politicians is that they become so out of touch that they lose the ability to relate to every day Americans. It's time for a return to a problem solvers approach, an approach our nation was founded upon. Five physicians signed
the Declaration of Independence. Josiah Bartlett was a renowned innovator in the field of medicine and is also considered one of the chief architects of the US Constitution. Our founding fathers intended that we elect people to office who have excelled
in non-political fields and who can bring their experience, knowledge and talents to a deliberative body for the betterment of every day Americans.
The founders didn't add term limits to the constitution because they never imagined that we would
create a permanent political class. Serving in office was considered a sacrifice. When you got the job done you returned to your family. That's why Dr. Wehby supports a two-term limit for US Senators. Twelve years is enough time to get the job done.
Source: 2014 Senate campaign website, MonicaForOregon.com, "Issues"
Mar 18, 2014
Nuclear option: Allow confirmation of Obama's appointees
Ever since they arrived in the Senate, Jeff Merkley and Tom Udall have had one huge, seemingly insurmountable goal: To change Senate rules on the filibuster. On Thursday, they won.
"This is a terrific vote for the US Senate," said Merkley. "The
American people want this institution to function. They want to see it take on the big issues. They don't want to see the entire calendar of the year eaten up by paralyzing process on nominations."
Filibuster reform has long been a marquee issue for
Merkley (OR) & Udall (NM), who are part of a new breed of Senate reformers who have never served in the minority. Now, they're looking to expand their change to filibuster rules governing legislation--but that's going to be a much harder sell.
of the two first-term senators say they led a movement they don't even understand--they have only served in the majority, longtime GOP senators charge, and don't appreciate ways that the filibuster has been used to the benefit of the country in the past.
Source: Politico.com coverage of 2014 Oregon Senate race
Nov 21, 2013
Gordon Harold Smith:
Increase individuals campaign donation limit
Smith supports the following principles regarding Campaign Finance and Government Reform:
Source: Oregon Congressional Election 2008 Political Courage Test
Jun 18, 2008
- Support increasing the amount individuals are permitted to contribute to federal campaigns.
Support giving the President the power of the line item veto for items concerning appropriations.
Good government follows clearly outlined public procedures
Parking lot politics is not good politics. Sometimes the result may seem to produce innovation, but it robs the citizens of the right to participate in the democratic process.
Same-sex marriage policy, for example, while an important issue to many Oregonians, was ‘railroaded’ past the people of Multnomah Country without the benefit of open, democratic debate and decision-making.
It creates the unfortunate situation in which the value of the policies in question don’t get addressed and must take second place to whims of those currently in positions of power.
It is not a right use of the people’s trust. Good Government is government that follows the public procedures clearly outlined in the laws that govern our land.
Source: 2004 Senate campaign website, broussardfororegon.com
Aug 11, 2004
Fix budget with government structure change not tax hike
Oregonians should oppose the January 2003 income tax increase measure because it simply pumps more income into government without changing the way government does business and it will further deepen Oregon’s recession.
As Oregon’s new Governor, in January, I will collaborate with the legislature to implement emergency structural changes to fill the budget gap without raising taxes, without hurting education for our kids, and without endangering our neighborhoods.
Source: 2002 Gubernatorial website, MannixForOregon.org, “Budget”
Oct 15, 2002
Stop corporate funding of elections
“We can’t have corporations underwrite our elections process,” she said, adding, “it is also a question of ethics for the politicians.”
Source: U-wire article, “Native Week at Oregon State”
May 23, 2000
Spending limits on campaigns, plus full disclosure
Q: Do you support requiring full and timely disclosure of campaign finance information?
Q: Do you support imposing spending limits on state level political campaigns?
Would you vote to ratify an amendment to the U.S. Constitution requiring an annual balanced federal budget?
Q: Do you support using vote-by-mail for all elections?
Source: Oregon State 1998 National Political Awareness Test
Nov 1, 1998
Limit individual campaign donations; require full disclosure
Do you support limiting the following types of contributions to state legislative candidates?
Source: Oregon Gubernatorial 1998 National Political Awareness Test
Nov 1, 1998
- Q: Individual ?
- Q: PAC ?
- Q: Corporate ?
- Q: Do you support requiring full and timely disclosure of campaign finance information?
Page last updated: Dec 11, 2015