Reckless activism by The Oregonian sparks Free Speech crisis
Why is out-of-state billionaire Si Newhouse telling you how to vote?
According to state police insiders, corporate executives at The Oregonian newspaper are subjects of interest in a wide-ranging probe into illegal political election campaign activities. A law enforcement source, speaking on condition of anonymity, revealed that a secret joint federal and state grand jury has been convened to weigh violations of the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution and violations of state election laws that require campaign spending to be fully disclosed and reported as such. The source said that subpoenas may be issued for internal company documents, including emails, phone logs, and financial records.
The expanding investigation has also targeted the Oregon Secretary of State Elections Division for its selective enforcement of state campaign finance reporting law.
Neither The Oregonian nor the Secretary of State would respond to requests for comment.
The long-running probe was triggered into the grand jury phase after a particularly one-sided editorial published last Thursday.
The Oregonian, ranked among the most politically one-sided newspapers in the country, has made an increasingly ugly practice of pitching its election news-opinion coverage in a way that, even editors admit, amounts to de facto advocacy. Although The Oregonian - which holds a virtual monopoly of statewide daily news audiences - is the biggest political spender in the state, nobody really knows by how much. Its lawyers have asserted over the years that the private corporation is not subject to Oregon's campaign finance disclosure laws and is exempt from federal law by the First Amendment.
Election law experts agree that may be settled with regard to candidate elections where print media have a long tradition of legalized scurrilousness. But the legal issues involving unreported electioneering in ballot measure campaigns are less established. According to media insiders, The Oregonian's publisher Fred Stickel is acting in a deliberately extreme manner, inviting the state-federal probe now, in order to garner long-term legal protection.
The law enforcement source says that folks should not be concerned, because the federal and state constitutions and law enforcement apparatus are there to protect ordinary citizens from such corporate abuse of the law, even from The Oregonian's New York billionaire owner, Si Newhouse. Law enforcement officials are asking citizens to be patient while the investigation runs its course. Nevertheless, advertisers are increasingly wary as The Oregonian becomes increasingly political as circulation declines.
Here is the offending editorial from last Thursday:
Nothing frames the issue of property rights so squarely - or perhaps we should say so rectangularly - as a billboard.
Should your neighbor have the right to put a billboard in your face, even if it may harm your view and could damage your property rights? Near Sandy (population 6,680) this is not an academic question.
Thanks to Oregon's new property-rights law, Measure 37, one property owner has already installed two giant billboards along U.S. 26 in what is supposed to be a green corridor separating Gresham and Sandy. The billboards hawk pizza and a grocery store and boost one property owner's bottom line. But they do not frame the area in a positive light -- which is why Mayor Linda Malone has fought vigorously, if thus far unsuccessfully, against the billboards.
Champions of Measure 37 never emphasized the possibility that it could trigger giant billboards, for good reason. It wasn't exactly a selling point for the new law. Only now are more Oregonians coming face to face with the new reality.
As The Oregonian's Catherine Trevison and Gosia Wozniacka reported Sunday, in the past two years alone, at least 100 billboards have sprung up along Oregon highways. An Oregon Supreme Court decision paved the way for many, and Measure 37 has paved the way for more.
It's unlikely that all this damage from Measure 37 can be undone, but voters will at least have a chance to rethink it this fall when they vote on a rewrite, Measure 49, referred to the ballot by the Oregon Legislature. At least going forward, Measure 49 would curtail commercial developments spawned by Measure 37, including billboards.
It's true that relatively few of the 7,500 development claims filed under Measure 37 seek explicit permission to develop billboards. Still, there are 54 claims for signs in the Portland area alone. And thousands of claims filed in this state don't specify exactly what development the property owner is pursuing. Strip malls? Subdivisions? Rock quarries? Billboards?
All of these have been proposed under Measure 37. Billboards just happen to be one of the quickest and easiest ways to make money. The short-term gain for some property owners, however, could work to the detriment of Oregon's tourism industry and harm the vistas that boost Oregon's economic development. It's already happening in the Sandy area.
Billboards are not what tourists expect to see when they drive toward Mount Hood. They're not what a neighboring property owner, Jon Ellertson, had in mind for his retirement vista either.
Don't his property rights count as much as those of his neighbor? The headline on Trevison and Wozniacka's report Sunday said "Billboards pit beauty vs. business." But that's not quite right, because beauty is integral to Oregon's business. And many property owners counted on beauty when they bought their land.
Measure 37 has opened the door to the uglification of Oregon. Voters can help to close that door by voting for Measure 49.
To find out more about Oregon property owners harmed by Measure 37, check out the Web site for Measure 49, www.yeson49.com
(capitolpress.com)
Read More...
Summary only...
putting a global-warming price tag on print media environmental practices
