Banning paid-per-signature has everything to do with fraud

In his attack on Rep. Sherry Appleton's bill to ban pay-per signature, blogger Stephan Sharkansky falls down the stairs:

He also suggested I look at Oregon's Measure 26, which similarly banned per-signature compensation and survived a 9th Circuit Appeal. I did. There was never any serious evidence that per-signature payments produce more fraud than other forms of compensation, but the 9th Circuit upheld the political decision to ban such compensation regardless.

Makes you wonder what he considers "serious evidence" because Oregon brought in criminal investigators to make their case. The Oregon law was upheld because the state was able to prove, unlike a similar ban in Colorado, that it prevented fraud. Andrew M. Gloger with the Initiative & Referendum Institute writes:

...the court in Prete held that Oregon "has an important regulatory interest in preventing fraud and its appearances in the electoral process," and that Oregon "supported that interest with evidence that signature gatherers paid per signature actually engage in such fraud and forgery." The conclusion that signature collection actually promoted fraud was based on testimony from a criminal investigator in the Oregon Department of Justice. The investigator testified that petition circulators paid per signature had:
* forged signatures on petitions;
* purchased signature sheets filled with signatures; and
* attended signature parties where circulators met to sign each other's petitions.

Read the entire report here (pdf file).

< Washington lawmakers ask for citizen help on public campaign financing | Reichert votes against alternative energy bill 7 times before he votes for it >
Display: Sort:
Display: Sort:






Make a new account


Recommended Diaries

  • <a href="/story/2008/12/31/1318