Multco Dems

Reparations Resolution FAQ Resolution 2020-13 The Debt: an Argument for Reparation What is the purpose of a reparations program? Why is the ADOS (American Descendants of Slaves) distinction necessary? How will effectiveness be measured? How do we calculate the cost of reparations?

Reparations Resolution FAQ

On Thursday, June 9, 2020, the precinct committee persons (PCPs) of Multnomah Democrats will vote on Resolution 2020-13 The Debt: the Case for Reparations. The resolution’s primary author, Quinton Blanton, provided this FAQ for PCPs to read in advance of the vote.

What is the purpose of a reparations program?

In the book From Here to Equality, Dr. Sandy Darity and A. Kirsten Mullen advance a general definition of reparations as a program of acknowledgement, redress, and closure.

Is it illegal to allocate funds specifically to ADOS?

No. There’s no intrinsic illegality to group specific or race specific policies. Japanese American reparations, for example, were group specific.

How will we be able to tell who is eligible for reparations vs. who is not?

Two criterion can be advanced for eligibility. First, an individual must establish that they have at least one ancestor who was enslaved in the US. Second, an individual must demonstrate that they have self-identified as Black, Negro, or African American on an official document-perhaps making the self-report of their race on the US Census—for at least 12 years before the enactment of programs tied to the funds. This criteria was created by Duke University economist William “Sandy” Darity.

Why is the ADOS distinction necessary?

            ADOS is a necessary distinction because if reparations do in fact gain traction nationally, people who are opposed to reparations could make the argument that Black immigration to the U.S. has increased significantly since the 1980’s, they were never enslaved in the U.S. so why should they be paid reparations? From a legal standpoint, a reparations claim against the federal government must be specific and requires inclusion and exclusion.

How will the effectiveness of a reparations program be measured?

According to Dr. Darity, the goal of a reparations program for ADOS should be to close the racial wealth gap in its entirety. Therefore, it is essential that the mean gap be erased, rather than setting a far less ambitious goal such as closing the ADOS-white median differential. Establishing a monitoring system to evaluate whether the ADOS-white wealth gap disparity is closing will be desirable.

How to calculate the cost of reparations?

There are a variety of strategies for calculating the size of social debt that is owed. Professor Thomas Craemer has calculated the cost of reparations through a stolen labor framework. In today’s dollars, he arrives at an estimate of $14 trillion for the cost of American slavery to the enslaved. The central argument of Dr. Darity and A. Kirsten Mullen, which I tend to agree with is that the elimination of the ADOS-white wealth gap should provide the foundation for the magnitude of the debt owed.

Where will the money for reparations come from

 As journalist Matthew Yglesias has proposed, Congress could direct the Federal Reserve to fund ADOS reparations either in part or in total. Given the overnight transfer of $1 trillion of funds from the Federal Reserve to investment banks during the Great Recession and monthly outlays of $45 to $55 billion to conduct “quantitative easing,” there can be no doubt that the Fed has vast capacity to provide the funds required for a properly designed and financed reparations program, particularly if the funds are disbursed over the course of three to five years. The Fed certainly could manage an annual outlay of $1 to $1.5 trillion without any difficulty—and this funding mechanism would not have to affect tax rates for any American. Moreover, the Federal Reserve is a public bank charged with conducting a public responsibility.

Why should I have to pay reparations? My ancestors didn’t own any slaves.

The culpable party is the U.S. government. Often, the federal government further sanctioned racial atrocities by silence and inaction. ADOS reparations are not a matter of personal or individual institutional guilt; ADOS reparations are a matter of national responsibility. Furthermore, The poverty created by slavery and Jim Crow are still in the system, just like the wealth created by slavery and Jim Crow are still in the system.

White ethnics such as the Irish and Italians came here and were discriminated against by the U.S. government, yet they still rose in spite of their handicaps why didn’t ADOS do the same?

It is important to note that in some respects, the Irish were treated worse than Blacks for the most part when they first arrived in the U.S. However, they were eventually absorbed into whiteness due to their willingness to inflict violence against ADOS and by expressing anti-ADOS sentiments. The Democratic Party and early labor unions also eased the assimilation of the Irish into whiteness. Whitness is a social construct that is dynamic. It expands and changes based on its need. I suggest everyone read Noel Ignatiev’s How the Irish Became White.

White people have never received “handouts” from the government, why should Black people get governmental “handouts”?

Framing reparations as a handout or a one time check rather than a debt is a conservative, right wing talking point that is untrue. A program of reparations is much more than a check. It must include multi-pronged policies and laws, protections, therapy, and training to fill the void of knowledge gaps. Also, white America has in fact recieved numerous handouts from the federal government including 160-acre land grants through the Homstead Act, access to New Deal and Fair Deal programs, the G.I. bill and much more. While white America received these handouts ADOS were denied access to them and were never given their 40-acres, which is partly why the ADOS-white wealth disparity is so vast, entrenched, and unshakeable. The wealth ADOS managed to accumulate in the nineteenth and  twentitieth centuries was far too often plundered via white mob violence, lynching, redlining, and credit discrimination.

Pride flag waved over a blue sky.

Reflections on Pride 2020

By Rachelle Dixon and Eric Delehoy

On June 28, 1969, police raided the Stonewall Inn, a neighborhood gay bay in New York City.  They harassed and brutalized patrons, as they always had.  But this time, patrons had had enough.

Marsha P. Johnson, a Black Trans Woman, and Sylvia Rivera, a Latina Trans Woman, led patrons in resistance, and a resulting riot that lasted six days.  They stood up against the racism and transphobia leveled at them, and the anti-LBGTQ sentiment leveled at their community, so that each of us can now be safe in our own skin, no matter what skin that is.

The next year, the first Pride Parades appeared in New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco.

This year is no different than others.  We understand racism, transphobia, and homophobia continue to impact many lives.  And that’s why we stand with you.  Multnomah County Democrats will continue to fight for your rights to be safe, no matter your identities.  For that reason, we are reaching out to you, to pledge that even though we can’t get together to celebrate with a parade this year, we are with you every step of the way. Pride is about embracing and celebrating difference, about taking a public stand to demand safety and enjoy the freedoms the US Constitution guaranteed for all of us.  Keep being your wonderful selves!  We hope to march alongside you, not just at Pride, but every day ahead.

Young Democrats! Apply for the Sue Hagmeier Oregon Summit Scholarship

Sue Hagmeier, beloved friend of the MCD
Sue Hagmeier, longtime Oregon Democratic activist

In honor of the legacy and activism of our friend and long-time Party leader Sue Hagmeier, the Multnomah Democratic Party, through the gracious support of John and Shirley Vandermosten, has established a scholarship for young Democrats in Sue’s memory, to attend the biennial Oregon Summit, October 18-20, in Sunriver, OR.

Apply for the scholarship here.

Applications are due Sunday Sept. 15th. The Sue Hagmeier Summit Scholarship will be awarded to a young Democrat (21-36) who best exemplifies Sue’s spirit of activism and commitment to “making people’s lives better.” The award of $500 will defray the costs of attending the Biannual Oregon Summit, usually $500 and up.

See the list of speakers and events from the previous summit.

Held in October of odd number years, The Summit is the premier Oregon Democratic Party event, featuring outstanding seminars, national Democratic personalities and incredible up-close-and personal time with Oregon’s Democratic leaders.

This year’s Summit will be held from Oct 18 to Oct. 20 In Sunriver, Oregon. If you are:

  • Between 21 and 36 years of age as of Oct 18, 2019
  • A registered member of the Democratic Party (prior to the November 8, 2016 election) living in Multnomah County
  • Experienced in Party/Community activism

then please apply for the scholarship using this form. Applications are due Sunday September 15th at 5PM Pacific time. Once you have applied, stay tuned to multdems.org for the announcement of the winner, along with other information about how you can continue to be involved.

“In 2005 we attended the Summit and were immediately hooked – we got involved. Giving the opportunity for a young leader to participate in all that the Summit offers is a fitting way to both honor Sue and give this informative experience to a young person who couldn’t otherwise afford the Summit costs”

– John Vandermosten

Apply for the scholarship here.

Applications are due Sunday, Sept. 15th.

Contribute to Multnomah Democrats Work

Make contributions to support the fund here. Please consider contributing in honor of Sue Hagmeier to the ongoing growth of the scholarship fund.

Advanced Nominations for Mult Dems Treasurer now closed; Nominations from Floor Still Accepted

CLICK TO SEE THE CANDIDATES

The Role

On August 8, at the Central Committee meeting, we will hold a special election to fill the vacant position of Treasurer of the Democratic Party of Multnomah County. Are you interested in using your knowledge of budget and finance to help Democrats win in 2020? It is time to throw your hat into the ring.

 As Treasurer, you will be a member of the Admin Team and have fiduciary responsibility to:

  • Be custodian of all Party funds;
  • Maintain appropriate financial records;
  • Submit a report to each Central Committee meeting which includes a summary of income, expenses and ending balance;
  • File or cause to be filed all reports required by any government agency;
  • Manage contracted bookkeeping and campaign finance reporting services;
  • Prepare and submit to the Executive Committee an annual report for each calendar year in time for the report to be published by March 31st of the following year;
  • Serve as an ex-officio member of the Budget & Finance Committee.
  • Serve as a member of the seven person Administration Committee which oversees party business.

The term will be until the next party Organizational meeting in early 2021 (Article V Section 5 Part D of our bylaws). 

Opportunity

If you understand that a tight financial ship is key to our success as Democrats, the party needs your vision and effort. 

As treasurer, you will be part of the team that guides our growth. We are working to strengthen the party for impact and influence leading up to and beyond the 2020 elections. You will be involved with fundraising, planning, strategy, and compliance.

When Democrats win in 2020 because of  good fundraising, budgeting and financial management we will be set up for our future work.

Requirements

 Any citizen of Multnomah County registered to vote as a Democrat is eligible to hold any officer position of the Democratic Party of Multnomah County.

Who votes?

The Democratic Precinct Committee Persons (PCPs) of Multnomah County who are present at the August 8, 2019 Central Committee meeting are eligible to vote.

How Do I Run?

  • We accepted new submissions for the website until July 31, 2019 at 11:59pm.
  • At this point you will need a nomination from the floor during the August 8, 2019 Central Committee Mtng. to be included as a candidate
  • You may still email admin@multdems.org to make your intentions of running known.

MultDems Call to Action: Keep Clean Energy Funding Intact!

As Oregonians, we shouldn’t have to pit schools against clean energy.

We deserve fully funded schools and clean energy jobs and initiatives. Unfortunately, an amendment to the Student Success Act (HB 3427) could damage the future of the Portland Clean Energy Fund (PCEF) and prevent other cities and counties from taking this kind of bold action.

What’s going on? A likely amendment to the Student Success Act (HB 3427) contains concerning language that could hurt the future of the Portland Clean Energy Fund (PCEF) and prevent other cities and counties from taking this kind of bold action through gross receipts surcharges or taxes.

Here’s the problem:

House Bill 3427, -15 amendments, Section 12 (scroll to page 17-18):

LOCAL TAX PREEMPTION

SECTION 12. Local taxes preempted.

(1) Except as expressly authorized by this section, the authority to impose, in this state, a tax upon the commercial activity of an entity is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly. A city, county, district or other political subdivision or municipal corporation of this state may not impose, by ordinance or other law, a tax upon commercial activity.”(2) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to any tax, or to the subsequent amendment of the provisions of any tax, if the ordinance or other law imposing the tax is in effect and operative on March 1, 2019.

If the bill passes with this clause intact, it won’t retroactively impact PCEF, but it could harm our ability to modify PCEF. And, it would take this important funding tool away from future progressive causes and initiatives throughout the state. We need to remove this language that concentrates power in the Legislature and takes it away from local communities.

Use the scripts below to call, email, or write your legislators in Salem.

CLICK HERE to find contact information for your state legislators.

CALL SCRIPT

My name is NAME, and I am a constituent in your district. I am contacting you  because I am concerned about a specific section of House Bill 3427, the Student Success Act.

(Put the following bullet points in your own words)

  • The bill will raise much needed revenue for education, but the 15 amendments contain a concerning provision.
  • SECTION 12 would preempt any local jurisdictions or citizen initiative petitions from raising revenue through gross receipts taxes or surcharges.
  • This sets a dangerous precedent that endangers local control over how to raise revenue and prevents citizens from making revenue decisions for their own communities.

If Section 12 remains in HB 3427, MY COMMUNITY wouldn’t be able to raise needed money for __(INSERT WHAT YOU WOULD WANT NEW LOCAL REVENUE TO FUND).

  • I urge you to protect the ability for our local community to make its own decisions about revenue and remove SECTION 12 from the bill
  • If they push back by saying that this is something other states have done with widespread revenue reform, answer by saying: “Legislative preemption over local jurisdictions is a worrying trend that Oregon should not be a part of. We must stand strong to support allowing our local communities to make  their own decisions about how to raise revenue.”

EMAIL/LETTER SCRIPT

Dear LEGISLATOR,

My name is NAME and I am a constituent in your district. I live (roughly where you live), and I voted for you in (YEAR if you voted for the legislator). I am writing to you today because I am concerned about a specific section of House Bill 3427, the Student Success Act.

Put the following bullet points in your own words:

  • The bill will raise much needed revenue for education, but the -1 amendments contain a concerning provision.
  • SECTION 12 would preempt any local jurisdictions or citizen initiative petitions from raising revenue through gross receipts taxes or surcharges
  • This sets a dangerous precedent that endangers local control over how to raise revenue and prevents citizens from making revenue decisions for their own communities.
  • If Section 12 remains in HB 3427, MY COMMUNITY wouldn’t be able to raise needed money for __(INSERT WHAT YOU WOULD WANT NEW LOCAL REVENUE TO FUND).

Legislative preemption over local jurisdictions is a worrying trend that Oregon should not be a part of. We must stand strong to support allowing our local communities to make their own decisions about how to raise revenue.

I urge you  to protect the ability for our local community to make our own decisions about revenue and remove SECTION 12 from the bill.

(Your Preferred Signoff)

NAME

Announcing the April 11 Central Committee Meeting

We invite you to the Central Committee meeting of the Democratic Party of Multnomah County. The meeting will take place:

Thursday, April 11

Hollywood Senior Center

1820 NE 40th Avenue, Portland 97212

(Map)

Meet and hear the goals of the great Democrats who are running in the 2019 May Elections.

Our schedule is as follows:

6:00 PM Doors open.  

6:30 PM Registration and Sign In

7:00 PM Business Meeting begins

9:00 PM Scheduled end of Business Meeting

Resolutions

As described in the Bylaws of the Democratic Party of Multnomah County, a resolution can be proposed

  • by the Platform, Resolution, Legislation Committee (PRLC)
  • or by 5 precinct committee persons (PCPs).

We will be voting on a resolution to rescind the Oregon Kicker Law. The text of the resolution is here. (Updated to v1-1 on 11 April 2019)

[Update, 6 April] An additional resolution will be considered, “Regarding Leadership and Ineffective Handling of Sexual Harassment Complaints in the Oregon Legislature.” The full text is available here. (Updated to v1-2 on 11 April 2019)

We will be voting on appointment of Precinct Committee Persons. A list of persons eligible for appointment can be found here.

[Update 8 April] Rules Committee has two rule changes to discuss at the meeting. You can read them here.

Thank you for everything you do.

Sincerely,

Lurelle Robbins, Chair

Democratic Party of Multnomah County

chair@multdems.org

Multnomah County Democrats (MCD) Elect Congressional District One and Five Delegates

At the January 13 organizational meeting, Multnomah County Democrats (MCD) elected delegates to represent us to Congressional District One and Five.

These delegates join the advisory committee that meets with their representative to the U.S. House or Representatives.  

Our delegates are community voices for our Congressional representatives. They have the opportunity to regularly consult with the office of — and frequently the very person of — their congressional Representative.

Congressional District 1 is represented by Rep. Susan Bonamici. Kurt Schrader represents Congressional District 5.

The role touches national politics; the chairs of the Congressional District Committees serve as Presidential Electors during a Presidential Election year.

Any registered Democrat who resides in Oregon can run for the position of Congressional Delegate and have the opportunity to provide a direct voice to their representative in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Below is the list of winning candidates (and alternates) from each district:

Congressional District 1 Representatives from Multnomah County

  • Cindy Smith
  • Matt Laas
  • Bill Harris

CD-1 Alternates

1-Kathy Jackson
2-David Altermatt
3-Julie Peterson

Congressional District 5 Representatives from Multnomah County

  • Paul Sardoch
  • Rachel Harris



Multnomah County Democrats (MCD) elect Congressional District Three (CD-3) delegates.

At the January 13 organizational meeting, Multnomah County Democrats (MCD) elected Congressional District Three (CD-3) delegates.

These delegates join the advisory committee that meets with their representative to the U.S. House or Representatives (in this case, Representative Earl Blumenauer) to further their goals in Washington, D.C. Their service is to provide authentic community voices to our Congressional representatives. They have the opportunity to regularly consult with the office of — and frequently the very person of — their congressional Representative.

The role touches national politics; the chairs of the Congressional District Committees serve as Presidential Electors during a Presidential Election year.

Any registered Democrat who resides in Oregon can run for the position of Congressional Delegate and have the opportunity to provide a direct voice to their representative in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Female CD-3 Delegates

Julia DeGraw
Sharon Maxwell
Leigha LaFleur
Lisa Morrison
Linda Livermore
Layla Assem
Kate Flanagan
Debbie Schwartz
Natalie Bloodgood

Female Alternate CD-3 Delegates

1-Marcia Schneider
2-Shirley Minor
3-Faith Ruffing
4-Adrienne Enghouse
5-Taraneh Fultz
6-Jackie Weissman
7-Rachelle Dixon
8-Jennifer Kristiansen
9-Lisa Wolf

Male CD-3 Delegates

Kyle Huth
Tom Fox-Sellers
Michael Cojocaru
Aaron Levine
Ethan Scarl
Bing Wong
Ben Lavine
Miguel Moseler
James Davis

Male Alternate CD-3 Delegates

1-Jonathan Pulvers
2-Tim Rowan
3-Moshe Lenske
4-Bob Tackett
5-Mitch Rofsky
6-Quinton Blandon
7-Dan Goetz
8-Marc Koller
9-Tom Karwaki

Multnomah County Democrats Elect State Central Committee Delegates

January 15, 2019

At the January 13 Organizational Meeting, Multnomah County Democrats (MCD) Precinct Committee Persons voted for our party’s representation to the Democratic Party of Oregon (DPO).

State Central Committee delegates represent Multnomah County Democrats to the Democratic Party of Oregon.

These delegates will help determine the path of the Democratic Party by electing state officers, participating in platform discussion, and directing Oregon’s representation to the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

Female Delegates

Rachelle Dixon (automatic as VC1)

in vote order, most votes to least:

Shirley Minor

Gladys Marie Garcia

Ruth Jensen

Betsy Salter

Eileen Reavey

Lisa Ortiz

Lisa Wolf

Cindy Smith

Catherine Thomasson

Female Alternates

1.Sarah Wolk

2.Jil Heimensen

3.Adrienne M. Enghouse

4.Aftyn Garvin

5.Ami Fox

6.Leah Gibbs

7.Faith Ruffing

8.Jackie Weissman

9.Maggie Skendarian

10.Kathy Jackson

Male Delegates

Lurelle Robbins (automatic as Chair)

in vote order, most votes to least:

Albert Lee

Pete Lee

John Harris Knight

Quinton Blandon

Jason Ali Allen

Michael Burch

Bing Wong

Jack Hanna

Dan Goetz

Male Alternates

1.Graham Parks

2.Gary Lietke

3.Michael Smith

4.Michael Cojocaru

5.Moses Ross

6.Tim Rowan

7.Spencer Trumm

8.Julio Castilleja

9.Mitch Rofsky

10.Bob Tackett