Scott Bruun! OLCV, say it isn't so!

Could someone from OLCV please explain the endorsement of Scott Bruun (25% OLCV score in the 2005 session)? In addition to the atrocious record on the environment, there is also a tactical issue to consider. Sure, groups like OLCV and Sierra Club work under the premise of non-partisanship but the Republican Party for the last 25 years has done absolutely nothing for the environment and has actively worked dismantle the very democratic institutions that we rely on in our work protect the environment from big polluters and greedy developers. In practice, it’s very difficult to be non-partisan. Considering that the GOP majority in the State House is nothing but a machine that pumps out one bad environmental bill after another, why would OLCV make an endorsement that will help preserve that majority, especially for someone with such a poor environmental voting record?

Comments

[stephen kafoury]

Wes-
Thanks for the reasonable question. As chair of the OLCV, and a member of the team (albeit as a guest)that interviewed Scott, I'd like to answer.
First, let me say this decision was not made lightly or without much discussion, both at the Clackamas County Chapter level, and at the state PAC Board. The OLCV Scorecard is just one indicator of a legislator's environmental record, and his potential for the future. The decision was based on many factors:
1. Scott was a key supporter behind the scenes on a couple of our issues last session, and his OLCV "Teddy Roosevelt" award was the result of comments from enviro lobbyists to this effect.
2. His interview was excellent. While he will differ with us on some bills next session, he sincerely wants to be an advocate within his caucus for green issues. He will be, not just a good vote, but a leader on several issues of great concern to us.
3. It will always be necessary and desireable, regardless of the party breakdown in the legislature, to have the environment be as bi-partisan a topic as possible. We don't want bills defeated for the sole reason that Democrats are supporting them. Scott wants to break down the too common view of environmental topics being partisan in nature.
4. Part of endorsing candidates is looking forward, not just backward. We think that encouraging legislators, and increasing our expectations of their performances, will generate more positive outcomes in the long term. Scott has the potential to demonstrate this strategy.

[Sybil Ackerman]

Scott already wrote a well thought-out comment on this issue but I wanted to add a couple of personal observations. Representative Bruun is interested in being forthinking in environmental issues. It is true that the scorecard is an indicator of how he voted last session. However,our endorsement is also forwardthinking - looking at what he wants to do in the future. I had a chance to talk with Representative Bruun at length and I think he is interested in working on key environmental issues in Oregon. I also hesitate to write off a legislator that is making serious comments about environmental protection because of his affiliation with the Republican Party (OLCV is nonpartisan). I support the Clackamas County Chapter and State OLCV careful decision to endorse. This sends a positive message to all legislators who want to work positively toward environmental protection.

It shows that as an organization we will not make broad sweeping generalizations but will give every legislator a chance to work with us to care for the environment.

[Wes Kempfer]

Scott, Sybil,

Thank you for the clarification. I really appreciate your comments as well as all the work that you and the rest of the staff and volunteers at OLCV do. It is encouraging to know that there are still Republican office holders in Oregon willing to work on behalf of the environment. I have to admit that in addition to being an environmentalist, I am also a progressive and perhaps have trouble considering environmental issues outside of social and economic issues that are often related, and for that reason have a bias toward Democrats, even though I also know that there are some Democrats that are just as bad, or worse, than some Republicans on the environment. I agree that considering each individual candidate fairly and separately from their party affiliation is important. However, as a group, the Republican majority in the State House has been generally a bad thing for Oregon on many fronts, including the environment. If Scott Bruun is willing to work to protect and restore the environment in Oregon, best of luck to him, but personally I hope his party becomes the House minority come November.

Wes

[Sybil Ackerman]

Thanks for your response Wes. I appreciate your concerns and am very glad we could talk wbout this on the blog. (by the way I made a mistake in my reference and the post above was from Stephen and not Scott! It is my first time blogging so I am jst getting into the groove)

[Jeremiah Baumann]

I can vouch for Representative Bruun's sincerity in supporting environmental issues. I'm an advocate for OSPIRG (we don't get involved in supporting candidates so I don't have a dog in this) and I was lobbying the House last session on two issues where Rep. Bruun stood up for the environment.

On the first one, the House voted to instruct state agencies NOT to address global warming pollution. On the second, the House voted for a budget bill that prohibited DEQ from adopting the Clean Cars program. Rep. Bruun voted "no" on both -- and to his credit, he did so not because of some kind of major push from enviros but very much because he's an independent thinker who cares aobut protecting the environment.

[In the Know]

I support Bruun's endorsement, even though I normally vote for the Democratic candidate. He has much more to say regarding his position, while Eberle is all fluff.
Also, I know Eberle, and she is not to be trusted- she is a lying, dirty backstabber, and I do not think she would do a good job in office, even if you agree with all her (stated) positions on issues.