Run for Office 1

It started as a lark. A neighbor expressed her disappointment in 5th District Congressman Kurt Schrader and said, "Someone should run against him."

I was displeased with Schrader's support of HR-38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act. Expanded background checks were an insufficient trade-off, as far as I was concerned. Background checks should be expanded regardless, and "reciprocity" defeated regardless. Giving more men permission to carry more guns in more places is not a solution to the violence of men with guns.

Then came St. Valentine's Day. I filled out the form on the Secretary of State's website and mailed it with a $100 check. Not that I wanted to be a U.S. representative. Nor that I even intended to campaign. In fact, I expected my wife to learn of this whimsy the day she saw my name on the ballot. My intention in filing was to register a protest, to let Schrader know that I and other constituents were serious about taking steps to stop gun violence, and we wanted him to represent our position.

To publish my name and position in the Voter's Pamphlet cost $2,500. That was prohibitive. So, I thought, I'll just have to leave publication of my views to fate.

On March 12, a week after the filing deadline, three letters arrived, all pertaining to the race. The largest envelope came First Class from the NRA Institute for Legislative Action. Inside was a questionnaire headlined "NRA-Political Victory Fund." It asked for my address, home phone number, email address and social media accounts. Right away, I felt vulnerable. Intimidated.

Inside, 23 single-paragraph statements addressed issues from 'reciprocity' to the ability of states and victims to sue gun manufacturers for the deaths and injuries caused by products designed to cause death and injury. Following each statement was, "A. I agree with the NRA and would vote for ... ," and "B. I disagree with the NRA and would oppose ...." The 24th question asked if I was a member of the NRA or any other gun-related club, and to list them.

The return envelope had no stamp.

A second questionnaire, from the Oregon Family Council, required no personal information — which made it less threatening — and its 20 questions, although they leaned right, were less blatantly divisive. In fact, the first few questions were relatively neutral, or at least were written in such a way that an agenda was not obvious. For example: "Do you support or oppose the kicker law?"

But soon, the questions clearly sought to persuade a candidate to declare his positions on various freedoms, with clear leanings toward "religious" freedom and against personal freedom, family freedom and marriage freedom. One question asked, "Do you support or oppose the use of state tax dollars for abortion?" I wanted to write in the blank, "Do you support or oppose the use of state tax dollars to clean up after gun violence?"

The OFC promised to send out 250,000 pamphlets. I answered the questions and sent in the questionnaire.

Finally, last Monday, I received an email from oregonfirearms.org. The logo for Oregon Firearms Federation is a map of Oregon with OFF superimposed on it in upper-case block letters, and on top of that an assault rifle. Their questionnaire screamed gun-rights propaganda. Even though they asked for no personal information, I was suddenly afraid. What could an unarmed 74-year-old do against virulent gunmen?

The Congressional race had begun.