Unfortunately, as you read this literature, it is easy to be fooled by unscrupulous campaign consultants willing to say the most outlandish things in order to promote the candidate they are helping.

The environment is an obvious example. Polls, both nationally and in Oregon, continue to show overwhelming bi-partisan support for strong environmental protection. Not surprisingly, just about every candidate gives a nod to these polls by putting phrases in their literature like: "protect the environment."

In 1996, newspapers reported a document circulated by Newt Gingrich urging his fellow Republicans to avoid the party's reputation for being anti-environment by doing such activities as helping with a "tree-planting."

Of course, putting the words "protect the environment" in literature or planting trees has very little relationship to how legislators vote. The use of these phrases by politicians with a record of voting against environmental protection can best be described as "greenscamming."

For many voters, it's hard to understand why this is even an issue. After all, clean water and clean air are something all politicians should care about, aren't they?

The problem is that many candidates are heavily dependent upon financial contributions from special interests that profit from weakening clean water and clean air rules. If a company can avoid tens of thousands of dollars by not installing new pollution control equipment, what's a few thousand dollars to a candidate if it helps to ensure a law gets relaxed?

Some candidates with anti-environment records may well be sincere when they put out campaign literature saying they are "pro-environment." Too often, though, when faced with a loophole that benefits a specific contributor, it's easy for them to rationalize a vote as being "not that important."

The problem: cut one strand from a hammock - not important. Cut a bunch of strands? Beware where you lie.

In the 1999 Legislative session, a majority of the legislature tried to cut a lot of strands. When the dust settled, Governor Kitzhaber had vetoed twenty-three separate bills that would have weakened existing environmental safeguards, including those protecting clean water, clean air, and standards for cleanup of toxic waste.

So how can voters tell which candidates who will stand by their campaign statements that they will protect the environment?

Start by checking with voter guides produced by non-political organizations like Project Vote Smart or the League of Women Voters. Project Voter Smart (www.projectvotesmart.org) lists the ratings candidates have received from a variety of different organizations representing a cross-section of ideological viewpoints. Or, if voters are particularly interested in the environment, they can check out www.olcv.org, which currently includes Scorecards rating the last two legislative sessions.

Voters wishing to learn more about the source of a candidates' money can turn to various sources. Organizations like www.followthemoney.org are a useful means for voters to determine if that is true with regard to a particular candidate for past election cycles. Unfortunately, contributor information on current races tends not to be posted on-line on a quick enough basis to be useful before voting. Citizens can access hard copies of filings at the Sec. of State's office, however.

Whether we like it or not, the environment is political. There is a direct connection between the air we breathe and who gets elected in Salem. As long as those with profit to make from weaker protections choose to "invest" in political campaigns, voters must look past the rhetoric to candidates' records.

Nobody should count on somebody else doing this for them. If you and your children care about these things, voter beware: Don't be greenscammed.

Jonathan Poisner is executive director of the Oregon League of Conservation Voters.

© 2000 Oregon Live

###