Mr Miller, you continue to provide insight and truth. Thank you.
These council activities further exemplifies the obnoxious and evil intent of the DSA. Original Democrats should be ashamed. They should oust the DSA from their party and force them to organize independently.
The ignorance of these actions is a direct result of the poor educations that these DSA individuals possess. I conclude, you did not, that they are antisemites. Not one of them could survive a debate with any Jewish rabbi.
Only two Districts, 3 and 4, have Councilors on the ballot this November. The City Council elections are staggered, 1 and 2 are up for election in 2028.
This November, Mitch Green (D4), Angelita Morillo (D3) and Tiffany Koyama-Lane (D3) are up for re-election.
Thank you, Marc. One point of discipline: I didn't conclude they are antisemites, and I won't. The piece documents a pledge, a record of votes, and a mechanism. Readers can draw their own conclusions; my job is to make sure the documents are in front of them. Lisa has the ballot facts right below. Welcome to Portland.
It was predictable that Portland’s DSA-aligned councilors would begin with Israel, because Palestinian solidarity, support for BDS [Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions], and opposition to U.S. military and economic support for Israel have been public parts of the national DSA agenda for years. That starting point should not have been surprising; the organization has made these positions quite public.
That origin is not necessarily problematic if Portland’s final policy is genuinely country-neutral. Resolution 37723 is written broadly, covering human rights, war, genocide, labor, environmental and consumer impacts, and it directs staff to examine how other public entities have implemented similar ethical-investment policies.
The policy is not necessarily free: screening services cost money, and excluding otherwise eligible bonds could reduce investment income if comparable replacements are unavailable.
The fairest and most workable approach is for Council to set clear, universal standards and then rely on a respected independent organization with an established methodology to apply them consistently across companies and countries. Treasury should not be put in the position of deciding whether Microsoft, Nvidia, Anthropic, BlackRock because of its financial relationship with Anthropic, or a U.S. defense contractor has crossed a contested human-rights threshold. A credible third-party process would reduce political pressure, create a consistent evidentiary standard, and keep Treasury from becoming its own human-rights tribunal.
Scott, this is a serious standard and I accept it. Origin doesn't disqualify a policy if the final product is country-neutral under an established, independent methodology, and you'll notice your asks converge with my filed testimony: published standards, the narrowest model, and Treasury kept out of the human-rights tribunal business. That also gives us a test anyone can score. If the list that emerges is country-neutral under a recognized methodology, the origin story loses its force. If it lands where the October 2025 pledge pointed, with no methodology, the output confirms the origin. The design-phase record is where that test belongs. Watch what gets written down.
We need to vote out any representative affiliated with the DSA and ensure we keep them far away from political power in Oregon/Portland. This place will be ruined if they are allowed to continue on, as we are already experiencing.
Thank you, Robert Miller, for another informative piece. I especially like that you included so many substantiating links at bottom.
I’m the person whose written testimony in the September 3rd hearing you summarize as “Tests consistency by asking whether the U.S. is screened.” “Consistency” is a nice neutral word, but I was trying to point out the absurdity of applying a fine ESG filter to corporations and other countries when the United States, under Trump, is one of the worst actors on the global stage. And because of the size of our economy, our actions have a greater impact on the world than any country other than China.
Currently, of Portland’s $2.8B investment portfolio, 18.5% is invested in US Treasuries and 44.9% is in US Agency debt. So nearly two thirds of the City of Portland’s portfolio is in federal debt.
My point is that, given our investment in US debt, it is a fool’s errand (courtesy of the DSA) to try to make this Portfolio “ethical.” And no, US debt is considered, internationally, to be the safest investment asset, so we can’t divest of US debt, I’m not suggesting that.
If you have a checking, savings, or money market account you are “complicit” in the action’s of our federal government. So this whole "tightening of the investment filter" effort is a waste of money and city staff time. It’s originating purpose, you’re correct Robert, is the Democratic Socialists of America’s BDS (Boycott, Diversify, Sanction) pledge.
Lisa, you're right, and "consistency" was my compression, not yours. Your argument was sharper than my summary: nearly two thirds of the City's $2.8B portfolio sits in US Treasuries and Agency debt that no one proposes to screen and no one could responsibly divest. So the entire ethical apparatus operates on the sliver that remains. That number strengthens the case considerably and I intend to use it, with credit. Thank you again for doing the homework.
Terry, three things, all available now. Demand the fiscal-impact estimate be published before adoption. Demand written, universal standards, applied by an independent body, with any company name requiring a recorded Council vote. And watch the roll call: three of the councilors in this story are on the ballot in Districts 3 and 4 this November. The record is being written right now, in the design phase. That is when it can be put right.
Robert, thank you for replying! You don't need to credit me, it would only clog the narrative flow. The other thing to keep in mind is that Portland's fund is a short-term, fixed income portfolio. It's not an endowment, or a pension fund, which have longer investment horizons. Jeez, an endowment might even be invested in private equity. It seems to me that ESG-type filters are most impactful on those longer investment horizons. As Councilor Eric Zimmerman put it, there is a lot of harm, without much gain, in this current effort. As I see it, the harm is in wasted staff and city council time, as well as feeding an antisemitism which lurks adjacent to PDX DSA (the Portland branch of the Democratic Socialists of America).
Mr Miller, you continue to provide insight and truth. Thank you.
These council activities further exemplifies the obnoxious and evil intent of the DSA. Original Democrats should be ashamed. They should oust the DSA from their party and force them to organize independently.
The ignorance of these actions is a direct result of the poor educations that these DSA individuals possess. I conclude, you did not, that they are antisemites. Not one of them could survive a debate with any Jewish rabbi.
These members will hopefully lose in November:
Mitch Green, Sameer Kanal, Candace Avalos, Jamie Dunphy, Angelita Morillo and Tiffany Koyama Lane.
Only two Districts, 3 and 4, have Councilors on the ballot this November. The City Council elections are staggered, 1 and 2 are up for election in 2028.
This November, Mitch Green (D4), Angelita Morillo (D3) and Tiffany Koyama-Lane (D3) are up for re-election.
Thank you, Marc. One point of discipline: I didn't conclude they are antisemites, and I won't. The piece documents a pledge, a record of votes, and a mechanism. Readers can draw their own conclusions; my job is to make sure the documents are in front of them. Lisa has the ballot facts right below. Welcome to Portland.
It was predictable that Portland’s DSA-aligned councilors would begin with Israel, because Palestinian solidarity, support for BDS [Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions], and opposition to U.S. military and economic support for Israel have been public parts of the national DSA agenda for years. That starting point should not have been surprising; the organization has made these positions quite public.
That origin is not necessarily problematic if Portland’s final policy is genuinely country-neutral. Resolution 37723 is written broadly, covering human rights, war, genocide, labor, environmental and consumer impacts, and it directs staff to examine how other public entities have implemented similar ethical-investment policies.
The policy is not necessarily free: screening services cost money, and excluding otherwise eligible bonds could reduce investment income if comparable replacements are unavailable.
The fairest and most workable approach is for Council to set clear, universal standards and then rely on a respected independent organization with an established methodology to apply them consistently across companies and countries. Treasury should not be put in the position of deciding whether Microsoft, Nvidia, Anthropic, BlackRock because of its financial relationship with Anthropic, or a U.S. defense contractor has crossed a contested human-rights threshold. A credible third-party process would reduce political pressure, create a consistent evidentiary standard, and keep Treasury from becoming its own human-rights tribunal.
Scott, this is a serious standard and I accept it. Origin doesn't disqualify a policy if the final product is country-neutral under an established, independent methodology, and you'll notice your asks converge with my filed testimony: published standards, the narrowest model, and Treasury kept out of the human-rights tribunal business. That also gives us a test anyone can score. If the list that emerges is country-neutral under a recognized methodology, the origin story loses its force. If it lands where the October 2025 pledge pointed, with no methodology, the output confirms the origin. The design-phase record is where that test belongs. Watch what gets written down.
We need to vote out any representative affiliated with the DSA and ensure we keep them far away from political power in Oregon/Portland. This place will be ruined if they are allowed to continue on, as we are already experiencing.
Mr.Miller,
Your willingness to wade through the weeds is so important
, Thank you! Jody
Thank you, Jody. The weeds are where the record lives.
Thank you, Robert Miller, for another informative piece. I especially like that you included so many substantiating links at bottom.
I’m the person whose written testimony in the September 3rd hearing you summarize as “Tests consistency by asking whether the U.S. is screened.” “Consistency” is a nice neutral word, but I was trying to point out the absurdity of applying a fine ESG filter to corporations and other countries when the United States, under Trump, is one of the worst actors on the global stage. And because of the size of our economy, our actions have a greater impact on the world than any country other than China.
Currently, of Portland’s $2.8B investment portfolio, 18.5% is invested in US Treasuries and 44.9% is in US Agency debt. So nearly two thirds of the City of Portland’s portfolio is in federal debt.
My point is that, given our investment in US debt, it is a fool’s errand (courtesy of the DSA) to try to make this Portfolio “ethical.” And no, US debt is considered, internationally, to be the safest investment asset, so we can’t divest of US debt, I’m not suggesting that.
If you have a checking, savings, or money market account you are “complicit” in the action’s of our federal government. So this whole "tightening of the investment filter" effort is a waste of money and city staff time. It’s originating purpose, you’re correct Robert, is the Democratic Socialists of America’s BDS (Boycott, Diversify, Sanction) pledge.
Lisa, you're right, and "consistency" was my compression, not yours. Your argument was sharper than my summary: nearly two thirds of the City's $2.8B portfolio sits in US Treasuries and Agency debt that no one proposes to screen and no one could responsibly divest. So the entire ethical apparatus operates on the sliver that remains. That number strengthens the case considerably and I intend to use it, with credit. Thank you again for doing the homework.
Thank you very much for this correction. I am new to Portland and am not a happy camper.
This is very important. Thank you for the detail and clarity. What can be done to put this right?
Terry, three things, all available now. Demand the fiscal-impact estimate be published before adoption. Demand written, universal standards, applied by an independent body, with any company name requiring a recorded Council vote. And watch the roll call: three of the councilors in this story are on the ballot in Districts 3 and 4 this November. The record is being written right now, in the design phase. That is when it can be put right.
To whom do I address these demands?
Robert, thank you for replying! You don't need to credit me, it would only clog the narrative flow. The other thing to keep in mind is that Portland's fund is a short-term, fixed income portfolio. It's not an endowment, or a pension fund, which have longer investment horizons. Jeez, an endowment might even be invested in private equity. It seems to me that ESG-type filters are most impactful on those longer investment horizons. As Councilor Eric Zimmerman put it, there is a lot of harm, without much gain, in this current effort. As I see it, the harm is in wasted staff and city council time, as well as feeding an antisemitism which lurks adjacent to PDX DSA (the Portland branch of the Democratic Socialists of America).