Dear Senator Sanders,

The Oregon Progressive Party has been asked by members and non-members alike to endorse your presidential campaign or to even nominate you in the Oregon primary election next year.

We are quite enthusiastic about many of your positions. You clearly understand the American people need and want fundamental systemic reform: Single payer health care to remove the corporate yoke imposed on our health; a $15 minimum wage; opposition to the Trans Pacific Partnership and other corporate trade agreements waiting in the wings; Black Lives Matter; Free Tuition; break-up of the Too-Big-To-Fail Banks; imposing a transaction tax on Wall Street; ridding us of the tax havens; and more.

But we seek to know your positions on other issues you have not prominently addressed, at least up to this point in your speeches.

• Israel/Palestine - Your past support for Israel in their military aggression again the Palestinians troubles us. Last year you appear to have supported Israel's slaughter in Gaza along with 99 other US Senators. Can we expect that represents your future stance on Israel/Palestine?
• Military Industrial Complex - President Eisenhower's farewell speech warned Americans of the power of the Military Industrial Complex (we now need to add Congressional to the name). That complex's power has only grown since then, and the expense of maintaining that power undermines America's ability to finance many of the other reforms you advocate. Should military spending be drastically reduced?
• Election Integrity - Voting in America is conducted on privately owned, privately managed voting machines by companies which are owned by major funders of the Republican Party. Prior to the election of Barark Obama, this was an issue, but it has since disappeared from the national conversation. Nonetheless, the issue remains. Do you recognize this as a problem and have solutions in mind?
• Amending the US Constitution - Your support for a constitutional amendment to overturn the US Supreme Court's Citizens United decision is well known. However, many critics of that decision have noted that it fails to address the problem of corporate domination created by other court decisions. They have called for an amendment to the US Constitution which says that money is not speech (in order to address court decisions prior to Citizens United) and that corporations are not people (to address court decisions going back to 1886 - Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad - and even before the Civil War -Dartmouth College v Woodward). Will you support an expansion of your stated position to include advocating for an amendment to the US Constitution to establish that money is not speech and that corporations do not have constitutional rights?

We look forward to hearing your responses. Thank you.

Regards,

David e. Delk, Co-Chair
Oregon Progressive Party