Darcey Edwards wants to empower the powerful and fight the powerless.  “I’ll keep fighting to restore balance, protect landowner rights, and empower the industries that have sustained Oregon for generations.”

I’ll fight to protect the people who live on the land and work in the industries that sustain Oregon today. She’s fighting for the owners of 300,000 acres of private tree farms and the industry that employs 2% of the people in our district.

Edwards’ web presence is thin and empty. The substance is so limited that it’s on just one page. It’s a list of fact-free and data-free assertions about problems that almost completely lack concrete suggestions like, say, links to proposed legislation for the next session or from the previous session.  I’m quoting the page as I found it on September 5. It was last updated on January 28. I wouldn’t be surprised if she materially changes it when and if she finds my commentary. So I’m quoting it verbatim here. That said…

Public Safety

“Oregonians deserve real safety — not just headlines, slogans, or hollow policy wins. But right now, our system is failing. Law enforcement is stretched thin, repeat offenders are rearming with ease, and drug and crime networks are operating unchecked across our state.

“As the daughter of a firefighter, I’ve seen firsthand what real public service looks like. Today’s first responders are being asked to do more with less — while lawmakers in Salem make their jobs harder, not easier. Instead of giving our police and DAs the tools they need to hold criminals accountable, too many bills target the wrong people.

“I’ve delivered multiple remonstrances on the House floor after major drug and gun busts — because we can’t keep pretending these are isolated incidents. When convicted felons are caught with arsenals of weapons and stockpiles of narcotics, and no one’s asking how they got them in the first place, it’s time to rethink our priorities.

“We need smarter enforcement, real accountability, and leaders who have the political courage to confront the actual problem — not just pass feel-good laws that chip away at public trust.”

Drug and crime networks are operating unchecked? What networks are those? Lawmakers in Salem make first responders’ jobs harder, not easier? How so? Too many bills target the wrong people? Who are the wrong people to target? the right people? What tools does she want to give police and DAs that they don’t already have? We’re pretending major drug and gun busts are isolated incidents? Give us an example, Rep. Edwards. Show your facts and data.  What do smarter enforcement and real accountability look like? Show us proposed bills, ideally with links to legislation you’ve sponsored.

Homelessness

“This crisis is personal to me. I’ve spent weekends walking Portland’s streets, searching for my son while he battled addiction and homelessness. I’ve talked with dozens of people living in tents and doorways. Some have lost hope. Others were lured here by services that expect nothing in return.

“I believe in compassion — but that doesn’t mean giving up on accountability. What we’re doing now isn’t working. It’s not safe, and it’s not humane.

“We need real standards. We need treatment tied to action. And we need leaders who are willing to face this crisis head-on, not just manage its symptoms. I’m committed to doing the hard work to end the cycle — because every Oregonian deserves safety, dignity, and the chance to rebuild.

“I’ve delivered multiple remonstrances on the House floor after major drug and gun busts — because we can’t keep pretending these are isolated incidents. When convicted felons are caught with arsenals of weapons and stockpiles of narcotics, and no one’s asking how they got them in the first place, it’s time to rethink our priorities.

“We need smarter enforcement, real accountability, and leaders who have the political courage to confront the actual problem — not just pass feel-good laws that chip away at public trust.”

I appreciate Edwards’ personal disclosure.  But what is she talking about –  people lured here by services that expect nothing in return? What is the lure? What should we expect in return from homeless people for a public service – money? a nice review someplace? What does accountability for homeless people even look like? The GOP, starting with Reagan, led us to de-institutionalize people like this and ignore their needs. What changes does she have in mind, and how would they be funded? Also, her last two paragraphs here are exact copies of the last paragraphs of the previous topic, complete with the unusual word “remonstrances,” and have been here since January. She’s just not paying attention.

Land Use & Natural Resources

“I grew up around both logging and farming — and I know firsthand how much our local economy depends on Oregon’s natural resource industries. House District 31 relies on timber, fishing, farming, and the tax revenue and jobs they bring. These aren’t just industries — they’re legacies. And they deserve policies that reflect their value.

“This session, I supported SB 485A, a bipartisan bill that protects small forestland owners from unfair estate tax burdens. For families who replant, steward, and actively manage their land, this fix ensures they aren’t forced to sell just to cover a tax bill after the loss of a loved one.

“I also remain strongly opposed to the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) as currently proposed. The HCP is already shuttering mills and threatening rural jobs — including the closure of Hampton in my hometown of Banks. If fully implemented, it would gut county revenues and lead to devastating cuts to public safety and education.

“We can responsibly manage our forests and lands without destroying the rural communities that depend on them. I’ll keep fighting to restore balance, protect landowner rights, and empower the industries that have sustained Oregon for generations.”

Our district’s current dependence on logging is very limited, despite the legacies of prosperity like the Columbia County Court House (1906) from when all the old growth was clearcut in the early 20th century. Old growth is gone and it ain’t coming back. Timber companies collectively employ barely 2% of the workforce here. Of approximately 340,000 forested tree farm acres in Columbia County, almost 90% are privately owned. The bill Edwards refers to (SB 485A) includes parcels up to 5,000 acres – hardly a small forestland.  I would have capped it much lower, around 200 acres. Prices generally range from $2,000 to $5,000 per acre depending on timber stocking, making a 5,000-acre purchase cost $10,000,000 to $25,000,000. Two hundred acres would still raise up to $1,000,000.

The Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) is not shuttering mills. There are just eight mills operating in our district today, four each in Washington and Columbia counties. The closed mills were too expensive and raw lumber was increasingly shipped elsewhere. The HCP reduces the harvesting of lumber on public land by roughly 30%. Doing the math – I’m an MIT guy, gotta do the math – so cutting 30% of the harvest on 10% of forested land reduces the 2% of employment in timber to 1.94%. That translates to about 15 jobs lost, in exchange for making a deal that took years to negotiate and took input from all parties as well as meeting federal regulations. That’s not going to destroy any communities. If anything, it will grow them by increasing recreational use. Better would be for the mills to try to get more competitive on their own – y’know, compete in a free market.

Edwards is fighting to protect  the rich and powerful, not us. By law, corporations are all about fiduciary responsibility – the money – as they should be. It’s our task to limit their actions with non-financial constraints to protect our air, our water, and our children. It’s people – loggers, farm workers, mill workers, and every other person in our district – who need protection. I’ll do that! Democracy is one person one vote, not one acre one vote, or one dollar one vote.

Taxes & Spending

“Oregon doesn’t have a revenue problem — it has a spending problem. Time and again, working families are being asked to pay more, while the government refuses to do the hard work of setting real priorities.

“This session, I spoke out forcefully against House Bill 2025, the transportation package that would have raised the gas tax by 55 cents per gallon, added new payroll and vehicle transfer taxes, and increased costs for registration, licensing, and title services — all without fixing the deep dysfunction at ODOT. That’s not responsible budgeting. That’s using working Oregonians as a piggy bank for broken systems.

“I’ve also stood strong in defense of your Kicker refund — money that belongs to you, not to Salem. Whether it’s gas taxes, permit fees, or the dozens of hidden costs baked into government programs, I believe Oregonians are taxed enough already.

“In the Legislature, I will continue to fight for zero-based budgeting, oppose unnecessary tax hikes, and protect the paychecks of everyday Oregonians. We need a government that lives within its means — not one that asks more from families while delivering less.”

After the catastrophic effects of the Big Ugly Bill on Oregon’s revenues last year, Edwards has the nerve to say that Oregon doesn’t have a revenue problem — it has a spending problem?!? WTH!!! Working class families pay more than I’d like them to, which she implies but doesn’t really say (she says working families, not working class families).  Rich people and corporations pay much less than I’d like them to, between the Big Ugly Bill (let’s disconnect Oregon’s tax laws from the Federal laws), income tax brackets that top out at 9.9% on income over $250K for single filers (let’s add a new higher income tax bracket of 12% on income over $400K), or the shore’s edge corporate tax policy that allows multinational companies to hide profits overseas (let’s make the percentage calculation based on worldwide financials, like we did until 1984). I’d also like to make the kicker refund more progressive, with working class families getting a larger percentage and the total amount per person capped. Working class families are taxed enough. Rich people and corporations are not.

Edwards also doesn’t say here what spending she wants to cut in Education, Human Services, Administration, or anywhere else, but just fills the page with empty rhetoric.

Protecting Life at Every Stage

“I believe every life has value — from the unborn to the elderly, and everyone in between. Being pro-life isn’t just a position for me, it’s personal. My husband and I adopted two of our children through the Oregon DHS system, and the process was far more costly and difficult than it should’ve been. If we truly want to support women and families, we need to make it easier — not harder — to choose life.

“I’ve also seen how our state has failed vulnerable Oregonians later in life. During COVID, my father suffered from neglect in a care facility because we weren’t allowed to be by his side. He lost over 40 pounds while we watched helplessly. That experience stays with me.

“Oregon must do better — not just in policy, but in principle. We need a system that protects life, honors dignity, and supports families every step of the way.”

Edwards wants her personal view of pro-life to overrule everyone else’s. That’s hardly democratic.  It should remain personal, not subjecting everyone to government control over a woman’s body. She also complains about costs she had to bear for adoption. What does she propose to do about that – government funding, or unfunded mandates? What does she propose to do about care facilities for the elderly and people with limited functionality – does she want government funding, or unfunded mandates? Is this a complaint about our response to COVID?

Gun Rights

“I’ve always believed that responsible gun ownership is a cornerstone of both personal freedom and public safety. But in Oregon, we’ve seen a troubling trend: instead of going after criminals, too many of our laws focus on restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens.

“This session, I stood up against bills that would overregulate small firearm dealers and allow local governments to strip away concealed carry rights from those who’ve done everything by the book. These laws don’t stop crime — they just make it harder for everyday Oregonians to protect their families.

“I’ll always fight to preserve your constitutional right to keep and bear arms. We can’t let fear drive policy that punishes responsible citizens and empowers criminals. Our focus should be on stopping illegal gun trafficking and ensuring the justice system holds violent offenders accountable — not piling red tape on people who follow the rules.”

How exactly does Edwards see our laws focus on restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens instead of going after criminals? What criminals are we ignoring? Also, how are local governments allowed to strip away concealed carry rights from those who’ve done everything by the book? And what is this illegal gun trafficking she refers to?

While 80% people of people who own guns do it to feel safer and allay their fears, gun ownership is a threat to public safety. Fear drives people to buy guns just as much as it drives people to want to regulate them. Guns facilitate too many men murdering their partners, too many gang members killing each other – and above all, too many people, almost exclusively men, killing themselves. Nationally, suicides are 2/3 of all gun deaths. More than half of all suicides in America are done with a gun. In Columbia County in 2025, there were 44 gun deaths. All but two were suicides. Here’s my take on guns.

With rights come responsibilities – in this case for training, for registration, and for limiting magazine capacities. Having said that, I think that Measure 114 went too far with the background checks, sheriff’s permits, and fingerprinting for every gun purchase. That’s a considerable unfunded mandate, too. Better would be to have a renewable gun owner’s license and gun registrations like we have driver’s licenses and car registrations, revocable for criminal behavior or mental health issues.

Edwards’s priorities are one weak remonstration after another that utterly lack constructive engagement, analysis, and potential solutions. I will do better for you – much better.