To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
Show all languages
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.

2010 United States Senate election in Oregon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United States Senate election in Oregon, 2010

← 2004 November 2, 2010 2016 →
Ron Wyden official portrait crop.jpg
Jim Huffman.jpg
Nominee Ron Wyden Jim Huffman
Party Democratic Republican
Popular vote 825,507 566,199
Percentage 57.2% 39.3%

Oregon Senatorial Election Results by County, 2010.svg
County Results
Wyden:      40-50%      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%
Huffman:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70%

U.S. Senator before election

Ron Wyden

Elected U.S. Senator

Ron Wyden

The 2010 United States Senate election in Oregon was held on November 2, 2010 alongside other elections to the United States Senate in other states, as well as elections to the United States House of Representatives and various state and local elections. Incumbent Democratic U.S. Senator Ron Wyden won re-election to a third full term.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/3
    33 060
    427 561
  • ✪ Why Super PACS Dominate Elections | Citizens United v. FEC
  • ✪ Political Ships of Theseus | The Party Switch
  • ✪ Wayne Morse: Biography, History, Book, Gulf of Tonkin, Politician, Senator (1997)


Mr. Beat Presents Supreme Court Briefs Washington DC 2007 A self-described conservative non-profit corporation called Citizens United wants to release a documentary. The film, called Hillary: The Movie, (hey that’s a pretty catchy title) talks a bunch of trash about Hillary Clinton, who just so happens to be running for President. Citizens United wanted to distribute and advertise the film within a month before the Democratic primary elections in January 2008. However, this would be a violation of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, aka BCRA, aka the McCain-Feingold Act, the latest law that limited how political campaigns were paid for. BCRA said corporations or labor unions can’t spend money from their general treasury to broadcast anything through the mass media that specifically brings up a candidate running for federal office within 30 days of a primary. Anticipating that the Federal Election Commission, or FEC, might try to stop the release of their documentary, Citizens United went ahead and took the FEC to the United States District Court, essentially saying “don’t even think about it, FEC.” Citizens United claimed BCRA didn’t apply to Hillary: The Movie, because the film wasn’t clearly for or against a candidate. It also claimed that the Supreme Court decision FEC v. Wisconsin Right To Life justified them releasing the film within 30 days of the Democratic primaries. Not only that, but Citizens United argued that portions of BCRA straight up violated the FIrst Amendment to the Constitution. On January 15, 2008, the three-judge U.S. District Court said “nope, sorry Citizens United.” You can’t have your injunction, you gotta let the FEC regulate. The court said the film was clearly just meant to get people to not vote for Hillary Clinton, I was called Hillary: The Movie, for crying out loud. They also said the film was meant to be strategically shown right before the primaries for this purpose and they cited the Supreme Court decision in McConnell v. FEC as justification that the FEC could prevent the showing up this film. Citizens United was like you know what? I’m appealing to the Supreme Court. Now, as you know, this can be a long process. What ended up happening was Hillary Clinton did not get the Democratic nomination and Barack Obama ended up being elected President later that year. But that ended up being irrelevant other than the fact that Obama nominated a new justice, Sonia Sotomayor, that agreed with the justice she replaced, David Souter. Actually, that's kind of irrelevant, too. Throughout 2009, the Supreme Court heard multiple arguments about the case. The Court had remained very divided on the issue. Things got pretty philosophical. Finally, on January 21, 2010, the Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Citizens United arguing that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment prohibited the government from limiting money spent by corporations, labor unions, and other associations, on political campaigns. Specifically, we’re talking about independent political expenditures, or political campaign contributions not directly affiliated with the candidate. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion. “If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.” The Court's ruling basically freed corporations and unions to spend as much money as they want to elect or defeat candidates as long as they didn’t contribute directly to candidates or political parties. The majority also argued that First Amendment protects ASSOCIATIONS of individuals, not just individual speakers, so you can’t prohibit speech based on the identity of the speaker. So corporations have free speech rights just like you or I. The idea of Corporate Personhood, or the legal notion that corporations share some of the same legal rights and responsibilities held by individuals, had pretty much been established by the Supreme Court since the 1800s. In this case, the Court definitely ruled that corporations are people man, corporations are people. Justice John Paul Stevens led the opinion of the dissent. Stevens was pretty upset about how this one turned out His dissent was 90 pages, and he passionately summarized it for 20 minutes from the bench. Stevens later wrote a book explaining that a Constitutional amendment should be passed to make sure money doesn’t influence politics, mostly due to this ruling. Today, Citizens United v. FEC continues to get people fired up Bernie: If we are going to maintain a true democracy in this country it is absolute imperative that we overturn this disastrous 5-4 Supreme Court decision on Citizens United. Protesters have passionately spoke out against it, and organizations like Wolf PAC were created in response to the decision. Just like Roe v. Wade, this is a Supreme Court decision that will be discussed and debated for many years to come. I'll see you for the next Supreme Court case, jury!


Democratic primary


  • Pavel Goberman, fitness instructor and mentalist, perennial candidate[1]
  • Loren Hooker, farmer[1]
  • Ron Wyden, incumbent U.S. Senator


Poll source Dates administered Ron Wyden Loren Hooker Pavel Goberman Undecided
Survey USA May 7–9, 2010 80% 9% 4% 8%


Oregon Democratic U.S. Senate primary results[2]
Party Candidate Votes %
Democratic Ron Wyden 323,652 89.55%
Democratic Loren Hooker 25,152 6.75%
Democratic Pavel Goberman 9,985 2.68%
Democratic Write Ins 3,782 1.02%
Total votes 376,353 100.00%

Republican primary



Poll source Dates administered Jim Huffman Thomas Stutzman Keith Waldron Robin Parker Undecided
Survey USA May 7–9, 2010 20% 11% 9% 6% 43%


Oregon Republican U.S. Senate primary results[2]
Party Candidate Votes %
Republican Jim Huffman 110,450 41.70
Republican Loren Later 39,753 15.01
Republican G. Shane Dinkel 36,760 13.88
Republican Thomas Stutzman 31,859 12.03
Republican Keith Waldron 24,602 9.29
Republican Robin Parker 14,637 5.53
Republican Walter Woodland 4,417 1.67
Republican Write Ins 2,213 0.86
Total votes 267,054 100

General election



Wyden, a popular incumbent with a 52% approval rating in a July poll,[6] touted bipartisanship and promised to hold town-hall meetings annually in each of Oregon's 36 counties and to open offices outside of Portland and Salem.[7] A Survey USA poll taken a few days before the election showed that 23% of Republicans supported Wyden.[8]

Huffman, widely considered as an underdog, financed his own campaign. He defended bonuses for Wall Street executives and questioned global warming.[9]


The first debate took place on October 21, 2010 in Medford, Oregon and was broadcast by KOBI-TV. Only the two major-party candidates, Huffman and Wyden, participated in the debate.[10] The second debate, which was hosted by the City Club of Portland at the Governor Hotel, took place on October 22. The debate played live on KOIN and re-aired on Oregon Public Broadcasting later that night.[11]


Source Ranking As of
Cook Political Report Solid D[12] October 9, 2010
Rothenberg Safe D[13] October 8, 2010
Swing State Project Safe D[citation needed]
RealClearPolitics Likely D[14]
Sabato's Crystal Ball Safe D[15] September 30, 2010
CQ Politics Safe D[16] October 9, 2010


Poll source Dates administered Jim Huffman (R) Ron Wyden (D)
Rasmussen Reports February 16, 2010 35% 49%
Rasmussen Reports May 24, 2010 38% 51%
Survey USA June 7–9, 2010 38% 51%
Rasmussen Reports June 17, 2010 37% 47%
Davis, Hibbits and Midghall June 21, 2010 32% 50%
Rasmussen Reports July 26, 2010 35% 51%
Survey USA July 25–27, 2010 35% 53%
Rasmussen Reports August 22, 2010 36% 56%
Rasmussen Reports September 8, 2010 35% 53%
Survey USA September 12–14, 2010 38% 54%
Rasmussen Reports October 10, 2010 36% 52%
Survey USA October 12–14, 2010 34% 56%
Public Policy Polling October 17, 2010 40% 56%
Rasmussen Reports October 25, 2010 42% 53%
Survey USA October 23–28, 2010 32% 57%


Candidate (party) Receipts Disbursements Cash on hand Debt
Ron Wyden (D) $5,529,660 $4,820,297 $1,827,374 $0
James Huffman (R) $2,227,784 $1,576,662 $651,118 $1,350,000
Marc Delphine (L) $4,728 $4,805 $221 $0
Source: Federal Election Commission[17]


General election results[18]
Party Candidate Votes %
Democratic Ron Wyden (Incumbent) 825,507 57.22%
Republican Jim Huffman 566,199 39.25%
Working Families Bruce Cronk 18,940 1.31%
Libertarian Marc Delphine 16,028 1.11%
Progressive Rick Staggenborg 14,466 1.00%
Write-In 1,448 0.10%
Total votes 1,442,588 100.0%
Democratic hold


  1. ^ a b c d e f g h "Candidate Filings, United States Senate election". Oregon Secretary of State. Retrieved February 12, 2010.
  2. ^ a b "Official Results May 2010 Primary Election" (PDF). Retrieved June 14, 2010.
  3. ^ Mapes, Jeff (March 4, 2010). "Lewis & Clark law professor Jim Huffman announces run against Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden". The Oregonian. Retrieved March 5, 2010.
  4. ^ a b c d e "Candidate Filings, Governor (2010 General Election)". Oregon Secretary of State. Retrieved September 13, 2010.
  5. ^
  6. ^
  7. ^[permanent dead link]
  8. ^
  9. ^ Duara, Nigel (November 3, 2010). "Ore. Democrat holds Senate seat against professor". The Washington Post.
  10. ^ "Wyden, challenger debate tonight". The Mail Tribune. Southern Oregon Media Group. October 21, 2010. Retrieved October 21, 2010.
  11. ^ Graves, Bill (October 8, 2010). "Challenger Jim Huffman champions limited government in quest to unseat Ron Wyden". The Oregonian. Oregon Live LLC. Retrieved October 21, 2010.
  12. ^ "Senate". Cook Political Report. Retrieved October 9, 2010.
  13. ^ "Senate Ratings". Rothenberg Political Report. Retrieved October 9, 2010.
  14. ^ "Battle for the Senate". RealClearPolitics. Retrieved October 9, 2010.
  15. ^ "2010 Senate Ratings". Sabato's Crystal Ball. Retrieved October 9, 2010.
  16. ^ "Race Ratings Chart: Senate". CQ Politics. Archived from the original on October 28, 2010. Retrieved October 9, 2010.
  17. ^ "2010 House and Senate Campaign Finance for Oregon". Retrieved July 25, 2010.[permanent dead link]
  18. ^ "November 2, 2010, General Election Abstracts of Votes" (PDF). Oregon Secretary of State. Retrieved December 3, 2010.

External links

Official campaign websites
This page was last edited on 18 September 2019, at 14:45
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.