Oregon’s Tofu Apocalypse Has Entered the Chat

IP 28 may qualify for the ballot, it won’t pass, but it just might help Oregon voters remember why Salem needs adult supervision.

Oregon may be walking into another one of those political moments where the opposition steps on a rake, gets smacked in the forehead, and then files a press release blaming democracy.

Just a few months ago, Salem’s political wisdom class passed a sweeping transportation bill, raising the gas tax, vehicle fees, title fees, registration costs, and payroll taxes because, apparently, the people struggling to afford groceries, rent, daycare, diesel, and a used tire with half the tread left were secretly begging the government to reach deeper into their glove box for loose change.

Then Measure 120 happened.

Oregon voters did not just reject the gas tax package. They launched it into the political sun. That should have been a warning sign to anyone paying attention: when voters understand the cost, the consequence, and the arrogance behind the ask, they are perfectly capable of saying, “Not today, Salem.”

Now comes IP 28, the People for the Elimination of Animal Cruelty Exemptions Act, a proposal that could effectively criminalize hunting, fishing, trapping, animal agriculture, and other long-standing practices tied to food production, wildlife management, rural life, and Oregon culture.

This is not some mysterious conspiracy theory cooked up in a hunting lodge over elk jerky and bad coffee. The supporters say what they want. Their own campaign describes the measure as extending legal protections to animals “currently on farms, in research labs, and in the wild,” including protections from slaughter, hunting, fishing, and experimentation.

Well, that certainly clears the fog.

So here is where Republicans, independents, and common-sense Democrats need to take a deep breath. Do not panic if IP 28 qualifies. Do not run around like the tofu apocalypse is upon us. Do not act like Oregon is doomed because a fringe idea made it to the ballot.

Use it.

Because IP 28 is not just a measure. It is a mirror. It shows voters the distance between normal Oregon life and activist politics. It asks a question so simple even a legislative committee could accidentally understand it: Do Oregonians really want to criminalize the ordinary systems that feed families, support farmers, sustain ranchers, manage wildlife, and preserve hunting and fishing traditions?

If you thought people who drive cars were going to happily vote to raise the cost of driving cars, you may also believe people who eat meat are lining up to make raising food functionally illegal.

Good luck with that sales pitch. Maybe print it on recycled kale.

For years, Oregon politics has followed a familiar pattern. The activists push the extreme edge. The political class pretends it is compassion. The media softens the language until the sharp corners disappear. Then regular Oregonians finally read the details and say, “Wait, what?”

That is the opportunity.

IP 28 should not be treated as some isolated hunting and fishing issue. It belongs in the larger 2026 conversation about balance, affordability, land use, food production, taxes, crime, schools, roads, housing, and whether Salem still remembers Oregon extends beyond Portland coffee shops and nonprofit boardrooms.

This measure gives Republicans and reasonable candidates a rare gift: a vivid, easy-to-understand example of how far the activist class is willing to go when nobody stops them.

And no, opposing IP 28 is not about hating animals. That is the lazy smear, and we all know it is coming. Most hunters, anglers, ranchers, and farmers care more about animal health, habitat, conservation, and responsible stewardship than the average keyboard revolutionary who thinks “wildlife management” means letting nature host a committee meeting.

Oregon hunters fund conservation. Oregon anglers care about fish runs. Oregon farmers and ranchers understand animal care because they live it every day. They get up before sunrise and do the work whether it is 19 degrees, raining sideways, or a cow has decided today is a good day to test the fence.

Meanwhile, the political class keeps pretending the only legitimate moral view is whatever comes with a grant-funded logo and a reusable tote bag.

Enough.

If IP 28 qualifies, every legislative candidate in Oregon should be asked a simple question: Do you support it?

No filibustering. No “I care deeply about all stakeholders.” No committee-room fog machine. Just answer the question. Do you support a measure that targets hunting, fishing, ranching, farming, and the basic food systems Oregonians rely on?

There is the campaign ad. There is the mailer. There is the town hall question. There is the door-knocking script.

And yes, Republicans should make the Democratic Party answer for it politically. Not because every Democrat necessarily supports IP 28. Many rural Democrats, old-school labor Democrats, and working-class Democrats probably think this thing is nuts too. That is the point. Force the question. Make the party choose between normal Oregonians and the activist edge it keeps trying to ride like a rented scooter with bad brakes.

Democrats have spent years tying every Republican in America to whatever Donald Trump said, posted, misspelled, or implied at 1:13 in the morning. Fine. Sauce for the goose, although under IP 28 we may need to check whether geese have retained counsel.

If Democrats want to nationalize every Republican race with Trump, Republicans can localize every Oregon race with IP 28, Measure 120, tax hikes, agency failures, and the steady drip of policies that make ordinary life harder for ordinary people.

Not unfair. Just politics with the receipt stapled to the bag.

Measure 120 proved something important. Oregon voters are not as asleep as the permanent political class hoped. When the issue is clear, when the cost is obvious, and when the stakes are easy to understand, voters still know how to use the brakes.

IP 28 can become the next clarifying moment.

Not because it is likely to pass. Frankly, if Oregon voters rejected a gas tax by a political landslide, the idea that they will rush to criminalize food production, hunting, and fishing is a bit like assuming a man who just refused a root canal will volunteer for recreational dentistry.

But it can still be useful. It can wake people up. It can bring rural Oregon into the conversation. It can remind suburban voters that extremism is not just something that happens in campaign attack ads. It can show moderate Democrats and independent voters that the fever swamp is not theoretical.

Because this is bigger than one initiative.

Oregon does not need another election where voters only argue about personalities while Salem keeps producing policy experiments like a teenager mixing household chemicals in the garage. Oregon needs a correction. Not a tantrum. Not a purity contest. Not another circular firing squad where conservatives spend six months proving they can lose beautifully.

A correction.

A political course adjustment back toward affordability, public safety, road maintenance, housing opportunity, local control, food security, responsible environmental stewardship, and government that understands the difference between compassion and coercion.

IP 28 gives candidates a chance to talk about values in plain English. Do we value Oregon’s outdoor traditions? Do we value farmers and ranchers? Do we value affordable food? Do we value wildlife management based on reality rather than bumper stickers? Do we value working families who do not have time for ideological experiments served with a side of quinoa guilt?

Most Oregonians are not extremists. They are tired, overtaxed, and watching prices climb, roads crumble, schools struggle, and housing drift further out of reach. They are tired of being told every bad idea is compassion and every objection is hate.

IP 28 gives them a chance to say something simple: we are not criminalizing dinner, turning Grandpa’s fishing trip into a legal theory, treating ranchers like villains, or handing Oregon’s future to people who think the food chain is a social construct.

This is a time for choosing.

Not panic. Not fear. Not doom-posting. Opportunity.

If IP 28 qualifies, Republicans should put it in every conversation about 2026. Not as a scare tactic, but as a real-world example of what happens when political power goes unbalanced for too long. Salem needs a counterweight. Oregon needs a correction. Voters need a reason to show up that is bigger than partisan team sports.

Measure 120 showed voters still know how to use the brakes.

IP 28 may remind them why the steering wheel matters too.

If you like my commentary, head over to my Substack for more free viewpoints.

What stakeholders have to say:

Farms – https://www.oregonfb.org/ip28

Cattle Ranchers – https://orcattle.com/no-on-ip28/

Hunters – https://oregonhunters.org/initiative-petition-28-2/

Measure 120 Explanatory Statement

IP 28 Text