PORTLAND (AP) — For the third time in 10 years, Bill Sizemore is asking Oregonians to bar public employee unions from collecting political money through payroll deductions.

Sizemore is predicting this Nov. 4 vote will be the charm, though dozens of organizations are uging voters to reject the ballot measure. They argue that it unfairly targets public employees and could hurt Oregon charities.

As with the two other failed measures, Sizemore’s Measure 64 seeks to block public employee unions from using the money they collect through payroll deductions for political purposes or face fines.

“Our whole basis for this was that the government ought to be neutral in elections,” Sizemore said. “Government has no business raising political funds.”

Sizemore said the unions, which are a strong political force in the state, use government resources — everything from public buildings to public employee time — to collect the very money that props them up.

“That is absolutely not the case,” said Graham Trainor, manager of the No on Measure 64 campaign.

“This is one person’s beef,” Trainor said, “It’s unfairly targeting one group of people.”

No on Measure 64 is working with the greater Defend Oregon coalition, a union-backed group that is fighting not only this measure but four others that Sizemore put on the November ballot.

Opponents say that Sizemore’s measure is too broad and limits both political action and charitable donations.

“Simply put, if Measure 64 passes it will be harder to feed hungry Oregonians,” said Jon Stubenvoll, advocacy director for the Oregon Food Bank.

The food bank relies heavily on an annual state employees’ food drive, Stubenvoll said. Last year, the drive brought in more than 750,000 pounds of food and $350,000. “That support goes directly to feeding hungry Oregonians,” he said. “If Measure 64 passes, that’s gone. Gone.”

Because the food bank is involved in political advocacy in Salem, public employee unions would no longer be able to donate, Stubenvoll said. “When Oregon Food Bank read Measure 64 it was very clear to us that we would be directly harmed if it were to pass.”

That concern came up in 2000, the last time a similar measure was proposed, Sizemore said. So this time around he made the appropriate changes. “That is entirely a straw man.”

That’s not the case according to the lawyers that the Oregon Humane Society consulted, said Gary Kish, the society’s director of development.

“I can’t speak to the intent of Measure 64, but the reality of Measure 64 is that it’s very loosely worded,” Kish said. “The mere fact that Oregon Food Bank has taken a position on two measures that will appear on the November ballot sweeps us up into the web of Measure 64.”

No on 64 is confident that the measure will fail this time around. Even so, member organizations have submitted statements to the Oregon Voters’ pamphlet and TV ads have hit the airways.

“It’s important to understand that Oregonians have defeated this measure” before, Stubenvoll said. “We’re confident that will happen again, but we’re not taking any chances.”

Sizemore said they shouldn’t. In the past, he hasn’t done much to campaign for the initiative once it made it onto the ballot. “The measure was not rejected as much as the election was bought by the unions,” he said.

This year things could be different. Sizemore has launched a campaign to boost the measure, but he wouldn’t say how much he is spending.

“It won’t match theirs, but it will be enough,” he said.