There is most definitely a state law that prohibits payment from a state campaign committee to that candidates own company.

It was part of HB 3458 that became law.

Even Karen Minnis brags about it here:

http://www.leg.state.or.us/press_releases/minnis_5_18_05.pdf

The Bill..."prohibits candidates from charging their own campaigns for professional services..."

I agree with Charlie that the fact that he transferred money into this federal fund as a contribution isn't a problem per se (Though 527's are clearly setup to skirt some reporting) It's the use of a federal committee to do something (In this case get himself personal cash), that would be illegal to do in an Oregon committee.

This is EXACTLY what Tom Delay is getting nailed for. Using a Federal Committee that CAN take corporate money to do something that they CAN'T do in a Texas committee due to Texas law.

What looks obvious is that the federal committee Dalto set up as a 527 is a legal shell. He says things like:

“It amounted to about $1,000 in contributions, so we returned the money,” Dalto said.

I also love this part:

In another passage, Dalto appeared to exaggerate the role of his political committee: "Partnering with some of the nation's leading political consultants, pollsters, and media teams, Americans for a Brighter Tomorrow is working overtime to send John Kerry home to Boston."

In a recent interview, Dalto called that a "marketing" device and acknowledged that his committee was a solo operation.

Apparently Dalto is comfortable with the typical Republican modus operandi these days in which "lying" can be described as "marketing." Pathetic.

Charlie,

If you actually think what he was trying to do was just help George Bush versus create a client (and a fundraising issue) so he could make money for himself personally, then sure. He could have taken a job with the Bush campaign, also donated money to Bush, heck maybe volunteered some time too on top of his paid job.

I think the point of the story was that he lied, according to Kevin Mannix, for why he did it in the first place. Namely, that Bush had abandoned Oregon. He also made a committee which had no reason to exist in Oregon, since as the elections guy said, we have no limits on contributions, which is the only reason anyone used 527's.

He had to have made this type of committee for some reason, since he could have just paid the postage and mailing costs out of his own campaign fund or make another state PAC just for Bush.

The most obvious answer is because it would have been illegal to pay himself through any state PAC's but he could pull a Delay and use his federal, unregulated PAC to do something in this state that otherwise would be illegal.

The big question for me is: Is that article just the tip of the iceberg for him?

The first few that ran on Delay or Doyle...now Dalto, were just questions. They eventually ended up in mugshots. The way I read the comments from the legal authorities was, someone needs to file a complaint for them to launch their investigation but there "are issues here"

Blue Stater

P.S. Good point about marketing = lying. No wonder people hate politics.

Blue Stater,

I think a bigger reason why people hate politics is because power and party affiliation seem to be more important than the merits of any particular issue. Your leap to conclusions about Rep. Dalto is a case-in-point. Just because he's a Republican doesn't mean he's guilty of impropriety.

(Whether he manufactured a client just so that he could pay himself, or made a good-faith attempt to help the Bush Campaign and collected payment for his work, is really a matter of speculating on his intent. So far, I have heard no facts which point one way or the other on this question, other than Rep. Dalto's own account.)

Bottom line: Billy Dalto is a good guy. I don't always agree with him, and I would almost certainly vote for his Democratic opponent if I lived in his district, but -- like Charlie -- I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt until all the facts are on the table.

I think Democrats are better than the "politics of personal destruction" we have been victims of so often.

Fair enough, your entitled to your opinions. I would suggest we all wait and let the legal autorities see where this leads, just like we did with Doyle and Delay.

I have not myself met Billy Dalto so I can't speak to his motives firsthand. I'm not sure "meeting" a politician actually gives someone a better sense of them than just studying their record or actions, in fact I'd say (especially if they have silver tongues) its more often a worse indicator but there probably are no absolutes on that count.

In doing some quick research from the online scorecards of the major issue groups. He voted with Karen Minnis 90+% of the time this session, seemingly no longer a 'moderate' if he ever was one. He's anti-choice (Right to Life), bad on labor (working famililes scorecard) and bad on the environment (24%!)...

In my view, this isn't about 'us' practicing politics, he did what he did himself and the Statesman found it and drew most the conclusions. If you don't see them the same way I do, well thats the point of a democracy, but asking the paper or citizens to not ask legitimate questions about the motives behind his actions is not healthy imo.

Perhaps we can agree that in the end, the Government Standards and Practices Commission, the Secretary of State or a jury of his peers, maybe even the voters themselves will carry the ultimate verdict and leave it at that.

Hey Charlie,

Sorry, I didn't mean to disregard the 527 post.

Perhaps I wasn't clear that I was quoting the Secretary of States election chief, Fred Neal when he said "that he hasn’t seen any 527 committees active in Oregon before, apart from national groups and congressional candidates. These committees aren’t needed in state races because Oregon has no campaign contribution limits."

Maybe I don't get the mechanics either, but I thought the point of his comment was that if Dalto had wanted to raise unlimited funds and help the President with committee's based here in Oregon within his own committee or in a state based committee, he could have done so. The thing he couldnt do, which in a 527 he could, is pay himself nearly 40% of the total take.

These things sound shady and hopefully this was the first ever, and last use of a 527 by an Oregon politician.

The worst part about the whole article was that it looked like Dems were accusing Dalto of something, not that Dalto is guilty of something.

Major Raspberries to the DPO communications director. Next time try saying "Dalto did exactly what Tom Delay did" or "illegal, not yet, but certainty unethical," and repeat it 10 different ways. Don't sit and have a conversation with a report.

Not to mention that he did nothing to protect the Candidate running against Dalto, Brian Clem. Because Clem's name is in that article Chuck Adams has the ability to run the "Brian Clem practices the politics of personal destruction" bit.

Oh well, just another missed opportunity by the DPO. Thank god I'm used to it by now.

Misha,

My conclusions are based on the article as written, I could care less if he is a Republican or Democrat. I have voted for both and will always do so as an independent person.

Kelly Wirth is another example, of someone who needs to be investigated by the authorities, be accountable for her actions, retire and deal with her life problems.

The fact that you know Billy and believe him to be a good guy is to me a bigger bias than the rest of us who are just reading a front page expose article by a newspaper that has been very friendly to him in the past.

As I said before, everyone is entitled to their opinions but to categorize my opinion of his actions after reading the article as "why people hate politics...because power and party affiliation seem to be more important than the merits of any particular issue"...

If he's your friend that's fine and I'm not going to impugn you and blame you for ruining politics for trying to defend him...but he clearly lied in his fundraising letter and instead of admitting it, called it "marketing". Thats all I was pointing out about what people don't like in politics.

("Partnering with some of the nation's leading political consultants, pollsters, and media teams, Americans for a Brighter Tomorrow is working overtime to send John Kerry home to Boston.In a recent interview, Dalto called that a "marketing" device and acknowledged that his committee was a solo operation.")

Winston,

You are right on. The issue should have been that he did things, not that opponents said he did things. Perhaps filing the complaint first would have been a better strategy, then let legitimate authorities declare any wrongdoing to be found.

BlueStater

Frankly, I don't think the DPO missed an opportunity here ... nor do I think the article reflected poorly upon Brian Clem or the party. The article was primarily about the irregularitites of Dalto's 527 that flopped, and the ensuing payment made to himself as an administrator of the fund. Only toward the end of the article does it briefly mention Clem's entry into the race.

Lets keep in mind that the average reader of the Statesman Journal will not be going to go inch by inch over this article. The general impression given to the average reader is that the GOP is back at it with their funny money. That, in itself, is valuable come election season.

Andrew

Given that Dalto was raising money to help Bush using crazy, cowboy rhetoric, I find the following passage the most amusing:

Dalto said Democrats should file an elections complaint if they think he did something wrong.

Not to mention that he did nothing to protect the Candidate running against Dalto, Brian Clem. Because Clem's name is in that article Chuck Adams has the ability to run the "Brian Clem practices the politics of personal destruction" bit.

Just because Chuck Adams has raised obnoxiousness to an art does not mean it is the right thing to do. Or is Oregon politics now supposedly an ethics free zone? Has every single Adams candidate won in the last several elections? Are there Republicans fed up enough not to use his services because he only alienates people?

We had a really nasty local election here awhile back. How Dare the mayor (also a lawyer) have a client the people running the ads didn't approve of? Didn't work--the mayor was re-elected with a new majority of council members who agreed with him. Assuming the nastiest campaign always wins is a big risk. Those only win if voters choose the nasty candidate, and I wouldn't bet money on that happening these days. As has been said about other people, anyone who pushes things too far runs the risk of a backlash.

Anyone who knows Salem knows the SJ is not a tool of Brian Clem or anyone else of his political persuasion, and anyone trying to claim that in Salem would likely be laughed to scorn. There have been people who cancelled subscriptions to the SJ because of their bias in previous elections.

As the child of an auditor, I know that people with expertise can look at financial records and see things ordinary people may not find.

I also know that not every resident of Salem reads every word of an article like this, esp. in the SJ. And if the initial impression of those reading the headline, the first couple paragraphs, and maybe skimming part or all of the rest of a long article is "oh no, another scandal" then that is not my problem.

Lots of candidates and their treasurers work very hard to follow the rules. And if someone is late in filing or the Elections Division thinks they didn't follow the rules, then there should be an investigation, no matter who it is. That is what rules are for. I don't buy the double standard of one party having diff. rules than the other party, esp. when so many reject partisan registration. This is not a game, folks.

And sorry, I didn't see any moderates in the House Majority in the 2005 session. I saw lots of members whose statements outside the caucus party line could be counted on the fingers of one hand.

A true moderate is someone like Sens. Frank Morse and Ben Westlund.

Democrats should be this lucky to have a Republican Chairman like this.

And until Republicans like Billy Dalto quit voting with Minnis 90+ percent of the time, and potentially breaking the law to cater to the right-wing and suck up to Bush and his failed agenda -- they will be held to account.

Don'tcha think that's appropriate Mr. Burr?

Um, this is shady and unethical, at best. Illegal, at worst.

We'll see if he successfully "skirted" the law. (That's a GOP "marketing" term meaning "broke.")

I don't think the problem is that this is shady, unethical, illegal, immoral, or whatever other terms are used in characterizing this incident. What I think the real problem is lies in the fact that GOP lawmakers -repeatedly- push the limitations of what IS ethical and legal as they, in essence, subsidize their lifestyles through their political campaigns.

Take a look at the various C&Es of GOP lawmakers. One would be surprised how many $15 dinners at Wendy's and Starbucks trips are listed as campaign expenses.

Andrew

Perhaps they could get real jobs? Or have some degree of success independently of subsiziding themselves from their donors before they decide to 'give it all up' and run for office. I, myself, don't want an individual of either party to be so desperate for income, that they take contract with people who want policy outcomes from them. The tendency has to be to please your employers...

You know it seems to me at one time, if someone gave an elected official money that they could use on their own personal desires, it was called "Bribery" and was illegal.

Hey Andrew,

I agree that the average reader doesn't read a newspaper that hard. But, when you talk to a reporter (or a voter) you have to connect the dots for them. That means you don't speak in nuances which is what the DPO communications director did. His or her job is to paint pictures with broad strokes. He or she didn't do that. They gave Steve Law enough to work with to hide the message. I'm sorry, that's an opportunity missed.

Now LT,

You seem like a very nice person, but you are clearly what is wrong with democrats and progressives in this country. You want to play nice with others while they smash you in the face.

Call me a political hack, but I believe in this game you better prepare for the worst and be prepared to do the worst.

Your problem is you think moderate campaigns elect moderates. In reality winning campaigns elect moderates.

Winston

Winston is absolutely right.

Like Lombardi said, "Winning isn't everything, It's the only thing."

The Dalto scandal is indicitive of Republican hypocracy "Do as I say, not as I do."

A scam, no matter how you try to explain it away, is still a scam. The shell game Dalto played with the money from his political campaign may or may not be subject to scrutiny in a court of law, but it is subject to scrutiny by his constituents in the court of public opinion.

The legitimate question voters have to decide is whether they want a scam artist to represent them in the Legislature.

Exposing the political and ethical hypocracy of a Republican candidate to their constituents is the job of the Democratic candidate, and it is fair game. The DPO has no clue how to do this, and they'll only screw it up.

This is a campaign issue for the voters to decide. The DPO needs to butt out.

I think it's a sad state of affairs when the political process is reduced to the cliche "Winning isn't everything, It's the only thing."

Resorting to the "politics of personal destruction" amounts to a tacit concession that we can't beat them on the issues, so we need to impeach their integrity to win. It's that cynical attitude that led to the sexual-McCarthyism of the Clinton Impeachment. It was shameful when they did it and it is shameful when we do it.

Furthermore, what, exactly, do you think you're winning by playing this game? Even if we win the election, we've lost by eroding people's faith in government. And we Democrats rely on the public's faith in government to enact policies that use the government as a vehicle for doing good. If we contribute to creating a public sentiment that government is corrupt and wasteful, then how can we ever expect to win public support when we promote spending on government services, like schools and healthcare? Even if we win this race or that race, we still lose when it comes time to make our agenda law.

Look, if elected officials break the law, they should be punished to the full extent of the law (as in the cases of Dan Doyle, Kelley Wirth, Tom Delay, and Scooter Libbey). But raising a specter of impropriety around the activities of our political opponents just to win elections is cynical, bad politics.

No Losing is Bad Politics.

Misha I understand and appreciate your sentiment, I really do. I would love to live in a world where quality people and the ideas they represent dictate who should be in charge of making critical policy decisions for not only our state but our country. But it has never happened in this country and I believe it isn't going to start anytime soon.

I don't know why but Democrats seem to think that the political world has gotten worse. I would make an augment that at the very least it has just stayed the same, if not, gotten a little better. Hell Jefferson hired a guy to start a newspaper to accuse Adams of knocking up slaves and having 100 kids out of wedlock, and Adams didn't even own slaves and they were friends!

Sorry kids, politics is ugly. If you don't like it, tough! There are some really ignorant, backward, scary people out there and if you aren't willing to get your hands dirty to make sure they don't attain power, fine. But don't sit on your high horse when someone has the wherewithal to do the dirty work your not willing to do.

I agree, there are lines you don't cross, but the consternation that I hear from Democrats about "going to far" only serves to drive our party to play by unfair and unattainable rules.

My Fellow Democrats, politics hasn't changed over the last 40 or 200 years, Democrats just forgot what it takes to win. Sorry, but it is time for the idealist to bite there tongues and let the pragmatics run the show until Nov 7th. After that she's all yours.

Misha,

You are right that using mudslinging politics to avoid discussing the issues is wrong. It does happen way too often and needs to be stopped.

But there are people in government who do corrupt things, then hide behind the letter of the law. They are the source of public cynicism. Holding them accountable for their deception come election time in the court of public opinion is not "politics of personal destruction." It's called cleaning house.

Politics is not just about issues. It's also about integrity. It's why we hold our elected officials to a higher standard, or at least we should.

Honesty in government wins people's faith. Throwing out the trash wins people's faith. Restoring integrity wins people's faith.

Political pacifism ensures victory for those who will make government the scapegoat of everything that is wrong in society. Political activism shines a light on the dark corners of government and chases those rats away.

That's not cynicism. That's called taking a stand.

With regard to taking a stand: I think what Harry Reid did in Congress today (Rule 21 to force a closed session) is taking a stand. Do the advocates of nasty campaigning really believe that Reid has won all his elections by smashing opponents like overripe pumpkins, and never talking substance?

That is what "You want to play nice with others while they smash you in the face. " means. That only the nasty candidate wins.

If someone could prove to me that EVERY nasty campaign won and therefore there is nothing we can do about it, that would be one thing.

But think for a minute: which January 1996 US Senate campaign won? Was it the guy who was hammered by his friends and eventually announced he was going 100% positive?

Or was it Mr. "we're all real tired of career politicians"?

I knew lots of people who were so fed up by the nastiness of that campaign that they either voted 3rd party or didn't return their ballots.

But hey! What do I know? I've only been a campaign volunteer since the 1970s.

And I do not accept "negative campaigns work" unless someone can provide me with 10 recent examples of the nastier candidate winning. By that definition, Oregon would be a "red" state because the nastiness of the Swifties would have won Oregon for Bush. And that candidate who ran against Avakian the first time (and bragged to a reporter about hiring a young person to be in charge of dirt) would have defeated Avakian.

Consultants love making nasty ads. But what is the victory rate of such actual campaigns in Oregon in recent years?

One more thing: just got an email from a friend. Here is a point to ponder:

"Unfortunately, what is often valued in a candidate, does not a good statesman make.....

LT,

The Swifties didn't win in Oregon because the campaign here blew up the only Oregon Swift Boat vet in the group - Al French. Instead of watching stories about baseless attacks vs. John Kerry replayed in every news cycle, we saw stories about "Al French the liar."

It was quick and aggressive, and totally flipped the negativity of the SBVT attack by doing them one better. I think the SBVT campaign was actually a net positive for Kerry in Oregon b/c of the way it was handled/covered.