Nothing like some GOP "honor" and "integrity" to get a guy laughing all the way to the weekend!

To continue my tradition of shameless pimping, I posted on this today for anyone interested. As I say over there, Doyle's basically ruined, which leads me to view the sentence as a bit harsh. Fines I'm OK with - those seem appropriate - but 10 months is just another kick for a guy who's well down...and likely done to boot.

One thing of interest here: I had assumed that he would already have been disbarred. If that hasn't happened yet, the conviction ought to send him that way shortly, right?

Between disbarment and the resultant "helluva time" finding work in his chosen profession, I think Doyle's suffered enough. Besides, as the Oregonian points out, the rules on this kind of spending ain't exactly clear. Yes, he should have known that what he was doing was wrong (and anyone capable of passing the bar should have known that saying you paid someone in a public forum when you, in fact, had not would lead to discovery), but there's that whole letter v. spirit thing with the law; how often to politicians take the spirit side seriously when it doesn't materially benefit them?

If ever there were a case of punishment as deterrent, this is it.

People are judged by the choices they make. There are lots of nice neighborhoods in District 19 but the Doyles had to live at Creekside and then complain they couldn't pay their association dues? Why not live on a street in a regular neighborhood like most of the people in S. Salem? Wasn't that good enough for the Doyles? Who did they think they were?

And I hope this teaches a lesson that hubris is followed by nemesis. This is Doyle, the author of the "bucket plan " which was really vague on details. Also, he was the head of the Mystery Money crowd--remember the claim that if Measure 28 failed there wouldn't be drastic cuts because of the secret plan (which didn't exist) to prevent the cuts? And the man was a bully in ways that his neighbors noticed even if they didn't pay lots of attention to the legislature. He was downright nasty. A fine might have sent the signal to him and others that there wasn't really serious punishment for getting caught lying about using campaign money the way he did.

And don't forget the charming little things about his C & Es like his claiming to have paid a local radio station a larger amount than the radio station actually got in payment, or the item about a contribution by Recell. A local Doyle supporter who had a company named Redcell said it was in the bylaws of the company that they would never make contributions to any candidate due to the nature of their company. The man from that company said he was a personal supporter but his company was never involved.

We need even stricter laws than we have now, but had Doyle not been sent to jail (even if the sentences are to be served together rather than one after another) for each of the 11 counts, then why should anyone ever believe campaign finance reports ever again?

A friend and I were emailing back and forth earlier today about the concept of moral backbone. There is no sympathy from anyone I know (incl. people talked with in the grocery store) in S. Salem, and some wonder how Victoria Doyle (remember she ran for county clerk and also had C& E problems) was able to avoid jail time.

Just think if the person across the street, or in the next block, or in a local position of authority had pled guilty to what the Doyles pled guilty to. Would they have gotten the same slack about their name and professional reputation being soiled, and therefore their punishment shouldn't be too severe?

The Doyles loved to preach that they and only they understood budgets and good people would never ask them questions. Perhaps now they will learn humility due to their experiences.

Ten months is not excessive or inappropriate, actually if anything it might be described as lenient.

Also consider the fact that most people who spend time in a county jail, don't end up serving their full sentence. This is because of lack of funding and the fact that the jail doesn't have much space (I don't know what the specifics of Marion County are however in terms of their funding). Most likely he'll do less then 10 months. He'll likely be bumped out to make space for someone else who is a violent criminal.

I generally agree with LT on this one.

A couple random thoughts to add -

This sure went fast. Down in Texas, the Tom Delay investigation is taking 2 to 3 times longer. Heck, I'm working as a professional witness on a divorce that has gone on more than twice as long as the Doyle case took from start to finish. I applaud quick justice!

Generally I think that our criminal justice system is too much into punishment, and not enough into rehabiliation and treatment. However, it is what it is, and I think Doyle's sentence is appropriate. I think that my own State Senator Whitsett ought to be looking over his shoulder about now - perhaps planning his fast break for Mexico or points south. His use of State resources and staff in his political fund raising is just as illegal as what Doyle has done.

The first paragraph of the Oregonian news story (page one today) reads:

SALEM -- A judge sentenced former Rep. Dan Doyle to 10 months in jail Thursday, the first time in memory that an Oregonian was sent to jail for actions taken as a legislator.

So when does Karen Minis get proper credit for appointing the only Oregon legislator to be convicted of multiple felonies while performing official duties as the head of the house budget commitee and appointing Kelly Wirth to important duties at the end of the last session knowing full well that she had some kind of problem?

I also agree the system is too much punishment and not enough rehabilitation. Personally, I have a family member in the Oregon prison system. However, because of those who are vocal in promoting a "punishment only" that's what were pretty much stuck with for now.

I agree if you do the crime, you do the time. But at the same time, when the person is released a person should have some chance of rehabilitating themselves. Otherwise, jails and prisons just become revolving doors.

It would take a heck of a campaign to change the current system.

As member of this district, I feel "Doyley" got what he deserved, because being a public figure is all about honesty, integrety, setting an example for others. "Doyley" comprimised and broke that integrity when he decided to use campaign $$$ for personal benefit.

Even honest people who have money troubles, don't even think to do what "Doyley" did to get by. This is a slap in the face for those honest, hard working people who have trouble making because they live their lives as best as possible, ares being of them, which there are many in our district.

Yet, at the same time, as the Governor said, we shouldn't feel sorry for Dan Doyle, but his children rather, because it was them that he should have considered before following through on his actions. "DOYLEY" SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE!!! Its a lesson to all State Government leaders to be honest with the people they serve and represent to not "PULL A DAN DOYLE".

Is there an overbreadth argument to make? After all, lying about lawful conduct, calling all earned and unearned income (in a more general sense) mere reimbursements for expenses. How about rent or food or medical costs for all poor people that have to endure monopoly pricing?

You lied to the tax man about receiving that loaf of bread; or that beer your buddy bought you.

I guess I am a hopeless skeptic of the system. Dan's attorney either did not advise Dan of his claims or Dan voluntarily gave up fighting for individual rights.

Just swap the party affiliation at the top then readjust the analysis, and the tone and tenor. I hear the sound of a bunch of frat punks daring each other to drink to the point of blackout. You are in a stupor over civil liberties folks. Imagine a football game without refs, then throw in a bunch of drunk spectators without a fence holding them back from the field or the other spectators.

How about the crime of lying about having an abortion? How about the crime of not volunteering any information you might have regarding a friend of a friend (etc.) who might have heard about someone that might have had an abortion.

I kind of prefer the comfort of chanting insults at the refs (the judges) to witnessing, in horror, as a judge takes sides. Is there any remaining middle ground for agreement on the ground-rules for engagement in debate? Judges cannot read people's minds when considering the validity of legislation so the debate itself is largely irrelevant already from a judge's point of view, as to the formulation of legislation. All that remains for consideration is the debate itself, which is entirely within the realm of free speech issues, inclusive of receipt of donations and regardless of whether they are revealed or not. The only neutral non-free speech related issue (neutral by reason of overlap with non-speech related stuff) is the reporting of income to the tax man. The money that gets converted from the campaign must be reported as income for income tax purposes. Others claim that such conversion is not a crime. Hum? Go ask the top civil liberties lawyer you can find if there is a case to be made. Yep.

Shall I prove it? Victoria at the AG's office knows I can make a "me too" argument in comparison to the funding of the November 9th thing at the Oregon Convention Center on the Oregon Health Plan. Are the donations just reimbursements or are they ordinary income? The common thread is the taxation of the incoming money. Just rename the Oregon Health Plan get together a publicity campaign. They are trying to skirt the tax and finance issues at the same time. It is funny, really.

I want to obtain equal immunity from taxation on income as that afforded to legislators and others, as such are all just reimbursements.

<h2>"Who's buying the next round?"</h2>