Greg,

I am puzzled by the tone of your piece. I would tend to be more critical of those who 1.) violate the law, and 2.) do so after placing themselves in postions of high public responsibility. My feeling is that the public would have greater trust in elected officials if there was a more rigorous (even raucous) accounting among politicians for those in their midst who break laws, act dishonestly, etc. Instead, it often seems that parties close ranks to protect their own, or avoid open criticism in order to avoid charges of oportunism.

I appreciate the factual aspect of your piece, but your conclusion that progress is still needed in campaign finance reform distracts us from what I think is a more urgent (and relevant) debate about the quality of people serving in public office. If we cannot openly and roughly criticize public servants for dishonesty AND violation of laws then how are we to uphold high standards? Instead, your piece points out that DeLay would not have violated the law had the law been different, and that although Doyle was acting criminally in one respect, he was not not acting criminally in another.

One especially troubling aspect of the Doyle case-- in my view-- is what distinguishes it from the Wirth case: that Doyle had been raised to a position of high responsibility (Chair of the Ways and Means Committee)within his own party. What that says about the Republicans who control the Oregon House is troubling. A party that does not have a sense of the character of those it promotes to its highest ranks is not warry enough of the public backlash that SHOULD accompany dishonesty and criminal behavior.

I could have made the same point about Bill Sizemore a few years ago, or about Tom DeLay today.

Finally, I agree with the need for more laws (campaign finance reform)to police ethical behavior, but I think that your concern about the "disrepute" of elected officials would be better addressed by selecting for ethical character through loud and punishing condemnation of lawmakers who can't abide by the law. I think that the public would have more repect for an institution that expresses more than polite regret over those who violate the public trust.

--Aubrey Russell

Let see, Macpherson writes: "Rep. Kelly Wirth is resigning her seat in the Oregon House after a small quantity of methamphetamine was found in her car". He then links Wirth to DeLay and Doyle. I'll leave it to him to counter with a Clintonesque parsing of his text that he isn't implying that he has judged the case, but that he is just making a politically popular albeit weak case for campaign finance reform if he so chooses.

So what are the only facts in this case?

• The State Police leaked the story to the press several days before they also said the investigation was at a stage they couldn't answer direct questions from the press...

• The OSP claims to have found meth but said it would be 5-6 weeks before the tests were back confirming whatever they may have found was meth, 3-4 weeks after they leaked the story ..

• The OSP claimed the search of a victim's car was "standard" procedure but as of today the warrant still remains sealed, even though it has been served and executed, thanks mainly to the refusal of the tabloid press including the Statesman Journal, the Oregonian, and the Gazette-Times to pursue legitimate legal action to force them to release the warrant and then investigate the substance of the allegations in the warrant ...

• The car was in OSP possession for 6 days before the search, and not in Wirth's control, making a possession case dubious at best ...

• Wirth is served publicly with a restraining order alleging, without any proof since no proof is required to get a restraining order, that she drove a white truck to the accuser's house 5 weeks after both her legs were severely damaged in the attack ...

• Wirth pleads "Not Guilty" today.

Wirth may be guilty, but that is not the issue here. What happened to due process? What happened to a skeptical press in the face of an inconsistent story by the government? And what is progressive about a blog that has excitedly gossiped right along with this?

With "friends" like Kulongski, who in effect declared Wirth guilty the day the leaked story hit the press and said she should quit, Reps. Merkley and Rosenbaum who played some role in writing a "resignation letter" leaked to the press and also made statements to the press she should resign, to Rep. Macpherson who links Wirth to the DeLay and Doyle cases where the facts are not in dispute (in the DeLay case only the law is in dispute), good Democrats and progressives in Oregon surely don't need any enemies.

And Mr. Russell, opining about character without addressing the behavior of all parties involved in the Wirth case which speaks to the character of the other officials involved does raise legitimate questions about the substance of your argument.