If money is speech, Loren Parks has the biggest megaphone
Russell Sadler
So what are we to make of Loren Parks’ last minute $250,000 contribution to Kevin Mannix’ primary campaign for Governor? Parks has given Mannix quite a lot of money -- nearly $600,000. Mannix had just $31,000 in the bank before Parks’ latest infusions of $150,000 on May 2 and another $100,000 on May 5.
What’s going on here?
Ron Saxton’s spokesman, Felix Schein, predictably observed that voters need to ask themselves what Mannix promised to Parks in exchange for so much money.
Mannix’ spokesman, Jack Kane, just as predictably, said Parks doesn't want anything other than good government, keeping taxes down, reducing red tape and fighting crime. Campaign spokesmen are expected to say things like this -- with a straight face -- and we are expected to believe them.
But there is more going on here than Parks’ obvious effort to buy influence with a potential governor.
The real story here is recent decisions by the U.S. and Oregon Supreme Courts equating giving money to politicians with the constitutional right to freedom of speech. This misguided policy allows wealthy, determined individuals to use the initiative process to bypass the constitutional fiscal controls imposed on the Legislature and hijack the fiscal judgment of elected officials.
The Oregon constitution requires the Legislature to balance its budget or impose sufficient taxes to make up any deficit. But initiatives are specifically exempt from this requirement. Voters can order the Legislature to spend money on anything from prisons to compensation for land use decisions and the Legislature has to come up with the money somehow.
That’s what happened during the 1993 legislative session.
Kevin Mannix, then a Democrat, insisted his colleagues pass a bill imposing mandatory, minimum sentences on a long laundry list of crimes. The Legislature’s fiscal analysts predicted the construction of sufficient prison space would cost just shy of $1 billion, and that operating those prisons would add hundreds of millions of dollars to the state budget each year. The Legislature’s Democrats were not interested in Mannix’ bill. They told him public education and higher education were higher priorities for limited funds. Mannix quit the Democratic Party.
But Mannix did not get the reception he expected from conservative Republicans either. Conservative Republicans told Mannix they could not figure out how to pay to build and operate the prisons Mannix’ sentencing law would require. They were pledged to “no new taxes.”
So Mannix stomped out of the legislative session in a huff and announced he would bypass the entire Legislature with an initiative petition. What became known as Measure 11 was drafted and refined in the Multnomah County District Attorney’s office which desperately wanted more prisons and felt rebuffed by the Legislature. Assistant DAs were quietly told by their supervisors to contribute to self-described “victims rights” organizations to buy sufficient signatures to get the measure on the ballot.
But most of the money to promote Measure 11 came from... Loren Parks. He donated hundreds of thousands of dollars, according to contribution and expenditure reports filed with Oregon’s Secretary of State.
Voters eventually approved Measure 11. It seemed like a good idea at the time. Voters are not ignorant by any means, but they generally do not have a good idea of how much money the Legislature has, where it comes from and what it’s spent on. The fiscal problems predicted by conservative Republican lawmakers came to pass. The Legislature eventually borrowed more than $900 million to build prisons and it has been so hard to squeeze operating money out of the state’s General Fund of income tax revenues in recent years that one of the prisons never opened and others are running at less than capacity.
Mannix and Parks have one thing in common. They are “lone wolves” who are reluctant or incapable of working with others. With Mannix’ political savvy and Parks’ money, they have successfully forced their priorities on the Legislature at least once using the initiative process. Now they are trying to impose their personal priorities on the governor’s office.
But it appears Oregonians have caught on to the Parks - Mannix tag team act. Mannix came in third in the Republican Dorchester Conference straw poll this winter. That was our first clue. Mannix is also running behind in polls taken by the media.
At this point, Mannix is a lone wolf without much public support after losing three times in contests for statewide office. Mannix can afford to stay in the public eye only as long as he has large infusions of Parks’ cash.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
May 14, '06
Whoever buys ink by-the-barrel shall have the biggest megaphone.
$600K is a barely a drop in the ink barrel budget for a Hi-Def daily news publisher. That means the biggest megaphone in Oregon is, hands down, an out-of-state corporation headquartered in New Jersey, Advance Publications, the parent company of the fashion-obsessed, glitzy-glamourous Conde Nast family of magazines such as Vanity Fair ... that is also owner of a would-be Old Gray Lady of the West, promoting its vision of our town as Moscow-on-the-Willamette ... The bOregonion.
But the 24/7 ink-pushers' advocacy "doesn't count" when calculating campaign spending. This convenient exception makes campaign spending regulation a First Amendment travesty that simply stifles dissent in order to protect existing arrangements - incumbency and the status quo.
10:20 a.m.
May 14, '06
The real story here is recent decisions by the U.S. and Oregon Supreme Courts equating giving money to politicians with the constitutional right to freedom of speech.
Exactly! I've yet to see a plausible argument showing that the rhetorical holy grail of modern conservatives - "original intent" - of the First Amendment used "speech" to include more than direct forms of communication such a speaking or writing, as James Madison's version of the speech and press clauses demonstrates.
As for the Mannix/Parks relationship... Mannix' motives appear self-evident. Parks has money and is willing to give Mannix vast amounts of it. Parks' side of the relationship is less self-evident to me. What is his obsession with funding Mannix' various and sundry political aspirations? There's more than meets the eye in this relationship.
Ramon: While I see your point, as I read it the first amendment treats "speech" and "press" somewhat differently. So I'm not sure that I buy the notion that the more vast sums involved with the Oregonian are comparable to the money Parks is giving to Mannix. At least not in the context of the first amendment.
May 14, '06
Wow!
I really don't see why we haven't already put a stop to this type of donation. Hard money donations to presidential candidates are limited to 2,000 dollars per individual.
250,000 dollar donations for a governor race is just ridiculous (and some of the judicial races in Oregon are close behind). How can politicians afford not to pander to the eccentric super wealthy? Buying off county commisioners to OK multi-million dollar developments should be no problem at all in this climate.
The US supreme court is clearly not an obstacle to a hard money restriction and initiatives in Oregon can ammend the Oregon constitution. What's the problem? Laziness?
May 14, '06
Can't disagree with your right on point criticism of Mannix and Parks. Their inability to play nice with others, and to abuse in the initiative process for their own political purposes, clearly has hurt our state to a tragic degree.
It's hard, though, to actually decide whether political values you are actually trying to criticize or to espouse here. You say "voters are not ignorant by any means", but then go on to slam their vote on Measure 11 precisely on the basis it confirms to the dictionary definition of ignorance as being "unaware or uninformed".
While Measure 11 clearly is not of a piece with progressive values, as we see in exactly this case you have chosen to criticize, neither is the initiative process. That initiative process by definition is based on the explicit political strategy of appealing to populist instincts that almost always respond most strongly to demagogery. One may get a few random positive results, but overall if we look at WA, OR, and CA in the last twenty years, it is hard to discern an argument initiative process on the whole has actually been a good alternative, much less a true progressive alternative, to people getting truly informed and active in the processes of representative government.
More importantly, though, isn't Westlund's railing against the parties to run as an "independent", and his support of the Open Primary Initiative, of a piece with Mannix's inability to play nice with others to actually embrace and empower the processes of a mature representative democracy to do the business of governing? Particularly when one looks closely at the minimal substantive issues in his campaign "platform"? They are all linked to a tax cut plan which favors the rich and corporate interests, while arguably misleading those down the income scale with a populist promise that the revenue needed to support vaguely defined health care and education programs will come from taxes recovered from those demonized "others" who aren't paying now.
While throwing the spotlight on Mannix and Parks is important and justified, progressives and liberal Democrats aren't going to win until we first get honest, and second start espousing some solid, principled leadership values for governing.
May 14, '06
Ramon --
Newspaper's clearly are annoying. They have diverse readerships but they choose to endorse individual candidates. Are they only speaking to the vague middle (represented by people resembling the editorial staff I guess) or do they really think a single mom working as a waitress, a University student studying butterflys, a software engineer, and a real estate developer should vote for the same candidate? Why not address issues of competence and experience and then give a fair summary of each candidates positions and view point.
I'm not that familiar with the Oregonian, but the Register Guard has done some coordinated "news" and editorial assaults on particular ballot measures. They seem to think that they are treading a fine line and might even keep track of the number of irate conservatives and liberals that write in. That's not the point. What we need is someone to help spell out the debate -- not give us "the answer".
May 14, '06
As a former GOP insider, I can tell you that there are a great many people in the party that DO NOT want Mannix to win. And if he wins the primary, the ORP will be useless for the next few years....more useless than it already is. As such, the best scenario for Oregon Democrats is a Mannix win on Tuesday. If that happens, the ORP's resources will be pissed away...again...in another unsuccessful attempt to make Mannix governor, and all the other candidates will be hung out to dry, just like they were in 2004. The ORP will be so broke and in debt that it will be unable to do anything in 2010, essentially guaranteeing continued Democratic control of this state for several years to come.
May 14, '06
Well if we are talking about big Microphones Lets Not forget the $615,000 that the Grande Rhond is sprending on anti-Mannix ads AND Anti-Kulongoski ads at the same time. Go figure spending 615K on a primary election and not caring who wins the General election, OR do they care who wins the general?????
3:03 p.m.
May 14, '06
Oregon voters will have an opportunity to disconnect the money = speech connection by voting in favor of initiative petition 8 when it is submitted later this summer.
Oregon voters will have an opportunity to say NO to big money in Oregon politics by joining OSPIRG, the Sierra Club, and others in voting in favor initiative petition 37, which will take the unhealthy influence of Loren Parks' checkbook out of Oregon politics.
FairElections.net
4:41 p.m.
May 14, '06
The problem does not rest with decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, which for decades has upheld state limits on contributions and expenditures on candidate campaigns. The Court most recently upheld the Missouri limits (similar to those proposed in Petition 37, currently on the street) in 2000. The Court has repeatedly upheld complete bans on corporate contributions and union contributions and has upheld bans on "independent expenditures" by corporations (Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 1990, recently re-endorsed in the McConnell case upholding the McCain-Feingold limits in 2003).
The problem is the Oregon Supreme Court's interpretation of Article I, Section 8, of the Oregon Constitution--that it allows no limits whatever on campaign contributions or expenditures. That is why our other measure, Petition 8, would add one sentence to the Oregon Constitution to allow enactment of such limits.
For more information, see www.fairelections.net.
4:54 p.m.
May 14, '06
Also, the U.S. Supreme Court has never adopted the conclusion that "money is speech."
5:23 p.m.
May 14, '06
Dan,
Although I know you are a lawyer and election law is your specialty, I believe the 1976 case of Buckley v. Valleo holds that giving money for political purposes is protected by the First Amendment. The McCain-Feingold legislation tried to walk the fine line the Buckley case created.
IMHO, the Buckley case simply legalized bribery. It at the core of some of the problems we are experiencing.
May 14, '06
Dan -
From your viewpoint is the problem really that money buys a bigger megaphone in a campaign, or that a bigger megaphone makes it easier to appeal to voters' baser instincts? The distinction is far from trivial and appears to not be grasped by Russell and the rest of the commentators here: For progressives to think they will somehow right our dangerously listing ship of political state primarily by limiting election discourse through the expedient of limiting access to a microphone, without --- or rather than --- focusing primarily on developing a real leadership message that actually speaks to voters, strains credulity.
This speaks to the difference we learned about this week of the destructive arrogance of Rahm Emanuel and the Congressional Democrats who believe in a media intensive strategy, but have proven themselves to be abjectly incompetent at true leadership, and Dean's so-called 50-state strategy.
6:30 p.m.
May 14, '06
More importantly, though, isn't Westlund's railing against the parties to run as an "independent", and his support of the Open Primary Initiative, of a piece with Mannix's inability to play nice with others to actually embrace and empower the processes of a mature representative democracy to do the business of governing?
I'm curious how many here agree with this?
While Measure 11 clearly is not of a piece with progressive values, as we see in exactly this case you have chosen to criticize, neither is the initiative process.
Same question... how many here agree?
8:42 p.m.
May 14, '06
Although I know you are a lawyer and election law is your specialty, I believe the 1976 case of Buckley v. Valleo holds that giving money for political purposes is protected by the First Amendment.
My understanding is that in Buckley, the court upheld contribution limits in the amount of $1000 for so-called "hard money donations". They struck down a portion of the federal statute that sought to limit total campaign spending (i.e., not contributions -- but total expenditures by campaigns), and struck down portions of the federal statute that limited individual independent expenditures on the grounds that they were too low.
As Dan mentioned, the federal court has upheld limits on independent expenditures by corporations, and has upheld the legality of contribution limits on individuals and other entitities such as corporations, pac's, etc.
Remember, both the Federal Government and 45 states have some level of contribution limits, and when Oregon's campaign finance law was struck down in 1996, it was defeated in the state supreme court on the grounds Dan mentioned, not in federal court.
May 14, '06
"Donations, contributions, gifts" and etc to candidates for public offices. It is a bribery, corruption and political prostitution. States and nation are for sale. In China is a dealth penalty for bribery, but in the USA is election and promotion for corruption. The media is promoting who "raised" more money. Why? It is for interests of the media: during primary many millions dollars flow in the pocket of the media. Want to help yourself, state and nation? Do NOT vote for who is advertising heavely. Ignore ads, read the Voters' Pamphlet.
Pavel Goberman - Candidate for US Repres. 1st Congr. Distr. (against D. Wu)
11:23 p.m.
May 14, '06
sjp
correct. So Parks could continue to spend wildly in Oregon elections as long as his expenditure were not "coordinated" with a campaign. In some areas, the Court has upheld limits that do not explicitly advocate for any candidate (the old soft money loophole), but that is pretty easy to evade.
May 14, '06
What about ballot measures? 8 and 37 don't seem to mention them?
May 14, '06
This speaks to the difference we learned about this week of the destructive arrogance of Rahm Emanuel and the Congressional Democrats who believe in a media intensive strategy, but have proven themselves to be abjectly incompetent at true leadership, and Dean's so-called 50-state strategy.
So glad to see this mentioned. I come down on Dean's side--targets rather than "show up everywhere" have not elected a majority and it is time for a new approach--not "we on Capitol Hill know all, so just shut up and take orders". The idea that legislative caucuses are fiefdoms outside the party structure could well be what drives people away from partisan politics.
One downside of the Clinton years was the rise of the "money is all that matters and only professionals know how the game is played" attitude which said volunteers know nothing, so they should just shut up and take orders.
That strategy did NOT elect more Oregon Democrats. Time for something new.
I see the ads for the state platform convention with Howard Dean. But it would be interesting to know why attending Dean's speech is so expensive--out of reach of ordinary "just getting by" Democrats. Who made that decision? And how will the money raised be spent? Will it go to campaigns or to running the DPO office? How does this fit with the ideas in Dean's book YOU HAVE THE POWER?
And about Westlund, I have known Ben for many years. He tried working within the system. He got fed up. So did some of my friends who used to be active Democrats. Under the laws of this state they (and we) have the right to register Indep. rather than partisan if they so choose. People whose lives are very busy (work and family, work that involves travel, work plus church or other activities, etc.) could care less if some politician is a loyal member of a party or not. Over on the Saxton/ Reinhard topic I wrote about a friend's decision process which led him to vote Mannix over Saxton. It wasn't about money or ads he had seen but about his impression of Ron and Kevin as people. No matter how much money is spent, indiv. voters DO have the right to make such decisions.
I hope Ben gets on the ballot and we have an intelligent debate this year for the first time since----maybe 1990?
As I told the Jim Hill volunteer who came to our door, I voted for Jim. But if he loses I will look seriously at Ben Westlund.
No, I don't agree with everything in Ben's voting record, but why would I? He defeated a friend I very much admired the first time he was elected to the legislature. But over time he got more and more serious and more and more of a budget expert. That is the sort of person we need in public life.
And speaking of 1990, the year Barbara Roberts was elected Gov.
There was so much empty rhetoric in the 5th special session that jokes could have been made that the weather was very warm in Salem those days because of all the hot air in the Capitol.
Joe Klein's new book is about the need for more genuine politicians. I maintain Ben is one of those genuine politicians. Think of the recall attempts at Gov. Roberts and the claims by some that she was wrong about everything. After she left office there were Republicans who couldn't say a nice thing about her.
By the time we'd gotten to the 5th special session we had otherwise mature adults do things like putting a ceramic pig on a Sen. desk "to show I will vote to raise taxes when pigs fly".
So when an interviewer asked Ben Westlund why it was so tough to balance the budget, did he try to scapegoat political opponents? No. He said the problem was "Gov. Roberts was right about Measure 5--right about everything but the timing". There is a time to "play nice with others" and a time to tell inconvenient truth. Seems to me we need the latter these days in order to solve problems.
How is that for an answer to More importantly, though, isn't Westlund's railing against the parties to run as an "independent", and his support of the Open Primary Initiative, of a piece with Mannix's inability to play nice with others
11:57 p.m.
May 14, '06
It's only $25 to go to the event with Dean. Those who volunteer at least a certain amount of hours (I think it's 3) get into that event free.
11:59 p.m.
May 14, '06
askquestions1st--
I'd like to know why you say Dean's so-called 50-state strategy.
May 15, '06
To Jenni -
"so-called" was not used in a pejorative way. Although it is on the DNC webpage (http://www.dnc.org/a/party/a_50_state_strategy/), I personally have not heard Dean himself use that specific term for his base-building strategy (I just may have missed him using it or writing about it). Because of that, I am reluctant to use the possessive "Dean's 50-state strategy" as an identifying label without qualifying it in that way. Admittedly in can be read in an ambiguous way.
I personally believe he is committed to a strategy to rebuild the party in all 50 states and think it is a good idea.
8:13 a.m.
May 15, '06
correct. So Parks could continue to spend wildly in Oregon elections as long as his expenditure were not "coordinated" with a campaign.
Again, Dan will correct this if I'm mistaken, but as I understand it, the court ruled that the limits on independent expenditures set by the federal statute, $1,000, was too low, and that there was no compelling state interest in limiting such expenditures.
Essentially, if the case can be made that independent expenditures corrupt the political process, and the threshold is sufficiently high so as not to curtail legitimate speech, it's reasonable to believe that this portion of Buckley could be re-examined.
Petition 37 will seek to limit individual independent expenditures at a rate of $10,000. It is the opinion of the backers of 37 that this higher limit will withstand scrutiny. Many legal scholars disagree with them on that, but there is no way of knowing until they actually go to court.
May 15, '06
Let's just assume for a moment that Loren Parks is as he describes himself in his latest radio spot - an 80-year-old man who has given generously to all sorts of things he believes in, with no expectation of anything in return, because he was raised in poverty and wants to give something back to the community. I don't know of anything that would contradict his assertions other than common sense, which can sometimes be wrong in politics.
What I do know is that two of the largest recipients of Parks's money have been Bill Sizemore and Kevin Mannix, and both these men have engaged in some unethical, to say the least, campaign finance and money handling. I don't know what Mannix has said to Parks, but I do know that Sizemore wasn't always straight with him about what he was doing with the money he was given.
Parks knows this, but continues to support them. Why? They would tell you that it is because they get results - they pass ballot measures.
In my opinion, assuming Loren Parks is the man he says he is, then you have to believe one of two things. Either Sizemore and Mannix are pretty darned good con men milking Parks for all he is worth these many years after either one of them has scored a victory of any kind, or they all truly believe that they are victims of a vast left-wing conspiracy and if they stay in the fight, eventually the voters will realize the "truth" and give them another win. If Parks is NOT who he says he is, then deeper digging into motives is certainly appropriate, because no one spends that kind of money for nothing.
3:26 p.m.
May 15, '06
askquestions1st--
Gotcha! I'd hoped that was what you meant, which is why I asked before I went into my reasons why his strategy is a good one.
4:10 p.m.
May 15, '06
sjp,
I don't think this Court will resonate much to a claim that independent expenditures corrupt the political process so much that it justifies an obvious limit on free speech.
You may not like the ads, but how about money for voter registration drives? How about educational advertisements? How about canvassing?
8:28 p.m.
May 15, '06
I don't think this Court will resonate much to a claim that independent expenditures corrupt the political process so much that it justifies an obvious limit on free speech.
The courts have already upheld the legality of restricting independent expenditures by corporations and trade unions. We won't know to what extent the 2004 campaign, which was dominated by independent expenditures by 527 groups, will inform the court's thinking on the matter until this issue comes before them.
We do know that Russ Feingold and John McCain are pushing for similar reforms to those outlined in P 37. We also know that few legal experts believed that the court would uphold attempts to limit soft money when BCRA was challenged in Federal Court.
You may not like the ads, but how about money for voter registration drives? How about educational advertisements? How about canvassing?
Actually, I don't care how much money is spent on political campaigns. I think it'd be great for democracy if every Oregonian spent their full political tax credit and we spent $100 million per election cycle on candidate races in Oregon.
What I care about is how money flows into our political system.
What I care about is when Loren Parks tries to buy himself a governor or big pharma, big tobacco, the payday loans industry, et al buying themselves public policy through campaign contributions and lobbying expenditures that are not in the public interest.
<h2>Besides, to the best of my knowledge, funding educational ads that are 501(c)3 appropriate are not subject to the limits outlined in Petition 37. Neither are voter registration drives nor unreimbursed travel expenses associated with canvassing.</h2>