And now, the 2002 Maui Trip
Kari Chisholm
The Oregonian drumbeat on Maui-Gate continues - as reporters Janie Har and Dave Hogan dig into the 2002 beer and wine conference in Maui.
Two senators -- Jason Atkinson, R-Central Point, and Bruce Starr, R-Hillsboro -- said beer and wine distributors paid more than $2,500 each for their airfare, hotel, meals and golf, according to reports received by the state ethics commission Thursday. Neither had listed the payments on state disclosure forms as required by law.In addition, Sen. Ryan Deckert, D-Beaverton, and former Sen. Tony Corcoran, D-Cottage Grove, said they attended the 2002 conference but did not report that their expenses were paid by the beverage group.
Bruce Starr reveals perhaps more than he intends to in this telling quote:
"The understanding was the accounting had been done in a way it didn't need to be reported," Starr said. "The minute I had the expenses, I filed a report. I can't file anything if I don't know what the expenses are."
So, Bruce Starr had the idea that a loophole had been found - and would be exploited.
But then he tries to get out of trouble by employing the hilarious Wayne Scott Rule, first heard on Tuesday: "If (Romain) didn't provide me something saying I exceeded that (amount), I assumed it was under the limit" Yeah, Bruce, you can't file anything if you don't know what the expenses are.... I think Oregonians understand, though, that you should at least try to report something. Seriously, the threshold is $144 - and you went to Maui!
Jason Atkinson was a bit more artful with his use of the Wayne Scott Rule:
"It has come to my attention a receipt was not properly filed by a lobbyist representing the Oregon Beer and Wine Distributors Association for an expense in 2002," Atkinson wrote in a memo Thursday to the ethics commission. The memo said he wished to amend the disclosure report that covered events in 2002.
And, of course, this time Maui-Gate includes a pair of Democrats for the first time. Ryan Deckert expresses a healthy bit of chagrin:
Deckert said he had never asked Romain whether he needed to disclose the trip. "That's my mistake for not asking," Deckert said. "In retrospect, I wish I would have."
Of course, as has been said multiple times here at BlueOregon, it's up to legislators to file their own ethics paperwork. Relying on a lobbyist just seems like a bad idea.
Then, there's the always-straight-talking former Senator from Cottage Grove - Tony Corcoran - who points out that he consistently voted against the interests of the beer and wine industry:
Corcoran said the conference wasn't necessarily designed to curry favor with friendly legislators. He said he consistently supported efforts to increase beer and wine taxes, including in the 2003 Legislature. "It's basically an extension of how business is done," he said. "If people are trying to find a cause-effect relationship, then I'm kind of the poster child for the fact it's not as simple as you think."
Where will Maui-Gate go next? Is there more of the same sitting out there? How many legislators are scrambling to file new paperwork with the GSPC?
(Full disclosure: Ryan Deckert is a friend, and was recently a client when he was with the One Ballot campaign. I've never worked for his legislative campaigns.)
 |
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
Sep 29, '06
There's already more to this story, and much more to come. For example, today's article left out the post-trip political donations that were detailed about the 2002 trip; it's public record. You can go here to learn about similar trips in '94, '96 and '98 bought and paid for by super-lobbyist Paul Romain of the Oregon Beer and Wine Distributors Association.
You can tell who Oregon's super-lobbyists are by seeing who signed up with Mark Nelson for FLAT - fifty lobbyists against termlimits. It's in the Voters' Pamphlet arguments they all signed. They are the 2 dozen out of the 250 lobbyists who consider themselves in the "impervious" category; as revealed at times by NBA players or celebrities: "No one has ever told us NO so we get to play outside of your rules."
Do you suppose other super-lobbyists besides Paul Romain have all-paid winter getaways to sunny climes for the purpose of "educating" our incumbent legislators before their re-election campaigns?
Paul Farago, spokesperson Restore Oregon's Term Limits Committee YES on 45
Sep 29, '06
Paul, I'm shocked.
How could there possibly have been trips in '94, '96 and '98? We had term limits then, and those politicians would have been above such things. Or something like that. I guess. Whatever.
Sep 29, '06
The problem is on both sides of the isle.
I agree with you Ryan is a good guy, and the fact that this happened just shows how warped things have become.
Sep 29, '06
We've never said term limits was a panacea - nothing is. Our opponents say that we overpromised and these promises were unfulfilled. Not so. For example, we've never said TL would prevent lobbyists from entertaining legislators at a luxury resort on Maui.
We say that only one thing results from term limits: frequent and regular open-seat elections. It was a bonus - and a credit to Oregonian voters - that previously underrepresented groups like younger adults, women and minorities began to fill some of those open seats, creating a more diverse and more representative Legislature. It was another bonus that the Legislature's strict seniority system that rewards mediocrity, not merit, expired in the TL-era. (It was revived post-TL and will likely expire again on passage of M45.)
The '92 term limits law was only 9 years into a scheduled 17-year phase-in when the conspiracy to overturn the law blossomed. We've always said it would take a generation or more to determine the results, but the above effects did happen, and there are no valid or vocal claims that term limits have favored or hindered any partisan or issue agenda in any of the states with TL'd legislatures.
M45 would put guardrails on the state Legislature's irresponsibility, and assert a level of voter control where it a glaring lack of control exists. M45 looks like a reasonable solution to address part of the problem - a seniority-driven system that incubates lack of accountability and lack of independence in our state Legislature.
Paul Farago, spokesperson Restore Oregon's Term Limits Committee YES on 45
Sep 29, '06
"I agree with you Ryan is a good guy, and the fact that this happened just shows how warped things have become"
of course the Democrats are the good guys
Sep 29, '06
Torrid, "The contrast here is stark. The Democrat did exactly what he was supposed to do. The Republicans, pointedly, did not, and are now making excuses for it"
Special
Sep 29, '06
Max,
Torrid's comment was from yesterday's post when the R's were the only corrupt politicians.
Today we now need to discuss how corrupt the SYSTEM is, not how corrupt the various politicians are. Didn't you get the memo?
Sep 29, '06
Senator Starr's quote is indeed telling. Years ago, in a former life as an elected public official, I was invited to tour a number of Weyerhauser operations in both Oregon and Washington, along with other elected officials. It was a helocopter tour that included a box lunch in the woods on Mount St. Helens. It was offered as an educational opportunity to understand what was happening in the timber industry. I was never offered any money, nor was I lobbied for a vote, but I asked them for an estimate of the cost of the tour and reported it immediately. To this day, I don't know if I had to or not, but I believed it best to be above board with an expense of that kind (about $700).
For Sen. Starr to claim innocence by ignorance is disingenuous. Any politician with at least a year of experience knows better than that.
Sep 29, '06
Speaking as Senator Avel Gordly's Chief of Staff, I am happy to report that Senator Gordly took no lobbyist-paid junkets to Maui or anywhere else.
Senator Gordly has consistently supported bringing Oregon's beer and wine tax into alignment as part of overall revenue reform and restructuring to meet the needs of our state and citizenry.
She opposes the term limits initiative. It makes no sense to force the best and brightest--along with their hard-earned experience--out the door along with those who are just passing through the office.
Term limits appeal, I think, to those who are too lazy to vote in the first place, and to those with an axe to grind no matter who is in office.
The term limits arguments are ludicrous. The legislative learning curve is very steep, and it takes time to be an effective legislator.
The power is in the vote. The citizens vote them into office, the citizens can vote them out.
9:31 a.m.
Sep 29, '06
The problem is on both sides of the isle.
Wait, I thought Oregon was part of the larger continent--have we actually drifted off-shore?!
Even as this scandal was unspooling, I wondered how many Dems would get caught up in it. The beer and wine lobby is powerful not only because they splash a lot of money into the coffers of legislators, but because there are good reasons not to tax local wine and beer producers. (There are ways to tax these products that don't damage local industries, but the bill that generally gets floated targets producers directly--not distributors or retailers--and would harm local business' bottom lines.) I won't go deeply into the details, but it's a real issue, and Democrats--whether they take wine and beer money or not--have also opposed this legislation.
What the scandal exposes are twin faults in our system: the scant recompense we offer our professional legislators (who oversee lawmaking and a $6b annual budget) and the loose laws that make them susceptible to perks that offset the state's cheapness.
(I wonder if we should put up an open thread so legislators like Avel Gordly can ring in touting their honesty. That'd be an amusing first!)
9:33 a.m.
Sep 29, '06
Way ahead of you, Max: fine the influence-peddled Dems, too.
I have to comment on Paul's ridiculous attempt to make this a good argument for term limits: "M45 would put guardrails on the state Legislature's irresponsibility, and assert a level of voter control where it a glaring lack of control exists. M45 looks like a reasonable solution to address part of the problem - a seniority-driven system that incubates lack of accountability and lack of independence in our state Legislature."
A glaring lack of voter control exists? Beg pardon? Did I just lose my franchise and I didn't realize it?
M45 looks like a way to make lobbyists the kings of Salem entirely, which doesn't sound like a reasonable solution to anything. And history and previous example shows us term limits don't even do what proponents claim they do.
Sep 29, '06
And assert a level of voter control where it a glaring lack of control exists
I'm always amazed that term-limit proponents put out some variant of this truly ignorant (in the dictionary sense of that term) statement.
Time once again to return to high-school civics class for the reasons why:
Lesson 1) Voters already have complete control every time an incumbent stands for re-election. And every incumbent must stand for re-election. Every elected official has a limited term subject solely to the complete discretion of the voters to extend that term. Term-limits proponents just don't like how voters exercise that control, and don't want to do the hard work they should do in our system to deal with what has always been a problem in getting voters to fully exercise their advise-and-consent role in our representative democracy. Instead they want the quick-fix, usually to advance other agendas. Remember the only constitutionally mandated federal term-limits we have were advanced by Republican special interests who wanted to make sure a popular President would finally be removed from office.
Lesson 2) In a field of non-incumbents, for a candidate to get the name recognition and other visibility needed to rise above the pack requires as much or more support from powerful special interests with a host of resources they previously would have devoted to incumbents. I think most here can fill in the rest of the argument about the type of folks who have the best chance to get elected in those circumstances.
Lesson 3) Correlation does not imply causality (Well, that usually is taught in an undergraduate philosophy class). Comments like this: We say that only one thing results from term limits: frequent and regular open-seat elections. It was a bonus - and a credit to Oregonian voters - that previously underrepresented groups like younger adults, women and minorities began to fill some of those open seats, creating a more diverse and more representative Legislature., offered without serious proof of the cause effect relationship, and in the face of other demographic and cultural trends that offer at least as plausible competing hypotheses for this results, makes you sound like nothing more than the politicians you criticize so unsophisticatedly.
Lesson 4) With age sometimes, but not always, comes some wisdom. While the Baby Boom (my generation) has not always shown that rule to be true, the evidence is far from compelling that throwing out the seniority system is a desireable solution to anything. Simplistic, demagogic comments like this: It was another bonus that the Legislature's strict seniority system that rewards mediocrity, not merit, expired in the TL-era. illustrate the point on their face. In fact, the TL movement also gave us our rightward lurch into neofascism where a bunch of folks with no respect for some of our most important democratic traditions, having never gone through a period of apprenticeship to learn the importance of them, or been weeded from assuming leadership due to being too stupid or pathologically selfish to learn them, assumed leadership roles in our state and national legislatures. We get the result we saw yesterday of a bunch of neofascists tearing up our U.S. Constitution and endangering the lives of our troops, and a bunch of incompetent, cowering Democrats who genuinely are mentally incapable of using such a frontal attack on our core values as the biggest club in their bag for beating back the neofascists.
Term limits is a misguided, childish, quick-fix, structural "solution" to a much bigger problem in this state and country. As much as you argue otherwise, you continue to provide the proof why that is exactly the case.
Of course there is no accounting for trolls like Harry whose stock-in-trade is misrepresenting what others say to make rather simplistic strawman arguments. I've always wondered why term-limit proponents want to give folks like that more chances to elect more demagogues.
9:46 a.m.
Sep 29, '06
Anybody that claims that there's any kind of equivalence between Republicans and Democrats with respect to corruption is failing basic common sense.
Have Democrats been caught up in this one? Yeah. Are there corrupt Democrats in this country? Sure.
But I remind you that the biggest corruption scandals of the last couple decades involving Democrats almost always are on the scale of a few thousand dollars, while the biggest corruption scandals of Republicans often total in the hundreds of thousands, and sometimes millions, of dollars.
Sure, being a little corrupt is like being a little pregnant. If you're corrupt, you're corrupt. But I gotta think there's a difference between Dan Rostenkowski trading in stamps for cash at the House Post Office and Duke Cunningam taking $2.4 million in bribes from defense contractors.
10:23 a.m.
Sep 29, '06
But I gotta think there's a difference between Dan Rostenkowski trading in stamps for cash at the House Post Office and Duke Cunningam taking $2.4 million in bribes from defense contractors.
From a legal standpoint, you're undoubtedly right. Dems practice petty larceny while the GOP play grand theft auto. (Again Dems fail to show any vision!) But in terms of politics, the equivalency is accepted. Voters routinely tell pollsters both parties are corrupt.
If the Dems want to make hay out of this, they have to do something more than confine themselves to misdemeanors: they must actually push for serious reform. One of the reaons voters believe there's no difference in the parties is because Dems seem to be hedging their bets in case they come back into power. I don't believe that's actually true. I think most Dems get into office to govern (and I think most in the modern GOP look at government like they look at anything else--a way to make a buck--so cutting corners is de riguer). But they're doing a poor job of communicating that and demonstrating it in their lawmaking.
10:32 a.m.
Sep 29, '06
Jeff, I agree 100% with everything you just wrote.
Sep 29, '06
Please consider the post TL-record for state legislative elections. In '02, only 2 incumbents lost in Nov. In '04, only 1. The Nov. retention rate for incumbents post-TL is 98.2%. This year there are only 10 open seats and 10 incumbents are running totally unopposed.
Except in an open seat election, your vote only really counts if you are voting for an incumbent. Otherwise, the advantages of incumbency prevent virtually all challengers from defeating state legislative incumbents.
Why? For one, the massive amount of media attention that builds name ID over the course of a term. A challenger gets very little attention over a much shorter period of time. Two, incumbents have access to donors through the agent-lobbyists, and typically outspend challengers, who do not have this access. Three, incumbents often use thinly-veiled constituent service to politick. The list goes on and on. None of it is regulable due to the First Amendment. Campaign consultants know that this adds up to at least a 20% starting advantage for incumbents.
It's no surprise that lobbyists and political staffers/bureaucrats don't go for term limits and we don't look there for endorsements. Even though the elite on both sides of the "isle" find any limits on gov't power offensive, the people see limits as a good way to prevent/limit abuse of power = restoring voter control of government.
Sep 29, '06
I agree with you that all scandals are not equal, and therefore all corrupt politicians are also not equal. Some deserve longer prison terms than others.
But in this case, a Maui vacation is a Maui vacation. No postage stamps vs million dollar bribes here. Some vacationers are R's...others are D's. They should both see equal treatment by the peanut gallery.
Sep 29, '06
Me too! Civil conversations like this could lead to necessary legislation for the good of all. The first agenda this session should be establishing a REAL Ethics commission with funding and teeth. I wonder how the prospective Guvs would answer to this?
Sep 29, '06
Paul, Except in an open seat election, your vote only really counts if you are voting for an incumbent. Otherwise, the advantages of incumbency prevent virtually all challengers from defeating state legislative incumbents.
In 2004, the control of the House was decided by 7 elections where the margin was less than 1000 votes. But those votes only counted if they were cast in open seat elections? In House District 10, the incumbent won by 414 votes. But the people who voted for the challenger in that district found their votes didn't count? Are you saying that the people who live in Dist. 10 are going to elect the incumbent in again because challengers never win? No challenger to an incumbent is going to win in November?
These blogs stay up indefinitely. Perhaps you would like to predict now how many challengers are going to win and we can all come back here in November and see how accurate you were?
Are you one of those "the government doesn't really matter, so who cares which actual individuals serve in the legislature" types? Who is funding your effort, anyway? How much of your money came from Oregon sources? Or aren't we supposed to ask that question because all good people support term limits--after all, you said so, and we're just people who think we should have the right to vote for the candidate we choose, even if that person does have experience.
The control of the Oregon Senate changed in 1994 (remember Gordon Smith being St. Sen. President in 1995 after Democrats had controlled the Senate before that?) Remember 2002 when the voters were so angry at the partisan games that they gave the State Senate a 15-15 split? You are claiming that people who don't cast votes for open seats or under term limits cast votes that don't count. Remind us what year term limits was overturned.
And are you saying no incumbent ever loses a primary unless there are term limits? Tell that to Vic Backlund and Charles Starr. Because those incumbents were defeated in primaries, do the votes in the fall election "count"? Or do the votes in those districts only "count" if term limits are in effect?
We've never said term limits was a panacea - nothing is. Our opponents say that we overpromised and these promises were unfulfilled. Not so. Maybe you can explain why you think the quality of House leadership has been better since term limits started. According to your scenario, we never had quality leadership in the House until term limits came along. I maintain that the really quality Speakers over the last few decades (either party) were BEFORE term limits robbed the legislature of experienced members--when members had a chance to gain experience.
Not that long ago, Speaker Simmons took a lobbying job before the session he presided over was quite finished. Remind the folks here whether he was Speaker during the term limits period. Was he Speaker in the last term he could serve because of term limits?
You folks love to claim the quality of members was better after term limits. But never explained why Dan Doyle was a higher quality state rep. than the term limited Larry Wells. Did he have the same views of issues like water quality as Wells? Was his office as welcoming to constituents and as willing to explain votes? Or doesn't that matter because you say term limits is a good idea, so we should believe it?
Does none of that matter because term limits treats legislators as spare parts--use them up and discard?
Please enlighten the folks here on your views about term limits in other areas of life. Many of us would welcome term limits for initiative sponsors--McIntire and that crowd would have to find another line of endeavor.
And let us know about your lawyer, accountant, dentist, doctor. Do you have term limits for them? Or are you saying technical expertise and experience are good in those areas but no one should have experience when dealing with the state budget and state laws? Did agency staff and professional institutional staff (Legislative Counsel, Legislative Fiscal, etc.) have more or less power during term limits?
Do you really believe voters are stupid and have no right to choose a legislator to serve them longer than your term limits ordain?
What we need is a serious ethics process and campaign finance reform. I'd sooner vote for the campaign finance measures (although I question the wording) than vote for term limits.
Paul, visit the topic "He's living in Wayne's World, so Mike Caudle proposes ethics overhaul". Do you know for a fact that Caudle (and Brading against Minnis) are going to lose the election in November because the votes of their supporters don't "count" unless cast for the incumbents? Or don't you want to make such a specific prediction which could be proven wrong?
I think the experiment was tried and it failed. I am not a lobbyist, and I am not on anyone's political payroll. I AM the granddaughter of someone who spent many years in politics before I was born, and helped break the local party "machine" in his county back in the days before primary elections.
11:12 a.m.
Sep 29, '06
I really have to agree that arguing for term limits on this thread is........mostly irrelevant, and as others have pointed out, would actually give more power to loobyists, who will wind up being the only players with an institutionl knowledge of history.
However, this does seem like a good thread on which to reference campaign finance reform.
Vote for 46 and 47 as a good start on addressing the systemic corruption that is slowly destroying the last vestiges of representative government in this state.
11:18 a.m.
Sep 29, '06
Paul said: "Except in an open seat election, your vote only really counts if you are voting for an incumbent. Otherwise, the advantages of incumbency prevent virtually all challengers from defeating state legislative incumbents."
Then change the system that affords incumbents UNDUE competitive advantage (IMO some competitive advantage to incumbency is natural and desireable). What you propose is a hack fix that tries to deal with a symptom rather than the cause. It's a non-sequitur shortcut to solving the problems of a disengaged and disaffected polity, legislators and voters alike.
Sep 29, '06
To Paul Farago and y'all who push term limits:
News Flash: Already got 'em. No kiddin'! Heck, it's even in the Constit'in! They calls 'em "elections."! Look it up if yer not believin'.
And don't hand me that BS 'bout how the incumb'nts get re'lected 'cause they are. They get re'lected cause folks vote fer 'em. And folks vote fer 'em cause they like'em.
Any politic'n who ain't liked can get thrown out on their ass if ya know what the hell y'all are doin'. Ask Joe. So that money 'xcuse is just that, an 'xcuse to bellyache cause your guy can't convince folks to vote for 'em.
Folks are smarter than most you slick folk think they are. Fact is most folks like their 'lected rep. They just don't like yours.
Don't like Democracy? Go to China. I hear the commies have what yer lookin' fer.
Sep 29, '06
Yeah, you gotta think that, Kari, otherwise you don't know what to think. Suggestion: The opposite of Republican is NOT Democrat -- those are one and the same. ('Careerist,' in a word.) Ford and Chevy are one and the same. ('Car,' in a word.)
The opposite of Republican-Democrat is We, the people.
[rest of comment is off-topic - broadcasting rights, etc.]
11:48 a.m.
Sep 29, '06
Paul, Are you kidding me? Are you actually trying to say that there is a huge financial advantage to incumbency?
Yeesh... It is not like incumbents get money for porn lobbyists, beer lobbyists, wine lobbyists, insurance lobbyists.
It is not like incumbents run off to some remote island and eat dinner with said lobbyists while building long term personal relationships.
That stuff does not happen and voters get just as much access to information of political challengers as the do to incumbents.
You need to get your information straight.
Sep 29, '06
What about Blain's culpability in this? If Blain really did encourage his guests not to report the trip, should he be allowed to continue his job? Should he lose his license to bribe?
Seems like holding lobbyists accountable, e.g., Jack Abramoff, is an important part of rectifying this nonsense. If term limits pass, the resulting babes-in-the-woods, neophyte legislature will be even more dependent on lobbyists to interpret the rules.
So what means are there to hold the bribers responsible? Anybody know the current laws?
Sep 29, '06
In 1990, only about 5 incumbent members of Congress lost---but one of them was Denny Smith here in Oregon. I was part of that challenger's campaign (and the one before, where Denny won a recount) and was also involved in the 1982 primary when the 5th District had just been created.
Those of us who worked on that campaign enjoy responding to term limits people by saying "in 1990 we gave Denny Smith term limits the old fashioned way--we threw him out of office and elected someone else".
What term limit advocates forget is that Denny Smith and George Nethercutt both got into Congress the same way--Denny defeated Ways and Means chair Al Ullman, Nethercutt defeated Speaker Tom Foley. No matter how many incumbents won those years, power changed hands when powerful politicians lost re-election.
And I don't believe in randomly choosing legislators. I believe in helping friends who run for office. If there were more people involved in such campaigns (yes, in some districts that might be difficult) then we'd have better politics.
But just to pick 2 high profile races, ponder this. Which campaigns do you suppose have the most personal friends of the candidate involved in the campaign: Minnis and Scott, or Brading and Caudle? My guess is the latter because challengers often can't rely on the sort of organizational support leading legislators rely on.
Sep 29, '06
"What the scandal exposes are twin faults in our system: the scant recompense we offer our professional legislators (who oversee lawmaking and a $6b annual budget) and the loose laws that make them susceptible to perks that offset the state's cheapness."
Why is it every time one of our esteemed legislators gets caught with their hand in the cookie jar someone here is willing to excuse him with this perverse argument?
Am I the only one who thinks this is nuts? Poor babies, if they were only paid enough (whatever that is) they wouldn't be so darn greedy, dishonest and unethical!
Gosh, and if those darn laws weren't so "loose" (even though "loose," the law here is pretty clear) they wouldn't be susceptible to perks that offset the state's cheapness.
"Be susceptible"?? "Perks"?? "Offset cheapness"??
Wow.
You know, even though I agreed to work for minimum wage, if I only made more I wouldn't be "susceptible" to the "perk" of ripping off the till at work or overcharging my customers to "offset the cheapness" of my boss or my non-tipping customers.
Here's a term limits idea: if they're crooked or unethical - throw 'em out. Period. No excuses. Party affiliation or length in office is irrelevant.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. At least it's not if I try to use it. Seems to work for CEOs and politicians though. Go figure.
Sep 29, '06
"Ignorance of the law is no excuse. At least it's not if I try to use it. Seems to work for CEOs and politicians though. Go figure."
We need a stronger ethics enforcement mechanism. It is no longer possible to be convicted of any kind of felony and be a legislator. The Peg Jolin case resulted in that change.
5:44 p.m.
Sep 29, '06
Here's a term limits idea: if they're crooked or unethical - throw 'em out. Period. No excuses. Party affiliation or length in office is irrelevant.
That's the spirit! But I'm gonna plead stupidity here.
Would all this be a non-issue if everyone had reported their, uh, perks? Is the ethics issue here just about paperwork? Is this why Metsger gets a pass on this because Paul Romain is a client, and so it's all OK? They can all swim together in the big pool as long as they keep their shorts clean? Good grief.
I'ma a Democrat and I'm outraged at Democrats who refuse to clean our own house, and let it get stinked up this way. This idea that if we just get back the House or the Senate, or the Congress or whatever --if we just get 'em in the "D" column-- we'll finally save the world, the sun will shine again, and the children will play and be happy.
There are a lot of "D"s that sold out us in the Senate on the Torture Bill with their "yeas", and the conversation needs to take place whether these turkeys even BELONG in this Party. Or maybe just wearing the big "D" is all it takes to be on the side of the angels, regardless of what you do. Or what ethics you have. Or how many twenties you have stuffed in your freezer.
We seem to forget that George Bush isn't the first president to lie us into a war. And Republicans aren't the only ones who manage to get rich in office.
6:22 p.m.
Sep 29, '06
The Oregon stories highlight one problem of money in politics but omit a one that is 500 times larger. They note that these legislators received some $30,000 in campaign contributions from the beer/wine lobbyists but do not mention that corporations contributed over $15 million to legislative candidates for each of the past 2 elections (2002 and 2004). It is not just the alcohol industry that buys government favors but also the utilities and companies providing tobacco, insurance, drugs, and video poker, among others. Measures 46 and 47 would ban all corporate contributions in races for state and local public office in Oregon. Such bans are already in place in 24 other states. You do the math.
12:56 a.m.
Sep 30, '06
It's what else it would do--and what of it would likely be struck down by the courts--that makes M47 a bad play, Dan. Well intended, poorly written, bad for Oregon.
Your math wasn't the problem; it was the English.
Sep 30, '06
Meek makes an important point. Though not reporting perks like the junket to Hawaii is illegal, the massive legal contributions that have a far stronger corrupting influence on government. Measures 46 & 47 would make a substantial change in that.
Repeating the opposition's campaign slogans obscures the real effect the Fair Elections measures would have. Even if every provision called into doubt by opponents were struck down [an unlikely event], we would have more comprehensive reform than that of Measure 9 from 1994. That led to a reduction of 95% in the amount of corporate contributions. There is no way that such a change would NOT bring us closer to government for the people. Are elections financed by purveyors of alcohol, tobacco, and gambling, by government regulated utilities, by the pharmaceutical giants really in our interests?
Sep 30, '06
Maui-Gate is trivial compared to the impact of large special interest money in politics, but that does not excuse the legislators from complying with the reporting requirements. Even if you accept the proposition that some (most?) politicans are essentially paid whores for one special interest or another, I still want to know WHOSE money is lying there on the pillow next to my legislator the next morning.
All this talk about money in politics reminds me of a favorite bumper sticker:
IF YOU DON'T LIKE MY CONGRESSMAN, BUY YOUR OWN
10:59 p.m.
Sep 30, '06
Frank--
I heard the difference was that Metsger was there as a private citizen who was doing paid work there in Maui- a training if I remember correctly. Since we insist on having a citizen legislature that is part-time, our legislators have other jobs as well.
Maybe others here can give more details.
3:45 a.m.
Oct 1, '06
FFrank--I heard the difference was that Metsger was there as a private citizen who was doing paid work there in Maui- a training if I remember correctly.
I get that. Metsger was there as a "private citizen" and the fact that he is a legislator --on the side-- being paid by a "super-lobbyist" as his employee has absolutely nothing to do with anything. It's all absolutely aboveboard. Legal. Cool. But good judgment? Things don't need to be illegal to seem --or be-- wrong.
He was a "trainer" in Maui for the super-lobbyist? Would that be for..."Adanced Synchronized Swimming" or "Filling out Disclosure Forms 101?"
Look...I'm not trying to pick on him or anybody. It's just there's a bad small coming from that pool they were all swimming in. Time to clean it out...
12:27 a.m.
Oct 2, '06
From what I've seen, Metsger does a variety of training for organizations and businesses. I actually sat through one a few years ago on dealing with hostile people, stressful situations, etc. He did a really great job.
It wasn't until after the training that I realized he was a legislator.
Oct 2, '06
Steve Duin made an interesting point--where is the AG in all of this? Shouldn't there be a serious investigation? Or is it going to be just $1000 fines for all involved, end of story?
3:57 a.m.
Oct 2, '06
Or is it going to be just $1000 fines for all involved, end of story?
End of story? Nah...Paul Romain and friends will pick up that tab too. (And Paul Romain? Does he become toxic...or he just proved once again he is the super-ist of super lobbyists, while doors continue to open for him everywhere.)
Anonymous...I'm guessing Paul Romain knew Metsger was a legislator when he hired him for the Maui "training" gig. I'm also guessing he wasn't training his fellow legislators in anger management...though I s'posse he might have been. I imagine I'd tend to be less angry when I'm sitting in a pool in Maui sucking down gin and tonics on someone else's tab, wondering --OK, maybe not wondering-- if they've spent $144 on me yet!
I'm disappointed, though, that no one's noted the Oregonian's scolding editorial in Sunday's paper: "...any such discipline won't get to the heart of what's really wrong. These trips on the industry's dime are gifts and shouldn't be allowed, reported or not."
<h2>And then, just to twist the knife, that same paper's travel section is a special issue on...Hawaii! Oh the inhumanity! How will our legislators ever make it back there again? Buy their own tickets? Oh no...the bitter irony of it all!</h2>