A write-in campaign? Would that be something like a campaign?

Fudge hasn't exactly captured the headlines in the current flap over internet filtering and pornography But that issue offers a Libertarian an ideal opportunity to distinguish his views from those being promoted by the major-party candidates. If he's not speaking up on that, what WOULD he speak up on?

Next story, please.

Wow. I'm waiting to hear again from Coyote, Adams, and other spinners how this all ties in to Bradbury's partisanship.

Still trying to figure out how Bradbury's adherence to the letter of the law is actually a cynical ploy to use his elective office to advance the State Dem party agenda.

I don't understand why the rule is that you can't run for two "lucrative" offices.... and that $75/year counts as "lucrative".

Personally, I don't care if you're getting paid or not -- a mayor shouldn't also be allowed to be a state representative. After all, that would be an inherent conflict of interest going both ways.

Looks like an obvious bit of election reform for the next session.

Kari: yeah, calling $75/month lucrative does seem a little odd. Especially considering that the cell phone is probably intended for official use. Is that the extent of the salary for mayor? I fully agree with you, there is an inherent conflict of interest in holding two different government jobs, and it should be against the rules on that basis alone.

Zak: Interesting point, and I share your skepticism on that point. On a purely anecdotal note though, I'd say New Hampshire "feels" like the most Libertarian state I've spent time it, and its congressional delegation is bright red. But I suspect all that proves is that NH is good at generating Libertarian-leaning Republicans to meet the demand of its electorate.

I wouldn't mind hearing from the Secretary of State's office, but given that "lucrative office" is in itals, I assume this makes it a legal/technical term. Maybe any payment makes it lucrative?

On Friday night, I chatted briefly with one of the SOS's staffers about the word "lucrative". It's a term found in the Oregon constitution. Apparently, our state's founders were reacting to some corruption that existed at that time - with people taking multiple positions.

Seems to me that the legislature could simultaneously loosen the definition of the word "lucrative" -- while tightening the restrictions and giving 'em a more bright line by statute.

Like I said, I don't think I care whether the Mayor of Fairiew makes $75/month or not -- the Mayor shouldn't also be the State Representative. Inherent conflict.

Making the line a little brighter would avoid confusion ala Brad Fudge. Can we call it the "Fudge Rule"?

Zak,

Your point is well taken, but the context here has to include the recent ruling to leave Mary Starret the heck alone, too.

Same backroom guys, trying to assist the Saxton effort.

It's not me that's picking targets and setting agendas.

<hr/>

I was talikng to a couple of Constitution Party True Believers on Friday evening, and they were just (channeling Kerry here) giddy about the raising of Mary's profile by folks who obviously had the opposite intent.

It was also fun to note, that after I initially refused to comment on Bush and his crew, I finally responded that I think he's a Clueless/Punk/Bully/Fratboy.

They agreed wholeheartedly.

The Times they are a changin'

<h2>Fudge really is toast. Marion County Circuit Court Judge Paul Libscomb ruled this afternoon against Brad Fudge's last ditch attempt to stay on the ballot. Libscomb gave great deference to the Secretary of State's Office to interpret election law and cited timeliness of the suit (filed yesterday by Washington County Attorney Lyndon Ruhnke). I guess $75/month is lucrative!</h2>