Cheers to Mike Caudle for trying to make the most of this issue. I am curious, though, what info do you have to say that Mike has indeed got a shot? Any polling or anecdotes from the district?

Folks tracking this topic might also be interested to know that an Ethics Work group staffed by the Oregon Law Commission is preparing a set of ethics and lobbying reform bills for consideration in the 2007 legislative session. Some of this group's proposals begin to address several concerns raised by recent Oregonian coverage.

I run an organization, the Money in Politics Research Action Project (MiPRAP), which has been working on these issues since 2002. At our website, oregonfollowthemoney at the Ethics and Lobby Reform link there is some legislative history and discussion of some of the necessary reforms.

Some significant legislative victories seem possible in the 2007 session and we'd appreciate your help.

For those folks interested in the campaign finance reform questions raised by the Oregonian stories, MiPRAP just released a resource guide on Measures 46 and 47. We are neutral on these measures but offer this guide to help voters think through campaign finance reform issues in deciding what they will decide this November. The guide compares BM 47 limits to those in other states, addresses how the flow of political money will likely change, and discusses federal First Amendment concerns. The guide is also on our website.

Kudos to Mike Caudle for embracing lobbying reform, much needed here in Oregon.

But now that the technical commenting glitch is fixed, let me repeat the comment I posted on Loaded Orygun about the need for campaign finance reform. It was specifically addressed to Torrid, who wrote a similar post about the efforts of Caudle:

"Well, Torrid, since your link to the Caudle website seems to have disabled Blue Oregon's comments option, I'll post my comment here.

Blue Oregon fails to mention the $20 K Scott picked up from the beer and wine distributors on a separate trip to Hawaii. That's a campaign contribution.

I'm pretty sure that kind of money would be limited under Measure 47*. I haven't heard your take on the campaign finance initiatives, just Carla's.

What do you think?

*Here are the relevent sections of Measure 47:

--"Entity" means a corporation, limited liability company, labor organization, association, firm, partnership, joint stock company, club, organization or other combination of individuals and/or organization which has collective capacity.

--"Political committee" means any entity or any combination of individuals and/or entities

--No individual or entity shall make a contribution to a candidate committee, political committee or political party, except as specifically allowed in this Act.

--A political committee (other than a small donor committee or a political party finance committee) may make only the following contributions:

(1) During any election period, to candidate committees, not more than:

(A) Two thousand dollars ($2,000) to support or oppose candidates contesting for any particular statewide public office... ."

What do you think, Kari?

Did what I could, but no one else what there but Mike and his campaign manager... KGW finked out. Is this what is left of our democracy, three schmoes standing on a corner dying to attract attention to the corruption going on behind our backs?

no doubt this plan would be a big improvement ... but lets face it ... to solve the problem ... we need 100% public financing for the election process.

until that time, keep slamming the greedy!

finally, if you want to live like a republicon you need to vote democratic.

Good for you, Sal. And congratulations on the Statesman Journal endorsement.

There are three categories of official misbehavior (definitions from Black's Law Dictionary) in public office:

1) Malfeasance - A wrongful or unlawful act, wrongdoing or misconduct by a public official.

2) Misfeasance - The tort of excessive, malicious or negligent exercise of statutory powers by a public officer.

3) Nonfeasance - The failure to act when a duty to act existed.

If one thinks about it, much of the most egregious improper behavior by the Republicans in the U.S. House and Senate are of the misfeasance or nonfeasance character. Only rarely does someone get caught in actual malfeasance. And in this passive-aggressive corner of the country, much of the improper behavior across the political spectrum is in that category.

There are also two distinct categories of inappropriate behavior when it comes to conflicts of interest (the first definition is again per Black's Law Dictionary):

1) A real or seeming incompatibility between one's private interests and one's public or fiduciary duties.

2) The mere appearance of a "real or seeming incompatibility" .... (judges are held to this standard).

So what does this have to do with ethics and ethics reform? Well, if you just want to play around with ethics reform, go ahead and distract yourself by believing that the problem is "presents-for-favors" and bans on that will actually make a difference. If you are serious about meaningful ethics reform, concentrate on patterns of influence by legislating ways to punish misfeasance and nonfeasance. Only the truly dumb take bribes. Corrupt politicians of even average intelligence bank goodwill and promises of later rewards by not carrying out the duties of their office faithfully. Instead, they use their office in ways that benefit power interests who will reward them in the near term in intangible ways - like throwing perfectly legal fundraisers and introducing them to the "right people" - and only tomorrow in more tangible ways.

By the way, Black's Law Dictionary only mentions bribery as a significant example in the definition of corruption, and not at all in the general definition of ethical:

Corruption - 1. Depravity, perversion, or taint; an impairment of integrity, virtue, or more principle: esp., the impairment of a public official's duties by bribery. 2. The act of doing something with an intent to give some advantage inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others; a fiduciary's or official's use of a station or office to procure some benefit either personally or for someone else, contrary to the rights of others.

Ethical - Of or relating to moral obligations that one person owes another.

"Did what I could, but no one else what there but Mike and his campaign manager... KGW finked out. Is this what is left of our democracy, three schmoes standing on a corner dying to attract attention to the corruption going on behind our backs?"

<h2>That's a shame. I hate to say it but Canby is about as backwoods as it gets (I grew up there) and it doesn't matter how many freebies Wayne gets at the expense of his constituents, I'd be shocked if a person without the kind of funds Wayne has access to can win the seat. I don't think Wayne is a particularly popular man there with the rank and file, but the type of people who pay attention and understand what Wayne is like are the type of people who moved away from Canby long ago.</h2>