What does this guy do for a living now? His congressional campaign site is up still. A friend of mine reported seeing him roaming the halls of the capitol on Monday. Is he a lobbyist now? Maybe that's how his loan disappeared, through some deal with a "client". And more importantly, is this guy running for office again in either CD 4 or for something else?

I haven't talked to Jim since the election, but he was teaching terrorism classes at Umpqua Community College and Lane Community College, and probably still is. Aside from that, he's still a commander in the U.S. Naval Reserves. It's extremely unlikely that Jim will run for any elected position in the near future. After the 2004 election, a lot of people urged him to run for a local or statewide office, but he wasn't interested in that then and still isn't. And no, Jim isn't lobbying, as far as I know. He appeared at the capitol ever so often during the 05 session, but he knew he was still going to run for CD 4 again. Ever get the feeling you're beating a dead horse? The Oregonian and Register Guard don't consider this a story because it isn't one, and Jim is back to being a private citizen. Jim also has a business, Feldkamp and Associates, that deals with non-profit organizations. Through that company, he was serving as spokesman/fundraiser for Wildlife Safari. I hope this answers any questions.

He's not a Congressional candidate anymore. Besides, whether or not it's a story isn't exactly your determination to make, now is it?

Oh Scott. You should have been advising Tom DeLay and Duke Cunningham. If they had only know that becoming a "privite citizen" washes whatever criminal activity they engaged in while a candidate, they could have avoided that pesky criminal record.

You are trying to shift the attention. Fact: Feldkamp loaned the campaign the money. Fact: Feldkamp forgave the money. Fact: Feldkamp is under investigation by the FEC. Fact: Feldkamp made the loans disappear. Fact: Feldkamp found $97,000 that he had not previously disclosed.

So, in your first entry, you answered none of the questions created by the post above. It shouldn't matter is Feldkamp is or is not a candidate. If he broke the law, it should be a story and he should be punished.

FACT: No final determinations have been made here. FACT: People are innocent until proven guilty...unless they're Republicans and the "jury" consists of extremely unobjective BlueOregon posters. FACT: You guys are still the only people that think that these allegations are worthy of a story. Look--I don't even care. I can speak freely about Feldkamp, as I quit working for him after his first landslide loss, and was never asked to sign any kind of a confidentiality agreement. But you were wondering what he's doing now, whether or not he's a lobbyist, etc...I told you what I know to be fact, as opposed to the speculation that was already on here. I have no personal stake whatsoever in any of these matters. I will say, however, that Jim is a good guy and not the crook you're trying to make him out to be. Once again--I have no personal stake in any of this. But if Jim were the asshole you think he is, I would certainly know it by now, as I'm the only person on here who actually knows the guy. If (big IF here) he is guilty of these things, let the crucifixion begin. I would expect him to be punished accordingly. But don't hold your breath. Quick question--if it turns out there's nothing to any of this at all, does that mean you owe Jim an apology for the continued defamation of his character?

As I recall, his campaign wasn't too kind on DeFazio. I remember him turning the Congressman into a bobblehead and accusing him of ripping off the American people to live the high life in New Zealand.

First, the facts that are listed above can be found on the FEC website, an unbiased entity that reports the documents as they are filed by each candidate.

Second, people are innocent until proven guilty but Feldkamp has a history of violations with the FEC. He also has a responsibility to explain himself to the people of the district he hopes to represent. When he was a candidate, he didn't answer questions about the investigations.

Finally, if we at Blue Oregon were the only ones interested in this story, the FEC wouldn't be investigating the loans in the first place. Or surely the FEC would have come to a conclusion a few months after the complaint was filed.

I'll attribute this delayed response to my not having been at the office for the last couple of days. Kari--I never said anything about your entry lacking facts. I was merely stating that, as least as far as the FEC is concerned, the facts are still out. I do think it's interesting that you're citing a complete lack of press coverage on this topic, though you did include links to mainstream media articles regarding it. I would imagine that it's not being reported on any further because the reporters involved don't have any more facts than those that have been already stated and become a part of the public record. Doing otherwise would be a mere recitation of speculation, which often leads to irresponsible journalism. So I would state that the press isn't ignoring this story, but waiting until there is something new to report. I have a sneaking suspicion that you keep bringing it up as an excuse to use the Richie Rich graphic....

...As a follow up, I'll just mention what I know about the previous FEC violations. The first non-reporting problem had already happened by the time I joined the campaign in June 04. There was nothing devious about that first violation. Jim had previously hired some consultants who charged way too much, and those consultants had failed to adequately file for a donation or two. An article had come out in the Register-Guard, I believe it was, literally the day I joined the campaign. Campaign Manager Bruce Harvie was quoted as saying something along the lines of, "There may have been a technical error on our part." So there was definite culpability there, but the campaign had admitted as much, but Jim himself wasn't involved in the failure to file. He was just paying the wrong consultants way too much to do a sloppy job. Once again, I hope this helps in terms of providing insight. I didn't come on here to get into a pissing match with raving ideologues, as I do enjoy this site quite a bit. I just wanted to provide some perspective from someone that was actually there and has some insider knowledge.

I have a question for you Scott. And I mean this in all seriousness, not as a raving ideologue. Since you were there in 2004 and have this insider knowledge, do you remember Jim giving the campaign loans that are now no longer on the reports? Or do you remember a large number of small donations coming in during this time, one that would cover the amount reported now? Since this is the subject of the current post, maybe you could shed some light on the current issue.

ErinWH--I appreciate the tone of your inquiry. I didn't come here to get my head bitten off, and as such, I appreciate your sincerity. The 04 campaign was going broke in its final days, so the issue was raised about securing further funding for a final media buy. Essentially, what happened was Jim loaned some money to the campaign, I think it was about $50,000. In terms of the income he reported having during that time, those filings are probably accurate, as he was a full-time candidate during that campaign and wasn't working. The issue then revolved around his assets. Jim is part-owner of Umpqua Dairy, along with his two brothers. So I know he had some stock that could be used as collateral for the sake of securing (and paying back) the loan. Something probably happened with the paperwork,which is understandable. Jim had never so much as run for dogcatcher up to that point, so this stuff was all new for him. Whether or not that information was properly documented or filed, I'm not sure...I would venture to guess that it probably wasn't. The campaign ended shortly after that loan was made, at which point I was finally free to blow off some steam and hang out in Eugene (I had been technically living there for four months, but traveled so much that I rarely stayed at my humble abode in the Whitaker District). In terms of any filings pertaining to the 06 campaign, I can't speak to any of that, as my experience in the 05 legislature had pretty well soured me on the operative lifestyle. I went back to the state of Jefferson and started doing community journalism again...and never looked back. I still spoke with Jim and his campaign staff during the 06 cycle, but was not privy to any of the fundraising or campaign finance. Hell, I tried to stay away from that end of things when I was working for Jim. It's probably good that he's having to go back through all that information anyway, just to clarify things. I imagine that's why he hasn't commented on any of this. But I did leave him a voicemail the other day suggesting that he make some kind of a public statement once he does have it figured out. Ironically enough, I'm now reporting at a paper in the 4th CD, so I do have a definite interest in how this all shakes up. But I would like to reiterate for all involved that it would be irresponsible of the press (myself included) to report on anything until more information is available. I may even be in a position to secure comment from Jim where other reporters couldn't, as I do maintain contact with him and consider him a friend.

Right on Kari. If he decides to run for Congress, having never run for anything prior, that is his decision and he is subject to the rules and reporting requirements that every other candidate is subject to.

From the FEC reports, it looks like Jim loaned $30000 in September, hardly the final days of the campaign. He loaned the campaign another $30,000 in October and $17,000 in November. It was all documented correctly with the FEC.

I guess what I was hoping for, was an explanation as to why two years later, Jim took the loans off the original reports. I would think that erasing them from his reports would cause a gaping hole in his campaign bank account, which is why the newly surfaced $97000 is significant.

<hr/>