Is Blue Oregon being bamboozled into being an apologist for corruption?

To Gasp: The debate is not about whether corruption is wrong, but rather, whether it exists in this case, and whether The O, WW, KATU, et al. rushed to judgement and played up a faux scandal or exercised due journalistic caution here. It sure doesn't seem like the latter from what's come to light.

The failure to run Kitzhaber's op-ed submission speaks volumes about the Oregonian's performance on this one. They blew it and they're obviously embarassed.

They're being called on it by (unpaid) journalists who actually know how to dig into a story.

I imagine at this point the Oregonian just wants this one to go away before it becomes obvious to ALL its readers that its reportes and editors let themselves get conned (yet again) because they lacked the work ethic and thoroughness to do the digging TJ and Carla (and local papers) did.

Running Kitzhaber's op-ed would only remind people how poorly the O performed on this one.

Once again, H.L. Mencken said journalists are ambitious but lazy. The Oregonian and Willy Weak prove it regularly ... especially in the coverage of local politics.

"journalists both in print and broadcast can be played like a piccolo"

Interesting instrument to make an example of... is it a not-too-subtle dig at NWR?

I long ago gave up believing the Oregonian was committed to accuracy and decency in their political reporting, and had for a long time thought their editorial page reflected values and beliefs possibly found nowhere in the greater metro area.

It pained me to give up my subscription more than two years ago, but hit pieces such as the one directed at Betsy Johnson remind me why I no longer subscribe. Too bad really. You would think a major paper would strive for excellence.

As a consequence, straight journalists both in print and broadcast can be played like a piccolo by people who know how to exploit that weakness.

And those same journalists will be praised by those who know how to play them, even when they are offkey.

The reality is there is nothing unusual about this story. Virtually every story in the WW or the Oregonian was placed there by someone. And they someone was rewarded by the reporter with appropriate spin. Reporters who take story suggestions and spin them against the person placing the story don't get stories, don't have sources and don't last long.

I always wondered how long the Oregonian knew of the story about Karen Minnis' brother in law being accused of sexually assualting a young waitress, and Minnis' role in keeping it all quiet. Either the Oregonian failed to investigate available public records, or they sat on that story out of fear or bias.

"Straight news has fallen into a bizarre notion that substitutes something called "balance""

Except when it comes to the run up to the Iraq war, then they just took the Republican's word for it.

Liberal press my ass.

The O and WW have some explaining to do and a big apology to Senator Johnson.

Torridjoe got it right and deserves repeating: "We think the reason might be even simpler: interests seeking development of the Metolius don't like SB30, and so in order to beat it they attempted to call Johnson's ethics into question, so that it would impugn SB30 by association since she is a cosponsor with Westlund."

Tim Russert once told a story about John Chancelor trying to get a young journalist to appreciate the importance of checking the facts. According to Russert, Chancelor told the young man, "If your mother says she loves you, check it out." Reporters at WW and the Oregonian should add that to their operating procedures along with "Follow the Money."

There is also the fact that most editorial boards and the politicians they help get elected are in league with developers pursuing unlimited and unrestrained growth.

It comes down to the fact that the media was having such a slow news day and was so extremely bored with their job, that they had come to the point that they would print anything to justify their jobs and existance in the world - even going as fart as muddying up someone no matter how accurate (or inaccurate) the issue is.

good to see this getting cleared up.

Is Blue Oregon being bamboozled into being an apologist for corruption?

Gasp has pointed out something important. He or she has induced many posters here, most notably amongst them Carla and torridjoe, to demonstrate they really are quite ignorant of what ethics in government actually is.

I'm not supporting Clinton for the nomination, but this article provides the ethical framing that so many of you clearly lack here:

Clintons sell multimillion-dollar trust to avoid conflicts http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/15/clintons.blindtrust.ap/index.html

Rep. Johnson and her family have every right to pursue their own business interests. For that she should receive no criticism.

Rep. Johnson has every right to be in government doing service to the public acting on issues from which she derives no special benefit of any kind. For that she should receive praise for her service to the public.

What Rep. Johnson should not be doing is pursuing legislation that provides personal, financial, or political benefit that the public on the whole does not also receive, by providing favors to special interests that include her or others situated to provide benefit to her.

That includes trying to put into state law airport access provisions that would ex poste facto legitimate some very questionable actions in 2005 for her family.

That includes advocating land use restrictions that happen to preserve the character and increase the value of her personal property.

That particularly includes sponsoring special tax increment financing districts that are a favorite of self-centered interests across the political spectrum from anti-tax Republicans and imperious Portland-style neo-urbanists to, in this case, private aviation interests that include Johnson herself. What these people have in common is the intent to undermine the very core idea of our representative government for their own benefit: The collection and distribution of taxes should be a constant process of seeking compromise to effect the redistribution of resources for the common good. The very fact special interests get these taxing arrangements set up proves they already have disproportionate power to benefit themselves in that process of compromise. Rather than be satisified with that, however, they use that power to essentially rebate the benefit of 50% or more of taxes right back to themselves, under the laughable and always unproven claim they will somehow indirectly deliver benefits to the commonweal if we just let them --- to all practical intents outside of government --- determine the disposition and directly derive the benefits of those taxes.

Most importantly, that includes not properly reporting possible conflicts that Johnson clearly knew she was obligated to report. The argument made in Oregon is that we fight the significant problems of corruption in a citizen legislature, and we don't sanction the appearance of a conflict as is generally the case in a non-dysfunctional "professional" legislature, by having a reporting regime that makes all possible conflicts clear to the voters. That is, when in doubt, report. It is that fundamental principle of our government Johnson has not respected.

This matter should also be recognized as a signal example of why campaign finance reform, so popular with the truly politically unknowlegeable here who think they know so much, has little bearing on the real ethical decay of government in a state with citizen legislatures like Oregon and Washington. From all the evidence so far, there is no reason to allege or even think Johnson was corrupted by untoward campaign contributions from special interests. What Carla and torridjoe have done absolutely nothing to disprove that Johnson was simply predisposed to work hard for legislation that designed to deliver benefits to the special interests with which she personally identifies, and from which she derives personal and political gain.

The second prong of the attacks on Johnson which LO talks about, headwater development "scandal", is predicated on the wholly preposterous notion of proposition that the bill which Johnson was pushing, to stop the destination resort development, would drive up the value of her property because of scarcity is so comical I can't believe anyone even takes the argument seriously.

Lestadelc's clearly untutored argument is not even close to fair to what has actually been argued.

First, it is a hard cold fact in a market economy that scarcity of a good, in this case her highly marketable, developed, privately-held real estate, drives up the value of the good. And that indisputably will be a result if SB 30 in the form described at the time of the cited reporting passes. However, no critic I've read has even come close to claiming this is the sole or even primary reason for her action.

Nonetheless, what possibly ethically improper is the fact she receives this personal economic benefit that the public as whole does not receive from this unque action that she is in a position to influence in more ways than just casting her vote. Another is state preservation of a privileged personal quality of life that the public as a whole does not receive.

I personally lean towards the view SB30 is good public policy, and I definitely believe the O is not a top-flight investigative rag. (I do think the WWeek does some pretty good work from time-to-time though.) There are ways in which Johnson could have handled this and the other matter properly. In fact, if that had been done, she might even still have gained the personal benefits at issue. For some reason, however, she clearly has not chosen to do that, and it clearly is not due to ignorance. Because of that, the questions that have been raised are legitimate, and the public is owed a full investigation into possible ethical violations and have any merited sanctions levied.

I was a source for one of Willamette Weak reporter Nigel Jaquiss' stories several years ago. It was a pretty simple Rogue of the Week.

To put it mildly, I was not impressed with his grasp of the story or his presentation of it in the paper.

When a tipster comes to you with a big story, the journalist does have some obligation to pursue (at least intellectually) why this information was given.

Doesn't mean you can't use it. But it does mean you have a responsibility to understand how you're being used and why. And you must weigh that against how important the information is to the public.

I don't think willy weak or the O put in the work to do that in this case. otherwise, they may have been more skeptical.

I was living around Scappoose around the time of these called "Secret Land Deal" at the airport. I will tell you what though the fact that the local paper reported on this deal back in 2004 kind shows no one was hiding the fact that their was a land deal going on. Betsy talked about it in the local paper.

What really pisses me off is that if Betsy hadn't have stepped in to help with the Airport expansion and done this deal at least 2 companies were threatening to leave the area.

She was helping save jobs from leaving Scappoose. Just go back and read the local papers. Its all there.

Aside from the obvious land-for-influence aspect, which is really just payoff-as-usual for a lawmaker with a family member and business interests in the regulated industry, Betsy Johnson's problem has nothing to do with House or Senate bills, land deals, or ethics disclosure forms.

Her problem is that she is running against Randy Leonard for Governor.

The Oregonian and WW are just teaching everyone around the state who's not from Portland what they ought to know about '10: this is what happens when you go against the ex-Firefighters union boss. You'd better get used to it.

Dear SD,

The number of people who are already thinking about the 2008 election, much less the next Gov. election, is probably minimal.

Yesterday I had a conversation at work with 2 young women (maybe they are 20 years old, but probably not). One could name one of our US Senators and the legislative candidate she voted for last year. Neither could name both Senators. I know people (at work and elsewhere) who don't like having to choose between parties--there are those in both parties they like. There are people where I work who bemoan the lack of a middle class--just rich people like CEOs and people who struggle financially who work in retail or other such occupations. That doesn't mean they are interested in extended political discussions. This is a private sector workplace I am talking about.

Whatever the end result was, Ben Westlund got something like 50,000 signatures in his Independent run for Gov., and no one knows how many people who attended one of his events (as I did) who had voted in the primary and couldn't sign petitions. Do all those people just "have to get used to" someone claiming the NEXT election for Gov. is already taking shape because someone on a blog says so? Would those people really like being told that large organizations control politics and they have no say?

And is that true? Which large organizations influenced the almost-success of "impossible" campaigns in 2006 like Peralta in Yamhill County or Gilbertson in District 59? Or did individuals play a role?

The orginal (century old) definitions of Populist and Progressive were "for the little guy and against big everything" and "opening up the system for ordinary people". That doesn't mean someone from a well connected family vs. someone from a union and everyone else is a spectator. It means letting things take their proper time (don't discuss another Gov. election, we just had one!) and respecting the views of people who have other things in their lives besides politics.

There is a theory known as 5% vs. 95%. It says that maybe 5% of the population are politically active, can name all their elected officials and give an opinion on each, have been involved in multiple campaigns, follow politics closely if not being employed in politics. The 95% are the ordinary folks like the people in the breakroom at work who vote but don't spend their whole lives following politics.

A friend of mine got frustrated and dropped out of politics in middle age after being involved since her youth. She said "The 5% think they decide elections, the 95% actually do."

So, SD, unless you were more accurate than most in predicting election results last November, please utilize your first name and get used to voters who don't see things from a partisan/ organizational point of view.

Folks want to know truth about the power (official, political, non-official) that motivates the observed behavior and ... that's what was offered.

The fluff profile in today's Oregonian about Commissar Leonard proves my point: Randy Leonard is running for Governor in '10, right now. Sleepy Ted was never Portland's governor and things didn't really become acceptable until Tim Nesbitt took over a year ago. Lookout, Betsy - or anyone else who comes too close.

Silence Dogood's predictions are regularly offered at The Oregonion .

lestatdelc -

reader, if the BS "scarcity" argument was legit, then M37 is dead-letter law. Take your pick.

This kind of meaningless assertion is so simplistic and superficial as to be moronic.

Do you have any basic grounding in economics and argumentation that you can develop this superficial nonsense into something approaching the level of sophomore expository writing by stating a rational thesis and logically defending it?

"That includes trying to put into state law airport access provisions that would ex poste facto legitimate some very questionable actions in 2005 for her family. That includes advocating land use restrictions that happen to preserve the character and increase the value of her personal property." Paragraph A is simply false, as we've shown. Paragraph B strikes me as conflation of the least evidentiary kind. I literally drove past Johnson's property this morning. The restrictions are to protect sensitive resources and preserve the area as one of singular, untouched beauty. And the idea of personal profit simply doesn't track with family history, current circumstance and stated future intention.

No, torridjoe, up until the time that comment was written, you had not shown Paragraph A was false, you had shown the situation was questionable, because all you had are claims about events before 2005, an action in 2005 of unclear legal validity, and an effort to pass a state law that would ex poste facto render questions about all that moot. Mainly, you had just slung accusations yourself based on suppositions and opinions. Frankly, I've quit following this story because it is clear that the undisputed facts are sufficiently troubling that it is now up to GSPC to do their job and fully investigate at this point.

Paragraph B is not a conflation (look the word up before you use it), it is a simple conjunction that properly enumerates two separate personal benefits that Johnson derives. Whether you personally derive another spiritual benefit, and your personal emconiums about Johnson are irrelevant. They do demonstrate a fundamental failure to understand the ethical issues here, though.

As for your attempted upbrading of lestadelc, all showy and yet itself fact-avoidant both in rebuttal and original arugment--hooey. The essence of M37 is that restriction on land cuts property value.

The specific argument was that the proposed laws in question here "would happen to preserve the character and increase the value of her personal property" and thereby provide her with significant personal benefits not available to others. All your other babbling, such as whether M37 prevents someone from maximizing their financial benefit from their property, or whether that be the only benefit she would happen to want to achieve, much less want to maximize, is irrelevant to that argument.

Your dim-witted babblings also do not speak to the actual effects of land use restrictions and M37 in any signficant way. One at least suspects you might just be trying to make an emotional appeal to the anti-M37 crowd to rally to your side, the only problem with that is that I'm anti-M37, never brought up M37 because M37 has nothing to do with Johnson's actions in question here, and only pointed out that lestadelc's potshot referencing M37 was otherwise vacuous. Throwing in M37 here is nothing more than a distraction offered as a false defense.

Rather than be satisified with that, however, they use that power to essentially rebate the benefit of 50% or more of taxes right back to themselves, under the laughable and always unproven claim they will somehow indirectly deliver benefits to the commonweal if we just let them --- to all practical intents outside of government --- determine the disposition and directly derive the benefits of those taxes.

The use of funds does not expect indirect benefit; they expect direct benefit. The monies are to be used specifically for public aviation infrastructure, drawn from only aviation-related property. The uses afford municipal authorities a 100% veto power.

First, I was referring to proponents of special taxing districts generally. If you are going to use a pronoun ("they"), either state your referent, or make statements that can be assumed to address the implied referent, which in this case are the class of proponents of any special taxing districts.

Second, "indirect benefit" here was an attempt to not overstate the case, meaning simply that the proponents of special taxing districts seek to have revenues collected in the district be expended in some way that benefits the district, although the district taxpayers may not be able to specify exactly how those taxes are expended.

Finally, if you want to play word games because you have nothing else, by all means go ahead. Make the argument that proponents of special taxing districts in general, and the specific proponents in this case, expect "direct benefit", that just makes the ethics questions about 807 all the more significant. Just because an elected municipal official in a rural area would have to approve is not much more than a fig leaf. Just how dumb are you? What interests do you think elected municipal officials are likely to be most "receptive" to in small towns and rural areas? You in fact brought the fact that 807 was written by a private party whose personal interests Johnson shares to the table, and the general nature of the relationships between these people and other political figures in these rural jurisdictions.

As I said, I think the problem here is that you and many folks really have a limited understanding of what ethics in government is all about.