Merkley as Speaker
Jeff Alworth
Note: This is the first of a three-part series of posts on the possible candidacy of Jeff Merkley for US Senator. In subsequent posts, I'll look at his qualifications and likelihood of his winning.
Poor Steve Novick is looking very lonely. As high-profile Dems continue to pass on the opportunity to run against Gordon Smith, Steve's candidacy is looking like the party's last option. That's bad for Novick, who as a political novice needs the the attention of a decent primary challenge; it's also bad for Dems, who need either a high-profile candidate or an energized primary to raise the money and attention needed to defeat an incumbent.
So a possible run by Jeff Merkley is very good news. He would make a great candidate--he has the experience, background, and potential statewide appeal Dems have been looking for (which is why the DSCC has been recruiting him).* But for me, the biggest qualification is how he managed the thin majority he had in the House and came out with such a long list of accomplishments and very little political fallout.
I can fess up and admit that prior to 2007, the name "Jeff Merkley" was not one with strong associations in my brain. He has been in the legislature since '98, but it is--regrettably--not high-profile service (and I actually follow the legislature pretty closely). What I did know is that , after 16 years of being stymied, Dems were going to come into office with a full head of steam, and despite having both houses as well as a willing signer at Mahonia Hall, their one-vote majority in the House wasn't enough to ignore Republicans. Back in January, I worried that Dems would overplay their hand:
The Dems are on a pretty short leash. Oregonians have no great confidence in either party, so the Democratic majority is a provisional one. If they slide into partisanship and invective and fail to accomplish the basic goals Oregonians have, they'll pay a big price. With full control comes full accountability.
Well, you know the result--thanks in large part to Merkley's skill as Speaker, in terms of accomplishments the session was a huge success, and the Dems exit the year far stronger politically than they entered.
When I started poking around for this post, I asked people to tell me anecdotes about Merkley they thought revealed his character. One story that emerged was a curious one: his insistence on changing the rules of the House. Those of you who follow this stuff very closely will recall that Karen Minnis made some pretty serious rules changes to strengthen the GOP and marginalize the Dems. It would have been easy--or tempting, at the very least--for Merkley to have forced Minnis and the GOP to lie in the bed they'd made. Instead, he pushed for sweeping changes that gave the (bare) minority more power. It didn't win him any attention and wouldn't get him any statewide attention. Even the GOP wasn't about to throw a parade.
But what it did was create the kind of comity that ultimately reflected well on the Dems. And more than reflecting well, it was ultimately a pragmatic move, as well. The Dems came into the year with a slate of bills as long as your arm. Some of the issues were mission critical--schools, a rainy day fund, more state troopers, ethics--and some were deeply important to Dems like domestic partnerships, biofuels, some union-friendly measures, and expanding the Bottle Bill. With just a one-vote minority, Republicans could have blocked spending bills and delayed or scuttled others. Instead, Dems managed to get most of what they wanted, including posting some big time wins on the Bottle Bill, rainy day fund, and domestic partnerships. Even their losses resulted in ballot measures that may ultimately carry the day. The only outright setback was on the corporate income tax. But just one strikeout? That's a hell of a batting average.
Perhaps even more impressive than the policy wins were the political wins. During the period she was Speaker, no one doubted that Karen Minnis was effective. But her style of leadership was so poisonous that she created an enormous backlash, both inside the Capitol and across the state. Merkley managed to avoid repeating this mistake, despite stepping into a closely divided House still swimming with bad feelings. Take the domestic partnership case. Dems waited to take it up until after they had gotten a number of things accomplished, notably the rainy-day fund (which even Republicans are claiming as a victory). When they did take it up, Dems allowed a notable exemption that allowed religious groups to make sexual orientation an issue in hiring decisions. It wasn't universally popular, but in the end, Dems managed a bipartisan, 8-vote margin. What might have been a huge rallying cry by the conservative right instead was broadly celebrated as a victory for civil rights.
Down the line, in fact, the Merkley-led Dems managed to win sizable majorities on vote after vote. By the end of the session, Oregonians were broadly satisfied with the job the legislature had done, Republicans were demoralized, and Democrats had set themselves up to expand their majorities and accomplish even more in future sessions.
So it was really during this session that I got to know more about Jeff Merkley, and became enormously impressed with the job he did as Speaker. Oregon has a long tradition of electing the best and brightest from the Oregon legislature for federal office--John Kitzhaber, Earl Blumenauer, even Gordon Smith himself. There's a reason: it's a great proving ground for political skill. The past session was regarded as one of the best in the memory, drawing comparisons to 1973. The chief architect was Jeff Merkley, and no one who watched the past session should doubt that he'd be an able US Senator.
Naysayers have said he doesn't have the experience or the name recognition to beat an incumbent senator (he does and he can), but I'll take these up in subsequent posts.
______
*Yes, it's true that he has a lower profile than Peter DeFazio or Earl Blumenauer, but even this may be something of an advantage. Look for my deep thoughts on that in a later post.
 |
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
Jul 10, '07
Naysayers have said he doesn't have the experience or the name recognition to beat an incumbent senator (he does and he can), but I'll take these up in subsequent posts.
You all really shouldn't link to that. It just encourages him.
7:04 a.m.
Jul 10, '07
The fighter with a hard left hook. The only ones who don't believe in Steve Novick are the one who haven't met Steve Novick. Think Paul Wellstone.
7:58 a.m.
Jul 10, '07
Please stay on topic. We have plenty of other threads where Steve Novick's candidacy is discussed. This isn't one of 'em.
Jul 10, '07
Not really a news flash. Merkley is a stand-up guy who had an astounding session as Speaker. He's good at the politics, taking back the House when few believed the Dems could.
We're asking the wrong question. We know he'd be good.
The Question: Why would we want to lose him as Speaker?
It feels like progressives are just getting started. Worker rights, consumer protections, the environment, reproductive and civil rights were all advanced. Why risk all that for Merkley to be the 52nd or 54th or 55th "Aye" on a cloture vote? After over a decade of Republican rule, we have so much work to do right here.
9:10 a.m.
Jul 10, '07
last October, when Jeff came to the Benton County Dem's Annual Trow Dinner as one of many state Dems to drop by, i asked him a big favor: would he do the "ask"? (i'm an idea guy, and sometimes my planning kind of, how should i put this? sucks?) he was hesitant, said he wasn't very experienced at doing that in a setting like this, but i guess with me in a weeping heap at his feet, he just couldn't say no.
and he was terrific. when i thanked him afterwards, he expressed a certain amount of surprise at how well he'd done, but what it really comes down to is this: Jeff Merkley is a person who, when he decides to do something, refuses to be second-rate. he didn't need time to prepare his words for the ask; he just needed to decide, yes, I'll do it. this is why he was such a greater Speaker and why, if he does run and get the nomination, he will beat Smith. he's just a person of that high quality.
that said, i'm still on Team Novick. but i'll be happy, nay thrilled, to support Jeff if he wins the nomination.
9:17 a.m.
Jul 10, '07
Greenp, this is definitely a good point, and one that hasn't been lost on me. The problem in politics is that there's far too little talent. That's true in the state legislature and the US Congress.
But I think we've turned the corner in Oregon. The Dems have found a nice rhythm, and Republican radicals are getting marginalized. But that's far from true in the Senate, where there is a huge amount of entrenched power that has had a malign effect on the country. It needs new blood and new leadership, and we need folks like Merkley who are interested in governance to lead the way. One example: the people of Oregon are going to have to deal with the decisions of Sam Alito and Chief Justice Roberts for the next generation. There are consequences even for what happens in Washington.
So I say let's get a guy in there who's young, very bright, talented, and ready to lead.
(None of what I've written here or in the main post are intended to comment--even obliquely--on the campaign of Steve Novick. As I said in the post, if we're going to beat Smith, we need more candidates.)
Jul 10, '07
Merkley was definitely very good as speaker (not b>great unless you are saying that in comparison to our last speaker). House Leadership did drop the ball on a few things and played private boys club at times. All that being said it feels like he could really grow next session as Speaker again now that he has his feet firmly planted and this could benefit Oregon greatly. Is that opportunity worth passing up to run against Smith? I keep hearing how vulnerable he is from people but that doesn't mean Merkley is the chosen one to bring him down.
I'd like to see Jeff come back to Salem next session. I don't think he'll take a job that has him out of Oregon and away from his family that much every year.
9:47 a.m.
Jul 10, '07
>As I said in the post, if we're going to beat Smith, we need more candidates
I have seen this said before and I would like to know why you believe this.
If, per Kari, this is not the place for that discussion, then let's have it elsewhere please. But do let's have it.
9:57 a.m.
Jul 10, '07
Greenp: I think I see where you are coming from, but ultimately I disagree. The Democratic bench--in Oregon and nationally--is stacked right now. Granted, for several years we have seen the equivalent of top draft picks sitting on the bench as Republicans controlled government and screwed everything up.
But having the majority has shone light on the actual level of talent of Democratic politicians here and nationally. Just look at the Oregon House: emerging all-stars like Kotek and Gelser, established leaders lke Buckley and Roblan, and veterans like Rosenbaum who demonstrably know how to get things done. While removing Merkley from any group would decrease its combined smarts and doggedness, I don't doubt that the House Democrats will be OK.
On top of all that, it is clearly much less difficult for Democrats to recruit new candidates than Republicans. If we see another crop of top-tier challengers as bad-ass as 2006's (Brading, Clem, Cowan, 7 or 8 guys named "Edwards"), 36 will be within reach.
10:09 a.m.
Jul 10, '07
One more thing.... the flip side of the above coin is the utterly schlub-tastic nature of the Republican recruits last cycle: Al Pearn, Everett Curry--these guys are living in the past. Maybe Lon Mabon can help them take back a seat in Washington County or something.
Jul 10, '07
How could we have won back the House and have the majority in the Senate and yet we can't get someone decent to run against John Lim? I'm not talking about anything he did this session either. If we can't take out a Lim or a Flores then I'm not ready to start talking Smith/Merkley yet.
Please disregard my statement and stay on topic. There are plenty of other threads where this is discussed. This isn't one of 'em.
10:27 a.m.
Jul 10, '07
I rilly rilly heart Jeff too, and think that his performance as both minority leader and speaker has been stellar.
That said, I'm concerned about the aforementioned "bench" in terms of the speaker's spot, should Jeff decide to run for Senate. I can think of a whole list of earnest Portland Libs who could have made a hash of the '07 session through overreaching, verbal faux pas, or just general cluelessness.
And what about FuturePAC? Will a successor be able to keep the ship tight with both Jon Isaacs and Jeff out of the picture? It was one dysfunctional organization before he took the helm.
No replacement is likely to exceed the standards demnstrated by Merkley over the past several years, so I'm wondering who the replacement candidates might be.......
12:10 p.m.
Jul 10, '07
Pat... For starters, FuturePAC is now led by Michele Rossolo - who was a key deputy for Isaacs. If I recall correctly, it's Peter Buckley who is in charge from the member side of things.
The important thing that Jeff Merkley and Jon Isaacs (and the rest of the leadership team) implemented at FuturePAC was a ratcheting up of the full-time, professional approach - earlier and tougher recruiting, a fundraising approach that brought in bigger dollars earlier, an aggressive approach in combating the Rs, and an outward-facing approach to the grassroots.
All of that is imbued now in the culture there -- and will certainly survive Jeff's departure (as it survived Jon's departure six months ago.)
12:11 p.m.
Jul 10, '07
Stephanie V -- An excellent thread to talk about why a competitive primary is a good thing is right here.
5:18 p.m.
Jul 10, '07
I think the lure of a 36 vote working majority (a distinct possibility) and the chance to fundamentally overhaul the Oregon tax code (which is actually something Jeff knows like most people know how to breath) is a compelling reason why Jeff may just stay on as speaker for another term.
The chance to fundamentally alter the tax code (something that we HAVE to do as it is drastically outdated) is something that comes along once in a generation. That said, Merkley, like Novick, would make an outstanding Senator. Either would be a vast improvement on the two-faced lying hack that is Gordon Smith.
Jul 10, '07
Kari, about Future Pac..................
"an outward-facing approach to the grassroots."?
Exactly what grass roots are you talking about? A generic group of people imagined by political professionals who may know few if any local activists outside of Portland? A rural candidate who said DPO was a lot of help but FP wasn't? The local folks who helped the "forgotten" candidates do better than expected?
If someone shows me evidence that the folks at Future Pac knew a year ago, or even in September 2006, that the "outward facing approach to the grassroots" included a realization that Peralta and Gilbertson might do really well even if they lost by a small margin, then I might believe you.
But speaking as one of many local volunteers in downstate Oregon who tried to get friends elected to the Oregon House, it sure seemed as if there were targets and forgotten candidates.
There are many good things Merkley did as Speaker, and he may well be a good US Senate candidate. But it sure did seem as if the House Dem leadership decided in advance who could win and who couldn't, and those who "didn't have a chance" were written off.
Those who believe that approach is what Dean meant by "show up everywhere, contest everything" or who sided with Rahm Emanuel against Dean's 50 state project should go to small county party meetings and explain why Dean's approach is wrong outside of the "we have limited resources and need to target" mantra which some treat as doctrine all Democrats should accept.
There was lots of sloppy talk last year about what it took to be considered a "serious" candidate, including unreal amounts of "seed money". The summary C&E reports are available to anyone who can get online, even those of us with slow dialup connections. Anyone saying a 2008 candidate must have "seed money" well in excess of the Peralta and Gilbertson April 2006 C & E summaries deserves to be laughed to scorn.
Money buys some things, but there are other things it cannot buy. "Well, if you've known his family so long that your sister used to babysit when he was little, your opinion of him matters" (or other version of "watched the candidate grow up")
"Really liked what the guy said about...."
"His Q & A was admirable, but his speech was sloppy and lacking in detail"
"Everybody here knows him!"
are all the sort of thing ordinary folks might say to each other. All the "seed money" in the world (or all the "we're professionals, and we know which districts to target because we have a plan") won't encourage support from someone who is lukewarm or hostile to a candidate to vote for that person, or discourage support from someone who is a longtime friend of a candidate.
11:28 p.m.
Jul 10, '07
LT: Do you think that Future PAC should give the same amount of money to every Democrat? We would lose seats, every cycle.
This might sound like splitting hairs, but how can you judge an institution's relationship with activists based on the campaigns it does NOT get heavilly involved with? Ask the Lincoln County Democratic Central Committee whether or not they thought their membership was engaged and involved with Cowan's successful challenge. They didn't interact with Future PAC much, but why would they? If you consider yourself part of the grassroots, and you can go out and walk with the candidate herself, why the hell do you care about some person in an office in Portland? Especially when House campaigns have their own local staff and office and so forth.
Apparently, some people think the job of a campaign committee is to make everyone happy. Others think the job of a campaign committee is to deliver a majority. The latter types hire people like Isaacs and Rossolo, who then make hard decisions and deliver actual victories.
Let me ask you this, LT. You complain that the notion of having limited resources is treated as a "doctrine all Democrats should accept." If resources are really not limited, why would Future PAC be of any concern to you? Why didn't you, LT, just raise your candidate of choice $200,000 and just tell Future PAC to go to hell?
11:45 p.m.
Jul 10, '07
LT, I'm pretty sure there's nothing I can tell you to convince you otherwise, since you've been peddling that "FuturePAC 2006 was the same as FuturePAC has always been" line for too long to change your mind now.
But the several thousand folks on the FuturePAC email list, whose feedback was solicited and acted upon know that 2006 was a different ballgame.
Were there races that were surprisingly close? You bet. There always will be. That's why they're called surprises. Was there anyone who knew well in advance that Sal Peralta (359 votes), Mike Moran (882 votes) Jim Gilbertson (280 votes), and Jim Gilbert (1686 votes) were all going to be that close? I don't think so.
And even if you had some idea (and in Peralta's case, we did and late money arrived), which races would YOU have diverted funds from? Chris Edwards (1063 votes)? Jean Cowan (792 votes)? Rob Brading (690 votes)?
The ones that fall short always seem to get much more attention than the ones barely over the finish line. I remember two weeks out, when lobbyists and insiders were telling me, "Chris Edwards is a nice guy, but everyone knows you can't beat Debi Farr. Everybody loves the Farrs."
But what you didn't know then and don't know now, is what the polling says, how the voter IDs are coming in, how the other side is spending money.
It's really easy to say NOW, with perfect hindsight, "Well, golly, we should have cut off the last $250,000 for Rob Brading - and spent that on Peralta, Gilbert, Moran, and Gilbertson!"
Of course, if they had, it's likely that the last $400,000 for Karen Minnis would have landed as $100,000 each in Cowan, Edwards, Edwards, and Clem. And then, where would we be?
Ultimately, you take the best data you have, make the best educated guesses you can, and live with the consequences.
Oregon House Democrats hadn't picked up a SINGLE seat in a non-presidential year since 1982. Oregon House Democrats hadn't picked up FOUR seats in ANY election since 1974.
I'm pretty happy with the election results in 2006, and their policy accomplishments in 2007. Why aren't you?
11:52 p.m.
Jul 10, '07
Bwah ha ha!!! Thanks, Patton. I didn't even see that absurd line from LT about how the Democrats have an unlimited pot of gold at the end of the rainbow - and are simply sitting on money that they could be giving away to candidates.... Hilarious!
That's right, we all support the "we have limited resources and need to target" mantra which some treat as doctrine all Democrats should accept because we think it's fun to watch candidates struggle without funding. That's really funny.
LT, you really are a one-of-a-kind gem. Unlimited money. Now that's a good one! You should try stand-up comedy sometime!
12:04 a.m.
Jul 11, '07
Anyone who thinks Future Pac doesn't care about the entire state should have see the Emerging Leaders Day that was held last month in Salem.
We had more than 100 potential candidates in attendance - almost one from every district, and a couple from some others.
It's terrible, but true, that FP doesn't have the resources to give to everyone. Sometimes you have to choose, and sometimes you find out late that you should have spent money somewhere else.
People keep talking about the money spent in Brading's race being a waste because he lost. However, we cut Minnis' win margin down even more. She knows she doesn't have a chance in 2008, and she's retiring. If I read the C&Es correctly, she had $1,244,415 to spend in the 2006 Primary and General election cycles. She spent $1,032,438. Where do you think that million would have gone had she not faced a hard challenge in her district?
I think Merkley's done a really good job as Speaker. And I'd like to see him continue for at least one more term. There's still a lot to do, and we're not at 36 (or more) yet.
I'd like to see my district (HD 49-Minnis) represented by a Democrat. I'd like to see my old district represented by a Democrat (HD 50-Lim). And I'd like to see the neighboring district represented by a Dem (HD 52-Patti Smith). Those are just 3 of what we need to get to 36.
12:16 a.m.
Jul 11, '07
Just for comparison...
Minnis spent approximately $208,673 in the 2004 election.
That's a difference of about $823,765 between 2004 and 2006.
If contributors were willing to give that much to Minnis, they'd have been willing to give it elsewhere. Or Minnis would have spread it around like she did previously.
<hr/>Kari, you're right. That is a funny one...
Future PAC 2006 Election Cycle:
Primary: Beginning cash balance: $187,122 Contributions: $65,413 Expenditures: $65,441
General: Beginning cash balance: $41,170 Contributions: $389,033 Expenditures: $414,520 Ending cash balance: $16,448
Yea, they were just sitting on a gold mine, weren't they.
Jul 11, '07
Patton, I am talking about the old days before Future Pac--some of us are able to remember those days.
Some pretty high quality people got elected to the legislature back then--people like Peter Courtney, Jim Hill, John Kitzhaber, Ted Kulongoski, Bill Bradbury, Darlene Hooley, Grattan Kerans, Hardy Myers and others. They did pretty well for themselves (a Senate President, Member of Congress, Sec. of State and other statewide elected officials on that list).
But gosh, how could they have done that without "professionals" in an office in Portland running the House Dem. campaign effort?
If Future Pac wants to publicly announce they are supporting a short list of candidates, that's fine. The residents of the other districts would then know not to bother with House Dems, and if any of those non-FP target candidates win, what would they owe to the party leadership?
This is why there is a movement towards a nonpartisan legislature.
My question is who decides who the "top tier" challengers are? Current state reps with no input from the people living in the districts? Staffers in the FP office? Whatever happened to "we the people"?
Patton, if you are representative of the Democratic Party, you are a good reason for people like me not to be registered Democrats after the primary. If all decisions are made for party members by a small group of people without public input (what is the relationship between State Central Comm. and FP, for instance, or is that a taboo question?) then why is the DPO "democratic" in the sense of "power retained by the people"? (dictionary definition)
20 years ago when I was active in the Democratic Party from local to state level, there was no Future Pac. It is a much more recent creation.
Kari said "The important thing that Jeff Merkley and Jon Isaacs (and the rest of the leadership team) implemented at FuturePAC was a ratcheting up of the full-time, professional approach - earlier and tougher recruiting, a fundraising approach that brought in bigger dollars earlier, an aggressive approach in combating the Rs, and an outward-facing approach to the grassroots."
If it is somehow subversive to ask if "the grassroots" is ordinary folks living all over the state or just some stereotyped group (like "young voters, union voters, environmental voters, women voters, etc. ) as if there are no individuals involved in politics these days, why bother if one is not on the paid staff of a campaign. There are better things to do than be patronized as a member of "the grassroots" unless one is campaigning for a personal friend.
Who does the "earlier and tougher recruiting" aim at? Or is that also a subversive question because the caucus knows all and we ordinary folks should shut up?
Why did it take the "professionals" this long to get to 31? Could it be that residents of districts know their districts better than people in some central office? About fundraising that brings in "bigger dollars earlier", exactly where did it come from and how was it spent? Who does the oversight? Suppose some of the money and energy used in an effort to defeat Karen Minnis had gone to the effort to defeat Wayne Scott instead? Or should only "professionals" discuss that?
Do those who believe Supreme Court Justice Linde (most recently of the Public Comm. on the Legislature) when he talks about the legal status of "pass throughs" (FP seems to be one huge pass through--do people contribute to FP so that their names don't show up on candidate C & E's?) belong in the Democratic Party, or when the primary is over, should they re-register NAV?
It would be nice if someone like Michelle, or Peter, or any of the "5 under 35 " legislators would weigh in on this topic, perhaps with a column explaining the process--and why ordinary Joe or Jane Oregon Democrat should believe in Future Pac.
Election of legislators used to be a lot more open than it is now. If saying that makes me some kind of subversive, it also makes me someone who would ask Jeff Merkley about these issues if I ever saw him at any event (running for US Senate or not), someone who has discussed the above with current and former legislators and activists, and someone who doesn't think FP has the answer to everything.
And no, I don't think necessarily that FP should give the same amount to everyone. I just think that if it is to continue, it should be open, above board, and there should be oversight by all the members of the caucus. If, for instance, a check is promised to each rural candidate after the primary, there had better be someone checking by this time next year with each rural candidate to see if they got their check. All members of the caucus should know about all business dealings in the name of the caucus or FP (if only to banish the nightmare name of Dix for those who remember how the majority was lost the last time around).
There should be oversight of the staff so there aren't wild rumors running around that someone needs a ridiculous amount of "seed money" before Filing Day, or needs to have knocked on a ridiculous number of doors by the end of February (unless all Democratic candidates are required in writing to do the same).
The people who actually file for office should not be given that "sorry your district has a lousy R to D ratio nonsense" (look at the R to D ratio of Dist. 24 and 59, for instance). Who dreams up that sort of nonsense, and have they ever had a real job or just done politics their entire adult life?
Patton, if you want 36 Democrats elected, are you willing to go to those districts still represented by Republicans and tell the local Democrats whether their candidate has any chance or not? For that matter, why should anyone run in the non-target districts?
I spent thousands of hours over 30 years volunteering on Democratic campaigns, and got the first Democrat ever elected in my district elected to the Oregon House. We didn't do it with outside help. We did it with a local candidate, local campaign manager and steering committee, lots of door to door and neighborhood coffees and some newspaper ads---and a lot of local enthusisam.
I don't know who started Future Pac, when it was started, or why we are all supposed to believe in it just ecause "professionals" tell us we should.
Maybe someone actively involved could explain to me how they are going to recruit people in previously "forgotten" districts if the incumbent Republican decides not to run for re-election. If a candidate who ran before or is friends of someone who ran before says to a recruiter "This is what I need before I decide to run" (too many candidates ended up going into their personal savings in previous years because the money just wasn't there and it was September or October) and they don't get the assurances they seek, why should they disrupt their lives and run for office?
Or are those questions too tough on a hot summer night?
Jul 11, '07
"Bwah ha ha!!! Thanks, Patton. I didn't even see that absurd line from LT about how the Democrats have an unlimited pot of gold at the end of the rainbow - and are simply sitting on money that they could be giving away to candidates.... Hilarious!"
You are missing the point that I said there are some things money can't buy. For instance, it can't buy "we're sorry, our scarce resources must go to other candidates, but here is some help with organizing your campaign (hands on help, not just giving them a notebook, for instance).
Money doesn't buy straight answers on what to expect if someone who has built a life in a community not involving legislative politics decides they have the time and energy to run for office.
Money doesn't buy experienced people having a heart to heart talk with prospective candidates about what they can expect, or someone from the caucus actually visiting the district to see that Cowan's district is diff. than Clem's district is different than any Portland district, is different from the districts where Peralta, Gilbert, Gilbertson ran.
Money doesn't buy the common courtesy of returning phone calls.
But who am I, just a long time battle scarred political veteran local activist. If I knew anything, I'd be a young person on a political payroll somewhere, because politics is all about money, not about people?
1:39 a.m.
Jul 11, '07
Future PAC and the DPO work together, but as far as I know, they are run as two separate entities. The DPO doesn't get to make decisions for FP, and FO doesn't get to make decisions for the DPO.
If people want to see more resources for candidates, I highly encourage getting involved in the DPO's Campaign Committee. We're working on several projects to help candidates in the '08 election cycle. But we need more help. There's a lot of work to get done, and the end product will be a lot better if more people are involved.
You do not need to be a SCC delegate, or even an "official" member of the committee to participate.
Projects we're working on include some intense trainings for party officers and volunteers, candidates, potential candidates, and campaign staff. Also a "campaign in a box" and a survey of candidates who ran in '08 (particularly those who weren't targeted).
Personally, I am working on the training.
8:53 a.m.
Jul 11, '07
We didn't do it with outside help. We did it with a local candidate, local campaign manager and steering committee, lots of door to door and neighborhood coffees and some newspaper ads---and a lot of local enthusisam.
This is absolutely a valid, time-tested, and fantastic way to do things. I see no one in this thread discouraging that approach. How is Future PAC preventing you from doing this again in your local legislative district?
Money doesn't buy straight answers on what to expect if someone who has built a life in a community not involving legislative politics decides they have the time and energy to run for office.
This comment kind of makes my head spin. The #1 "straight answer" for a prospective candidate--the most important thing you can say in order to make sure they understand what a slog they are committing to--is "you will have to raise at least $100,000." That IS a straight answer! If you don't like the answer, or don't think it is true, that's one thing. But to blast the answer itself and THEN rip them about a lack of "straight answers"...
(Oh, and to be clear I am not a representative of anyone or anything. I do have that special kind of insider credibility that only comes from being unemployed.)
Jul 11, '07
Jenni, if DPO is nowhere on the FP C & E, and if FP is nowhere on the FP C & E, then your comment is valid. Otherwise, it would seem at the very least the members of the state central comm. (who do approve the budget ) should know about any relationship which is in their C & E report.
Interesting that Peralta and Gilbertson got so close. The FP filing online says they were created in 1993. In the 1992 election, the district incl. McMinnville and Dist. 59 elected Democrats. How could they possibly have done that before the creation of Future Pac? (Sarcastic remark )
Patton, your "straight answer" ignores the reality of small town Oregon. According to the C & E reports filed in late October,
$ 13,230 Peralta
$ 13,894 Gilbertson
they came very close in districts which weren't supposed to be competitive---and with less than $20,000 in contributions! But how is that possible when "conventional wisdom" has been that a "serious" candidate spends more time raising sums above that than they do out campaigning and talking to folks in the district?
9:41 a.m.
Jul 11, '07
So let me get this straight. You are saying that:
Locally focused campaigns that emphasize voter contact above fundraising and media are preferable.
Future PAC doesn't get that and sucks at that kind of campaign. And....
You wish that Future PAC were involved with more campaigns.
I think that the first two points depend on a false dichotomy (and I think #2 is wrong), but at least they have a certain logic to them. What I don't get is why you aren't happy when Future PAC fails to strongly support your favorite candidate. You think they're idiots, remember?
I am going to bow out of this conversation. I don't think we're really communicating with each other. Stay cool today!
5:02 p.m.
Jul 11, '07
Of course FP and DPO are going to be on each other's C&E reports.
First of all, FP has office space inside the building the DPO leases. They pay for rent, electricity, copier access, internet, etc. to the DPO just like the Mult Dems and other groups inside the building do.
Second, since it is the organization the House Dems have for electing more House Dems, it only makes sense that the DPO is likely to give money to FP. Just like they do with official Dem organizations all over the state (Senate Dems, county parties).
DPO also handles payroll-type stuff. Not that they pay it (FP pays it), but that they handle the processing and such - and it's cheaper rates for the health insurance because you're buying for more people.
5:22 p.m.
Jul 11, '07
The straight answer is that you don't need $100,000 to be competitive in a non-targeted race in a walkable district, and unless you are targeted, there is very few non-incumbent state legislative candidates who can raise $100,000 on their own.
Rob Brading couldn't raise that kind of dough on his own in 2004. I built my campaign plan in 2006 to raise and spend roughly $30,000 for both cycles.
LT is right when she says that most Democratic activists (i.e., members of the state central committee) don't have very much actual knowledge about how the coordinated campaign operates, nor where most of the DPO's money comes from or where it is allocated and why during election campaigns.
Jenni, much of Future Pac's influence stems from their ability to direct other people's money to candidates on their target list. There's a reason why Brading raised $50,000 in 2004 and $500,000 in 2006.
7:43 p.m.
Jul 11, '07
I don't know about in the past, but I know now that the SCC gives out a detailed report regarding where the incoming money came from and where the money is being spent. The report is supposed to become even more detailed soon, according to the last SCC meeting.
It's also extremely easy to pull a C&E report. You can even download it into Excel and sort it in any way you'd like. For those without computers, it's not too hard to get a copy, since it's public information. You can probably get a copy from the SOS, although the DPO or a fellow Dem could probably print it for you as well.
The coordinated campaign is a lot more complex since there are so many parts, and depending on the year and the top candidate, sometimes those decisions aren't in the hands of the DPO. There are a lot of players in that discussion - DPO, FP, SDLF, and the governor's campaign or presidential campaign. Getting involved in the Campaign Committee is a good way to be involved in decisions about what the state party does in that area.
The fact is there isn't enough time in SCC meetings for them to go over every aspect of what's happening. That's why we have committees and committee meetings that work on the fine details. They then report back to the SCC. There are often times detailed reports on the information table as well, but not everyone picks them up and/or reads them.
Like I said, I don't know a lot about past years. But so far this year, things have been really good as far as reports back from committees, information from the state party, etc.
I realize that FP do a lot in directing other people's money to candidates in their target list. I never said otherwise. I just pointed out that people often times make more of the relationship between the DPO and FP than there really is.
Jul 11, '07
Sal, you are a genius! Thank you for your comments and please tell us you will run for office again.
You framed the philosophical debate better than anyone else has. Basically, the question is this: Is politics about relationships, neighbors, what the local folks want? Or is it about people who make a living in politics, about various types of polls and ads and mailers and door hangers and websites and all the other modern campaign tactics and apparatus?
You said "Rob Brading couldn't raise that kind of dough on his own in 2004. I built my campaign plan in 2006 to raise and spend roughly $30,000 for both cycles."
That is the point many have been making for a long time. FP in their wisdom didn't believe in Brading in 2004 and made him their top priority in 2006. How many people participated in that decision? Was the decision democracy with a small d, or was it a small group of Democrats making the decision without much outside input?
Sal, you talk about building your campaign plan. Where did you learn how to do that? You wrote a wonderful comment here sometime back about lessons for non-target candidates which maybe someone will publish again as a topic by itself. It should be required reading for all candidates, and for the best ways House Dems. could help challengers.
Kari had a sarcastic comment awhile back claiming I was saying all candidates should have the same amount of money from FP. No, but they all deserve to be treated as individuals worthy of respect as potential legislators, not to mention as local citizens willing to disrupt their lives to run for office. How much would it cost to have workshops in writing campaign plans, finding campaign staff, matching the campaign tactics to the district? If FP isn't set up to do that, what about DPO campaign committee? Could they travel around the state giving workshops?
Some years ago, the son of someone I had known for years (friend of a friend) ran for state rep. in a rural district. That district had once been represented by a rural Dem. whose family was very well known in the district. When that person left office, the district went Republican and this young man was trying to change that. I ran into a retired former co-worker who turned out to live in the district. There had been a newspaper ad or news coverage or something which prompted my question. The former co-worker said "where I live, we don't pay attention to ads or anything like that--just get together and discuss what we think of the various candidates and who we like the best".
That may well be the norm in more small towns in Oregon than many in big cities would like to imagine. What would be more likely to work in such a district--having a business where people drive by a building with candidate's name on it (or otherwise be well known locally) or having a ton of money to do ads in the district?
Isn't that the sort of question which should be debated in places like FP and the DPO campaign committee?
Thanks, Jenni, for a better explanation of the DPO/FP relationship than I have ever seen before.
Sal, you framed the debate with this statement: "Jenni, much of Future Pac's influence stems from their ability to direct other people's money to candidates on their target list. There's a reason why Brading raised $50,000 in 2004 and $500,000 in 2006."
The philosophical debate is this: What is the prime directive for FP? Is it electing more Democrats to the Oregon House from around the state? Or is it having influence from "their ability to direct other people's money to candidates on their target list"?
A party unwilling to debate that question (and also unwilling to debate some of the ideas in the final Public Comm. on the Legislature report such as the role of campaign finance pass throughs and the possibility of a non-partisan legislature) is a party in danger of going stale and losing support to NAV.
The great Joe Trippi was once asked in an interview "but doesn't that hurt your side of the debate?" and he said, "You are missing the point---the point is to HAVE the debate!". That's what I think would be healthy for Oregon politics--to have such philosophical debates among Democrats as we haven't had in quite some time.
One more debate it would be healthy to have (and Jeff Merkley might want to lead it, given his very interesting background) is a debate on the meaning of this quote from Teddy Roosevelt:
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be great or a democracy."
Debate could center on the definition of "democracy" and "progressive" and the role of various sectors of 21st century politics. Not to mention the similarities/ differences between today's political issues and those of Teddy Roosevelt's day.
For those of you who don't recognize the quote, look at the Oregon Bus Project bus the next time you see it. The quote is on one side of the bus.
11:35 p.m.
Jul 11, '07
How much would it cost to have workshops in writing campaign plans, finding campaign staff, matching the campaign tactics to the district?
Really, that's what you want? Campaign workshops? For the love of god... THEY ALREADY DO THAT.
Not only does FuturePAC do candidate and manager trainings, but so does OLCV and WIN-PAC and others. In 2003, Ted K paid for a bunch of trainers to do a "Camp Kulongoski". Good lord almighty.
I can't believa that this is all it's about. Ugh.
12:05 a.m.
Jul 12, '07
LT:
Not a problem. Most of it was pretty easy for me to figure out, just by going through some C&Es and working with them some over the past few years.
Kari:
And if plans go well, we'll be expanding that even more next year. The DPO Campaign Committee is working on a campaign in a box, a "yellow book," filled with information on who to go to for everything your campaign needs (signs, remit envelopes, whatever), and a huge training module. I'm heading up the training module, although I have to admit that between getting sick and the holiday, I'm behind on the contacts I need to make before our July 21 meeting in Grants Pass.
Jul 12, '07
"Not only does FuturePAC do candidate and manager trainings, but so does OLCV and WIN-PAC and others. In 2003, Ted K paid for a bunch of trainers to do a "Camp Kulongoski". Good lord almighty. "
Where were the trainings held? Were they aimed at those like Sal who already knew how to write a campaign plan, or at the folks who were running for office for the first time and didn't know how to do the basics?
Anyone who does training (or has been given training) for their job knows that "we gave you the training, why don't you understand how to handle that situation without asking for help?" ignores the real world. There are people who need to practice something repeatedly, others who catch on right away, or say "gee this situation wasn't covered in the training".
I hope the trainers didn't have a "why don't you already know this stuff?" attitude. If Sal or any other candidate attended the training sessions, perhaps they could report whether they considered them useful.
Were those trainings accessible to people in small town Oregon thinking of running, did they do the nuts and bolts of "how to do a campaign plan, how to find a campaign manager", etc, were they evaluated by the clients (candidates and potential candidates) or Kari, are you just saying "they had the workshops, therefore every aspiring candidate had the opportunity to know what they needed to know"?
Jenni's campaign in a box sounds like it might be more useful--especially for those districts where the drive to the big city takes a lot of time and a lot of gas money (not to mention car upkeep). Not everyone has a new car and the time to drive long distances outside of their district.
8:30 a.m.
Jul 12, '07
LT - Your comments about treating people with respect are well-taken. So far as I can tell, the treatment of candidates by paid professional staff is varied. For the most part, people treated me with respect. There were a few organizations and ED's who didn't have time for anyone not on the target list (in my case, this was more true for the issues groups than for labor, trade associations, and the farmers), but by-in-large, I have few complaints.
Before I ran, Barbara Roberts and Harry Lonsdale both told me that people whom I knew and trusted would not support me, but that I would find support in places that I'd never expect it. They were entirely correct.
I've already listed my suggestions for candidates who are not on the target list.
I can say in all honesty that although I believe I would have won my race if leadership and some of the staff at FP had believed it was competitive earlier, I have no real complaints with how they treated me given their limited resources.
It's important to remember that the R's spent over $1 million more on contested races than did the D's.
As for training...
I wasn't aware of 2 of the sessions Kari mentioned, and I did not attend the FP training. I already had a campaign plan, budget, and an idea of how I wanted to raise money. I think I was canvassing on both days that training was offered.
7:15 p.m.
Jul 12, '07
I don't know about the FP trainings. However, I do know about the ones the work group I am on is working to put together.
The kick-off one would be in Portland. We figured that would be good since getting our trainers to other parts of the state in January could be hard, plus we are likley to improve the training after the first one, and we'd rather have the improved ones in the areas of the state that don't get as much attention and training - messing up there would be a greater harm than it would be in Portland.
<h2>However, the plan is for more trainings around the state. And to have materials for every one of these trainings (and videos put on DVD would be great) so that those could be given to candidates who can't get to one of the trainings.</h2>