TJ, for once you and I agree:

I'm also curious as to the field effort for these campaigns. What entity was handling canvassing for the House candidates, and what were the details of their effort?

Future Pac has outlived usefulness because it seems more interested in establishing criteria for how candidates should behave (those who file on Filing Day should be totally organized according to FP criteria---organized campaign incl. full time campaign manager, certain amount of money donated, certain amount of door to door visits, etc. by April 1?) than to giving them concrete help (technical assistance like helping them find campaign treasurers, recruiting volunteers, techniques of fundraising, etc). It is almost as if they say "Glad you filed, but if you can't meet the Future Pac deadlines and the criteria you are on your own".

But I don't blame just Merkley. If memory serves, Future Pac existed before Merkley was elected to the legislature.

How about a Rendell-style truce? Gov. Rendell, a HR Clinton supporter, suggested putting all extraneous issues to the side so we could hear Clinton and Obama debating topics that matter: mortgage meltdown, war in Iraq, health care, etc.

I would like to propose something similar at least for this week (given the upcoming Portland City Club debate which will be broadcast on OPB that night).

Let's say that at least for this week the focus will be on federal matters. No discussion of anything at the legisalture, no discussion of a court decision on the lottery or who runs which ads or who thinks their campaign has been insulted. FEDERAL issues for the folks who are just tuning in to this race and deciding if they think anyone is a good replacement for Gordon Smith.

Let's focus on FEDERAL issues for a change:

Breaking news: HUD Chief Jackson Resigns Under Pressure NPR.org, March 31, 2008 · The Bush administration's top housing official resigned Monday amid a criminal investigation and a lawsuit over alleged favoritism in awarding contracts.

Housing and Urban Development Secretary Alphonso Jackson did not say why he was stepping down, but some prominent Democrats in Congress have called for his resignation. `````` There is an excellent commentary on the Washington Post site now. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/27/AR2008032702405.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

The Smart Way Out of a Foolish War By Zbigniew BrzezinskiSunday, March 30, 2008; Page B03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sen. Chuck Hagel was on Charlie Rose talking about Iraq and his friend Sen. McCain who he disagrees with, "Yes, we do have some responsibility for having invaded Iraq...but to send our troops back for 3rd and 4th 15 month deployments? ...I think my friend John crossed the line there". (not an exact quote, but close).

There are Blue Oregonians who may not believe this, but there ARE people who have not made up their minds on this race. Including a friend of mine very excited about canvassing for Obama but not very strong feelings one way or the other on US Senate. Including a friend who said he and his wife have just decided to change their registration to Democrat, and I responded "well that is where all the interesting primaries are".

It is long past time to debate whether we had better legislative campaigns in this state before they were centralized into caucus campaign-arm operations. But that is for another day.

Right now, this week, I'd like to see the US Senate candidates discussing the above topics, whether they agree with Sen. Webb's bill with the 50 co-sponsors to give current returning veterans the kind of education benefits which were given to WWII returning veterans, whether they support the Dodd-Frank efforts to return some sanity to our financial system in this country.

I will be seeing one of our Congressional candidates speak to a local Democratic luncheon this week, and will be looking at whether the Congressional campaign is more oriented towards federal issues than the US Senate campaign.

US Senate is a FEDERAL race, and if the candidates are as wise as their supporters give them credit for, they will spend this week in debate prep so they can discuss any and all federal issues on Friday at the Portland City Club.

If they can't discuss federal issues, is the message that they think voters don't care about federal issues in a federal election? Or that they are too wrapped up in a competition among themselves to care what voters think?

FuturePAC has not outlived their usefullness. I may not always agree with how FuturePAC selects races to focus on, or how they support their selected candidates, but they do a really good job of getting Dems elected to the Oregon House.

We need them now more than ever so we can expand our majority over the 36 threshhold. They play to win. They make hard decisions with limited resources. They do their job well.

You don't have to like them, but you have to respect their effectiveness.

Effectiveness? Did they not see that Gilbertson and Peralta were worthy candidates, or were they blinded by that "lousy R to D ratio" nonsense and believe it was impossible for someone in Yamhill County or E. Oregon to come anywhere close to winning?

Not to mention underfunded candidates elsewhere doing better than expected without a paid campaign manager or lots of organizational support.

It is the same mentality DCCC used in 1988---Oregon pollster couldn't know anything, the 5th Dist. candidate didn't have a chance according to the DCCC pollster, therefore the candidate didn't have a chance.

The apology letter sent after the recount didn't win friends among the people in the 5th District who had worked on the Congressional campaign.

Perhaps someone can explain this for me. If a candidate files on the last day (Filing Day) how does sending them something saying they should have certain features of their campaign (full time campaign manager, campaign plan acceptable to the caucus, a certain amount of money raised, a certain number of homes visited, etc.) by a deadline in April (but without any technical assistance to meet those goals) fit in with "they do a really good job of getting Dems elected to the Oregon House...........but you have to respect their effectiveness".

It almost suggests the Wizard of Oz analogy. If the curtain were to be pulled back and the actual activities of FP examined (not necessarily here in public, but in conversations among activist Democrats) what would be determined to be the first, second, and third most effective actions of FP in the last 3 or 4 election cycles? What is their win/loss ratio? If downstate Democrats have been saying for years "why is it taking so long to win back the majority?" (it did take 16 years), are they just being subversive because FP has always known what they were doing and should never be questioned?

And about those requirements.... If someone had raised $10,000 by April 1 of any of the last 4 election years, did that person win? Did that person become a FP target?

Who are the "approved vendors" anyway? If someone has a fully qualified union bug printer in their town, why should stuff be sent up to the caucus "approved vendors" to be printed and mailed (as it says on the list of criteria)?

I have seen the list of expectations from FP (which a staffer said over the phone "have been fully vetted by the staff") and I don't understand how that list will convince local voters to vote for the Democrat. Exactly what specifically do FP staff do which ensure that candidates win in the fall? Why do they deserve the salaries they are paid? What were their qualifications for working at FP-- working on at least one successful legislative election? Or is this a case of "We are FP, we know what we are doing, no one should ask questions"?

But then, I worked on legislative campaigns prior to the creation of FP in 1993, and I don't see how centrally controlling the campaign effort (esp. if there is a target/forgotten candidate aspect) gets to 36 seats.

There may well be (has been talk already) organization(s) outside of Portland helping legislative candidates. If that happens and any of those candidates get elected, then they are full fledged members of the House Democratic caucus fully qualified to elect leadership, debate the future role of the caucus, etc. I've talked with people about this for years, including a very intelligent conversation with St. Rep. Arnie Roblan in 2007.

Last time I looked the Oregon Constitution began, "We the people of the state of Oregon..." and nowhere does it say legislative caucuses have the right to tell people living in the various legislative districts how to run their campaigns.

Great post, LT. There are many reasons to question the effectiveness of FP if you delve deep enough and you did a nice job breaking down some of the major issues.

I would love to see this become something more discussed in the activist community here in the state. There seems to be an obvious disconnect between some of our organizational (campaign) leadership and the rest of the state (outside the limits of PDX).

Sorry, Kevin, I have to agree with TJ on this one.

"FP offered little in the way of ANY help to some candidates who deserved it."

Anon, as Howard Dean said in his book, if you want leadership, look in a mirror.

What I am about to suggest is such an effective communication mechanism a shampoo once used it in a commercial.

If you want something "discussed in the activist community", just discuss it with 2 or 3 friends--tell them why you think this is an important discussion.

Then, as the commercial said, if they tell 2 friends, and each of those tell 2 friends, etc. eventually there are a lot of people talking about it. This is how, by 1988, we were able to change the Oregon Democratic Platform from a book of maybe 50 pages no one would read (except people trying to find something to make a big deal about) to a one page document short enough to be a full page ad in a small town paper.

This is how all sorts of other changes take place. No money involved, no consultants, no polling, just a few people talking together in a way that goes back centuries. Ask a legislative candidate if they like the current structure or, if elected, whether they would push to change or eliminate it. Go out canvassing with a partner and discuss it while walking between houses. You will know the issue is reaching critical mass if someone says "You know, someone else mentioned that to me last week. Didn't realize people are concerned about this."

Some of us have been discussing this for multiple election cycles.

There is a Margaret Mead quote that we should never discount the power of a small group of people, as they are the only way change happens.

Some people say this is the biggest presidential primary in 40 years, others point to 1976 and 1984 as other examples.

Part of the power of the 1984 Hart campaign was just this old fashioned form of campaigning. In a variety of ways, activists and others tired of "we have always done it that way" joined the Hart (and to a lesser extent Jesse Jackson) campaigns and made a real difference. The sort of thing that Obama and Huckabee did in Iowa---they weren't supposed to win, so how come they did!?

If you know anyone on the DPO Rural Caucus, at one time there was some talk that they would support candidates who were not FP targets. Not sure if anything came of that. But do know that sometimes unexpected change happens by the prarie fire analogy---the dry grass was there, all it needed was a spark to set it off. There is enough dry grass now from people who devoted a lot of spare time to campaigns FP deemed not worthwhile, and then did better than expected but did not win.

No, I don't think the Republicans would still have control of the Oregon House if FP had done anything differently. If they had taken 10% of the attention they gave to Brading and given it to Gilbertson or Peralta, there would not have been a 31 majority? Why? Because that is an article of faith with some people?

"We the people" was a radical idea when the Constitution was written. To some in politics, that is still a subversive concept.

"Your hew to history rather makes my point, I think. FP, like many consultancy driven campaigns, runs elections using the CW of the previous one"

How true!

Kari, I think the problem is that this is something that has been simmering below the surface for many years. The claims to omnicience from FP and others on a political payroll wore thin a long time ago.

It has been an "underground" discussion, much like the tectonic theory of politics where things simmer below the surface until there is an earthquake. There is a Czech word for such underground news and literature that many Vaclaw Havel fans know: samizdat.

An explanation from one website: "Samizdat was the illegal publication of magazines or books that were not sanctioned by the Communist government......It was in samizdat publications that one could find out who in the underground had been arrested or imprisoned, what was really happening in the country."

There seem to be people here who don't know the political history of 100 years ago and what the Progressive Party and similar activists stood for.

http://regentsprep.org/Regents/ushisgov/themes/reform/progressive.htm The Progressive Movement (1901-1917) was initiated as a response to political and corporate abuses at the turn of the Twentieth Century. Religious groups, members of the press, and radical political groups all cried out for reform.

Progressives didn't create political machines, they fought them. They didn't want the hand-picked candidates of the machine, but open elections (partly what lead to primaries). To the extent that there are Democrats who smell political machine in FP, calling the folks on their payroll progressive activists won't change that.

What some people don't want to admit is that there have been close elections in the past which didn't get establishment attention because the candidate "couldn't possibly win" or some such rot. If the phrase "lousy R to D ratio" had never been used in public, people might not be so angry. In a time of over 20% registered outside major parties, is the number of registered Republicans and Democrats really relevant to a candidate's chances?

There have been times when FP said it took X dollars in order to win a state rep. race. Well, OK, is there documentation that every candidate who raises and spends X dollars wins? Does anyone ever win by spending less than X dollars?

Do personal connections and the ability to go door to door when an incumbent is too cocky or lazy to do so count, or is it all about money and satifying those who believe consultants have the revealed truth? Does employment with FP or with a caucus member confer more knowledge of any given district outside their own than anyone living in that district could ever gain?

This isn't the first time that the decisions of FP don't look good in hindsight. This time (2006)Brading got all the attention. But how much establishment help did he get in 2004 when he lost by 1524 votes? Or was the refrain then that the Speaker was unbeatable?

In 1998, George Bell came within 384 votes of ending Kevin Mannix's legislative career. That district has historically been a hotly contested swing district -- area in and around central Salem. One time when it was an open seat there were several Democratic candidates in the primary (which doesn't usually happen in a "hopeless" district). Did FP "know" in advance it would be that close?

In 2002, long before Jean Cowan, Alan Brown won that coastal district by 457 votes. And yet, the only reason Jean Cowan won was because of all the support given to Brading to "keep Minnis tied down in her district"? As I recall, Alan Brown was all ready to retire and Wayne Scott strong armed him back into running one last time because no other candidate would have a chance. No slur intended to Rep. Cowan, but was that race really the uphill battle that could not have been won without all that FP support for Brading? Or am I subversive for second-guessing the wisdom of FP?

And now we come to 2004. Alan Brown won by 414 votes, Billy Dalto won by 825 votes, Chuck Burley won by 548 votes in a race where a 3rd party candidate got 1312 votes. All 3 of those Democratic nominees were women, and there was talk in some activist circles of the 3 women mistreated by FP.

And didn't Mitch Greenlick lose an election before he won? Also Rep. Komp?

It is a form of hubris to say that in each of the above cases FP was doing what they believed was right and the situation would have been worse if they had done anything differently. It took 16 years to win a 31 vote majority, with people downstate complaining using questions like, "Is this any way to run a railroad?". "Are these people incompetent or what?"

Some thought there would never be a Democratic majority--a split House or a 3rd party candidate would probably be more likely.

Yes, it was a splendid victory to finally have majority this last election, but that doesn't mean the FP actions and structure should not be examined and everyone at FP deserves their salary and we peons downstate should just take orders from them. Congressional Republicans thought they didn't need oversight over the actions of their caucus, and look what happened. Recently, I looked up some old Oregonian articles I remembered reading and gave them to a friend. I kept track of the dates and sent the dates to other friends. They concern how Democrats lost the majority after the 1989 session, and are a cautionary tale about why oversight of one's own party / caucus practices can save a lot of grief. Not that anyone currently serving in the legislature would be so stupid, but staff of any other organization (public or private sector) have oversight, so why not a caucus? A public library with the Oregonian back to 1988 or before should have these in electronic if not paper form.

July 16, 1989 Dec. 3, 1989
and maybe there is a missing one 2 days after one of these Jan. 23, 1990 Oct. 23, 1990

Some of us are old enough to remember when Democrats took legislative seats away from obnoxious Republicans long before FP was created.

And the tectonic plates started shifting in the earlier part of this decade with Howard Dean and the Oregon Bus Project rejecting the idea that consultants know all, money is all that matters, and volunteers should just shut up and take orders from paid staff.

WE THE PEOPLE is a powerful concept. And the glib "well, they won the majority therefore they did all the right things and no one should ask questions" from Portland Democrats only makes those of us who have toiled in obscurity downstate refuse to take the caucus-led approach to legislative campaigns seriously anymore.

Kari, you may be right:

"I'm the internet guy, so I don't know that off-hand, but somewhere in the range of thousands. There was an entire FuturePAC-funded canvassing program."

But people in how many counties actually saw that?
Maybe FP spent a lot of money on such a program for their target candidates. But I doubt any of it came to Marion, Polk, Yamhill, or any number of other counties which didn't have target candidates. Now, if you have proof that such a program was sent to help out Peralta or Gilbertson and THAT is why they came so close to winning, that would be another story.

Pat, I worked on the Jim Hill campaigns of the early 1980s ("You must be deluded if you think a black man could be elected in S. Salem".) We had a lot of hardworking volunteers, and no expectation that anyone outside Salem even knew we existed. We won, without outside help from the caucus. Such a concept!

I think that was a better system than now.

Which state rep. race are you talking about working on?

If you trust FP's judgement, that is fine.

I'm not sure the legislature would be worse off as a nonpartisan entity as the Public Comm. on the Legislature discussed. If that makes me "not a good Democrat", I have been called worse names.

By LTs argument, the 95-96 Chicago Bulls were incompetent because, although they won a record 72 games, the lost 10 -- some by small margins.

I have to admit that I find it irritating when people sit on the sidelines and lob complaints at people or groups who work hard, in good faith, with excellent results. In any significant endeavor there are small things that could have been done differently.

In 2006 the Bus Project probably should have walked Madras for Jim Gilbertson instead of Redmond for Bill Smith. I set up that trip with a lot of help and advice from committed local volunteers. Should we all hang our heads in shame? No. The only people who don't mistakes are the people who aren't doing anything.

I think LT should start her own PAC. Who knows, she may be onto something. Personally, I've kicked around the idea of a RuralPAC to raise money explicitly for candidates outside the I-5 corridor. But I don't think it's effective, kind, or helpful to rail against FuturePAC when their success is undeniable (unless, like LT, you think the 95-96 Bulls should have won all 82 games).

Kari, I think we were better off the way campaigns were run a couple decades ago---focused on local concerns rather than on satifying a central office somewhere.

And TJ is right about this: "There's a difference between not walking for a candidate, and simply telling them to suck eggs because they've got no shot." The phrase "sorry, your district has a lousy R to D ratio and we must target resources" is exactly the behavior TJ describes. Since when is registration destiny?

Equally colorful language has been used for years about the people at FP who seem to think those of us who live out in the districts are just peons who should be happy for whatever they do because of course they know our districts better than we know them, and of course they have the one and only true path to victory.

But this may change--already 2008 looks like it could be as transformative a year as 1968. In the major primaries (Clinton/Obama, Novick/Merkley, Kroger/Macpherson, Sec. of State multiple candidates) actual differences between candidates on issues and the differences in the candidates are more like the old days -- discussion of everything from issues to experience to temperment is better than discussing who is running the campaigns.

I know of one rural district this election where the R and D candidates have ties to the district and plan to run on shoe leather, town halls, asking voters at the door what they want the legislature to do---rather than relying on consultants, polls, etc. Either one of them being elected (an open seat) could revolutionize their caucus, as neither is hestitant about speaking their minds.

Yes, I know Jim Hill for Gov. was not the dynamic young candidate we got elected more than a quarter of a century ago. But then, we are all a quarter of a century older now.

Folks, about the sports metaphors:

Thanks for framing the philosophical discussion. It has been a point of debate for some time---are we electing individual legislators to represent the districts they came from and hopefully to care about issues important to the whole state? Or are voters merely choosing between someone who will become a loyal member of Team D or a loyal member of Team R?

Much of the problem with legislator quality and legislative campaigns can be blamed on term limits. It was a great day when those were overturned and experienced legislators could run again.

In the old days, members of either caucus were very outspoken about issues important to them--whether their caucus liked it or not. Yes, I do think it was better that way.

Kevin, Jim Hill won "without Future Pac" when elected as a state rep. So did Peter Courtney. So did the entire House Majority prior to the 1990 Republican takeover of the Oregon House. So did Margaret Carter. So did Jim Edmunson. So did Mike Nelson, state rep. from Baker City in the 1991 session---yes, before FP existed there was a Democrat elected in Dist 59. So did Bob Shiprack, Bev Stein, Lonnie Roberts when they served as State Rep.

Future Pac did not exist prior to September 1993! And if you doubt my word, go to http://egov.sos.state.or.us/division/elections/elec_images/c&e_search.html

for pre-ORESTAR campaign finance listings and type Future Pac into the window. The statement of organization says it first filed in 1993. It is what is called a Misc. Committee. Personally, I'd like the transparency of money contributed directly to candidates rather than to a 3rd party organization. That way it is clear who is funding which candidates. I also realize there are those who like the current system.

My point is that Jeff Merkley may have been an important part of the strategy to take back the House (with all the good and bad that entails--a friend who was a "forgotten" state rep. candidate isn't sure after living through that experience about voting for Merkley, and another in that category is a Novick supporter).

But Jeff did not create FP--he was a freshman in the 1999 session if memory serves and FP was created in 1993. The House Builders page has not been updated since 2006.

This may all sound like an alien philosophy to some people. After all, for someone who only got involved in politics in the 21st century, 1993 might as well be "we've always done it that way!".

The reason for using the phrase alien philosophy is this:

There is a Feb. 1962 JFK quote which has appeared on various posters from time to time

“We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.” — John F. Kennedy

Does everyone here think legislative campaigns are sporting events? That elections can't be won without caucus support? Why? Are you afraid to let "people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market"?

What beefs do I have? I think legislators should be loyal to constituents first and caucus second. I realize that is not how some see the world. I believe we have better legislative sessions and better legislation when we do everything openly instead of behind closed doors.

My beef is that there are people who live in communities with perfectly qualified union bug printers but in some years FP tried to pressure those candidates to send the printing to FP "preferred vendors" anyway because they said so. Patronizing local business is not good politics?

I am tired of "professionals" thinking they alone know how to win legislative races ---but providing little concrete help (even technical help getting started, helping find a qualified treasurer, that sort of thing).

I am tired of legislative campaigns being treated like a team sport. Over a decade ago, a legislative caucus tried to talk a friend of mine who was running out of appearing at the ceremony to turn in signatures for a ballot measure he supported because the caucus had not endorsed the measure. He was only supposed to support what had the stamp of approval of the caucus? Is that really what Democrats stand for?

It is a difference of philosophy, and a theory vs. reality question. TJ is more accurate than some people want to admit when he says "There's a difference between not walking for a candidate, and simply telling them to suck eggs because they've got no shot."

Was it 2006 when FP said they would give a check to each rural candidate? Were there conditions on that money? Was it to be distributed in June? If so, did someone supervising FP operations check with each of those candidates to make sure all the checks had arrived by the first week in July?

Does every one of the 31 members of House Dems agree with every detail of what FP is doing in their name?

Or doesn't that level of accountability matter in politics?

Many who have ever worked in retail/customer service lose patience with people who don't provide details or are rude and snippy, because in retail it is important to always answer every question in detail and courtesly. Those who don't get into trouble with their superiors. ("A customer complained you were rude to them last Saturday" as well as rewards because a customer called in a compliment or spoke to a manager.)

But who supervises Future Pac staff? Who approves FP policy? Or aren't we supposed to ask such questions because House Dems won majority in 2006 therefore they made no mistakes? Why is that level of secrecy OK in a public body?

I am not upset with any particular member, I just think the Public Comm. on the Legislature was more open and transparent than any legislative session this century. And the whole "our team is better than their team" approach doesn't make sense to me at a time when close to a quarter of voters don't register in a major party. Could those voters be saying parties make no sense or are not relevant to their lives? Most people I know don't have an ideology--even if they care passionately about a few issues.

Maybe my opinion doesn't count or is subversive. Tough luck. I am the grandchild of someone who helped break a county political machine, and if caucus campaign organizations strike me as close to being political machines, I will say so!