Willamette Week Profiles the AG Race
The Willamette Week's cover story this week takes a detailed look at the Democratic primary race for Attorney General. The article gives a long profile of both candidates; John Kroger and Greg Macpherson. It first discusses Macpherson's background and his time in the legislature:
If Oregon has a political establishment, Macpherson is part of it. For more than 30 years, he’s practiced law at Stoel Rives.At Stoel Rives, Macpherson specializes in the important, if unexciting, area of employee-benefit plans. Among his clients are Daimler (formerly Freightliner), Roseburg Forest Products and the City of Portland Fire and Police Disability and Retirement Fund.
As a senior partner at Stoel, he says he was on track to make between $300,000 and $500,000 a year before deciding to reduce his billable hours so he could serve in the Legislature.
In the Oregon House, where he represents Lake Oswego, Macpherson has been in the middle of major issues.
After discussing his time in the legislature, the article examines his plans as AG:
Macpherson says his Attorney General’s Office would advocate for Oregonians more broadly than in the past.“Hardy Myers primarily focused on public safety and victims’ rights,” Macpherson says. “Those are worthy issues, but I would extend the office’s reach.”
“For example, we don’t generate as much economic activity out of our university system as other states,” he says. “The transfer of intellectual property is a legal issue, and I’ll take that up.”
Macpherson says being AG would be a natural continuation of his legislative service and big-firm legal experience.
“What the AG does is oversee a range of legal work,” he says. “As the lead lawyer for a range of Stoel Rives clients, I’ve spent a career managing a flow of legal work.”
Kroger is profiled next:
“On a big range of issues, I have a sense of moral urgency and am just incredibly frustrated about where we are as a state,” Kroger says.Like a prosecutor, Kroger runs through his evidence: a recent study that ranked Oregon 49th in spending on drug treatment for young adults; a report that gives Oregon a “D” in child welfare; a recent evaluation by Business Week that says Portland is the “third most toxic city in the country.”
Timid, complacent leadership, Kroger says, is to blame.
“This state needs somebody who is going to fight for fundamental improvements,” he says. “The reality is that the Democrats [who run the state] play defense all the time because they don’t have a strategic vision.”
Make no mistake, Kroger wants to play offense.
Kroger's plans for the Attorney General's office are also detailed:
Kroger plans to attack two issues immediately: meth and pollution.His approach to meth is to ramp up treatment rather than just rely on incarceration. He says programs in Texas and other states have shown $1 spent on treatment saves $4 to $8 of spending on law enforcement. Treating meth addicts, he says, does far more than just reduce drug trafficking and addiction: It also reduces related property crimes and child abuse.
He dismisses Macpherson’s claims of success on meth. “That bill [which required prescriptions for drugs containing pseudoephedrine] reduced the public-health hazard of cooking the meth here,” he says. “But it did absolutely nothing to reduce demand or address the associated property crimes and child abuse.”
Kroger also proposes to make prosecuting polluters a priority and beef up support of environmental enforcement. “My goal is to make Oregon the national leader in environmental protection,” he says. His pitch on crime and pollution has convinced 23 county district attorneys and the Sierra Club.
“We feel the AG’s office hasn’t really been used to protect the environment,” says the Sierra Club’s Ivan Maluski. “We thought Kroger would not only go after polluters but make sure that state agencies the AG advises would change their approach as well.”
There's a lot more at the Willamette Week. Discuss.
|
March 26, 2008
Posted in in the news. |
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
Mar 26, '08
Given the work of the Oregon Law Comm. and the Public Comm. on the Legislature, I had wanted to base my vote for AG on views of the role of the AG and election law---among other things, that is a better standard than who is tougher on meth (as if local community groups like No Meth-Not In My Neighborhood have no role) or who has lived there longer. There are assets and liabilities to both candidates. Either would do a good job. I challenge both campaigns to post something here on why their candidate's views on election law merit my vote.
Mar 26, '08
I challenge both campaigns to post something here on why their candidate's views on election law merit my vote.
This question seems to be a bit vague and doesn't really fit into the core functions of the DOJ, unless you are talking about ballot titles. Care to expand and be more specific?
11:25 a.m.
Mar 26, '08
I have to agree with Ben, LT. You seem to be looking for actual changes to legal statutes. That's the legislature. The AG is responsible for the way laws get enforced, the emphasis of law enforcement - something entirely different.
I think you should be pushing this to your legislators. It doesn't seem to have a big impact on the AG race at all.
Mar 26, '08
Mac has zero courtroom experience, represents big corporations, has been a legislator only in terms of public service and has no executive or public managerial experience. Kroger's a Marine who not only has litigation experience, but actually teaches it. Mac can't seriously claim to be a force for change and sticking it to big corporations when he's represented them all his life. This race is all fat cat vs scrappy underdog. I'm rooting for the underdog.
Mar 26, '08
" You seem to be looking for actual changes to legal statutes. That's the legislature. The AG is responsible for the way laws get enforced, the emphasis of law enforcement - something entirely different"
Someone from the Oregon Law Comm. was saying that the legal status of pass-throughs from one campaign to another is legally questionable, and might need only an AG opinion rather than a change in law or court decision.
That is what I meant.
Mar 26, '08
Pretty much what mlw said*:
"Mac has zero courtroom experience, represents big corporations, has been a legislator only in terms of public service and has no executive or public managerial experience. Kroger's a Marine who not only has litigation experience, but actually teaches it. Mac can't seriously claim to be a force for change and sticking it to big corporations when he's represented them all his life. This race is all fat cat vs scrappy underdog. I'm rooting for the underdog."
And I do not think experience as a Marine makes a difference for Krogering. So far as I know, the Marines train people to cook at crappy chain restaurants because that is where I have met most of the Marines I know.
12:12 p.m.
Mar 26, '08
So far as I know, the Marines train people to cook at crappy chain restaurants because that is where I have met most of the Marines I know.
This is just a rude and sweeping generalization. Any Marines reading this care to give Jason a visit and set him straight? This is the kind of stuff that leads Blue Oregon discussions into the gutter. It adds nothing to the debate. Grow up.
12:15 p.m.
Mar 26, '08
Let's be clear - Macpherson's no corporate lackey.
Macpherson has taken on some of Oregon's biggest problems (PERS, Measure 37) and built legislative solutions to them. He's taken on meth, and he's willing to take on the excesses of Measure 11. He's an accomplished, impressive legislator with a record of being a force for change.
We've got two great people running for AG.
As a side note, the Kroger line (which he gave in the article) of connecting Macpherson with Enron -- was as inappropriate as if Macpherson said that Kroger was a lawyer for the Bush Administration. They are big firms, and big administrations.
12:16 p.m.
Mar 26, '08
Jason Skelton:
I'm sure Governor Kulongoski, among others, would disagree with your comment about the Marines.
12:29 p.m.
Mar 26, '08
I'm sure a few Marines are on their way over to Jason's house right now to explain to him why he's mistaken, and then cook him a lovely gourmet meal afterwards.
The Marines I know are a highly varied group of people, but they are all smart and tough. Those are qualities I would like to see in my Attorney General.
Mar 26, '08
Now I may be wrong, but having several lawyers in the family I've been told that there is a big difference in being a Senior Partner in a law firm and simply working for a law firm. As a Senior Partner you have a larger piece of the pie than a mere associate or junior partner, and if money still talks then you are very interested in your clients business.
Mar 26, '08
I apologize about the Marine comment. I also went to college and law school with a few Marines.
My comment about Marines and restaurants was a personal observation that unlike the Army, Navy or Air Force, the Marines do a relatively poor job of teaching job skills for a civilian life. Put another way: I thought the former Marine cooks I knew gave so much to their country and did not get much in return. I have a few rants on this topic at-the-ready for any social occasion.
Finally, on the topic at hand, I do not think that Kroger was a Marine makes him more or less qualified to be AG, no more than it has made Kulongoski a more or less effective Governor.
12:58 p.m.
Mar 26, '08
Jason,
Thank you for amending and clarifying your statements. I would have to agree that this country does a poor job of looking after our service men and women and that being a Marine doesn't push me either way to vote for someone or not.
The real issue at hand here is, who has the best understanding of what the Oregon AG does (given the statutory and budgetary constraints) and who is the best person to take that job on.
Mar 26, '08
Kroger's service as a Marine is about as irrelevant as his courtroom experience. The AG should never, ever be in court. And for that matter, the AG shouldn't be micro-managing courtroom decisions -- decisions made by long-term Department of Justice lawyers, who have actually practice law in Oregon.
Mr. Kroger's most recent pitch -- that Oregon needs to elect aggressive leaders, starts to show the real point: he wants to get into elected politics (which I understand he's not done before) and this seems like the only avenue.
1:24 p.m.
Mar 26, '08
Why shouldn't the AG ever be in court?
Mar 26, '08
I think a DoJ lawyer would be able to give a more exhaustive explanation, but as a non-DoJ lawyer, for an AG to get involved in a trial, it would mean doing some degree of legwork on the case. That would mean hours taken from policy decision, agency management, and every other policy that Mr. Kroger says he wants to pursue. Admittedly, I believe that Dave Frohmayer argued cases in the U.S. Supreme Court, but that's a rare thing and is a pretty specialized type of work, that's miles away from the kind of U.S. Attorney work that I understood Mr. Kroger did when he was in New York. Moreover, I don't think Mr. Kroger has said he would be going to Court.
Put another way, I guess I don't think getting in the trenches as a lawyer is nearly as much a qualifier for AG as experience in the largest private firm in the State (the DoJ is, of course, like a massive law firm), and experience in the trenches of politics and policy. The firm experience gives a first-hand view of what it will be like to run the DoJ, and the politics and policy experience as a legislator gives a first-hand view of what it will take to accomplish policy objectives.
1:36 p.m.
Mar 26, '08
I disagree with the comment about that the AG should never be in court.
There are times where Oregon or the AG's office has taken a stand on something major, and the AG should definitely be in the courtroom for some of it. Examples would include cases where the federal government is trying to override the will of Oregon's voters. Or major courtroom activities surrounding the AG's current stance regarding releasing college students' information to music labels.
There are major cases like these, especially if they go to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the AG should indeed be at least partially involved in the courtroom activities. In the case of the feds vs Oregon, it's not out of the ordinary for the U.S. AG to be in the court - why shouldn't our AG?
If this was all about Kroger getting into elective politics, there were much easier ways of doing it than going for a statewide position. Especially when it was already fairly well known that Macpherson would be running for the position. Kroger is running for the AG position because he wants to be AG, not because he wants to get elected to something.
1:39 p.m.
Mar 26, '08
Moreover, I don't think Mr. Kroger has said he would be going to Court.
Actually, he has:
"As an experienced prosecutor, I am ready to represent you and your family. If anyone threatens the rights of Oregonians, I won't send a deputy to argue the case – I will go to court myself."
Mar 26, '08
Moreover, I don't think Mr. Kroger has said he would be going to Court.
Jonathan,
Kroger, has in fact, on several occasions said that he would fight high profile cases in court.
Here is a quote taken directly from his website:
John’s Promise
“As an experienced prosecutor, I am ready to represent you and your family. If anyone threatens the rights of Oregonians, I won’t send a deputy to argue the case – I will go to court myself.”
It is a direct promise to the people of Oregon that he will go to court.
Mar 26, '08
oops, jenni beat me to it.
Mar 26, '08
Well there you go. You should know that as a general matter, the U.S. Attorney General does not argue cases for the United States. That's the Solicitor General, which is a position especially designed (I believe) as the top appellate attorney for the United States. As chest-thumping cool as it might sound to have a former Marine AG-candidate say he's going to court, whether a trial court or an appellate court, it's just damn stupid. It's like a candidate for Secretary of State vowing to personally staff the ballot boxes -- you hire people to do that work, people who do it all the time, who really know the job, and you (as the executive) do the political, bureaucratic, and policy work that you were hired to do. And I'm sure there's a "oh yeah, well I'm glad he's willing to get in the trenches." OK, the willingness is kind of nice in that chest-thumping way, but it suggests a lack of understanding about the importance of delegation in that kind of law firm/bureaucracy.
Mar 26, '08
"If anyone threatens the rights of Oregonians, I won’t send a deputy to argue the case – I will go to court myself.”
The next line should be "and all those deputy AGs out there, who are being paid salaries from taxpayer money to go to court, well since I'll be in court and they won't be, I'll let them work on all those policy decisions for which I'll no longer have any time."
Mar 26, '08
I think we shouldn't miss the undertone that Kroger lacks confidence in the current DOJ attorneys. At the risk of being cheesy, you don't see a baseball coach trying to get the managers job by saying he is going to pitch in all the major games. The Oregon AG should be the manager and mentor of these attorneys not someone who puts them down and does their job for them.
Mar 26, '08
@ Jonathan: To me, the court room experience is about having litigation experience and being an aggressive advocate in prosecuting a case--things that G-mac lacks but Kroger does not.
Also, it is clear that G-mac is running for AG to lay the foundation for a run at governor. Of course, I would prefer he skip the AG step and run for governor next cycle because I think he would make a fine governor. With that in mind, it is odd to criticize Kroger merely because he wants to hold an elected office. The notion that he must "pay dues" as a state legislator or somesuch is bullshit.
@ben rivers: I think the cheese leaked out. Stating that he cares passionately about something does not necessarily denigrate the others in the DOJ.
In closing, Fight the Power!
2:22 p.m.
Mar 26, '08
I don't see a thing suggesting that John Kroger has less than full confidence in the DoJ staff today.
Here's what I do see.
I see a highly accomplished advocate with a lot of self-confidence and an immense amount of experience, who enjoys trial work, and would love to argue a small number (one? two? three? in a term, who can predict?) of major cases. If the cases are major enough for him to take that kind of interest in, he will already be up to speed because they will be top priorities of his office and his deputies will have briefed him consistently throughout.
I also see a guy who has spent enough time on domestic policy analysis that he is very well prepared to take on the high-level policy review and decisionmaking that fall to an AG, and a guy who has spent enough time in the US DoJ leading big cases that he knows exactly how to manage a law department. And that's a valid distinction, I think -- the DoJ (state or federal) is a law department, not a law firm. There is only one client and everyone serves that client. The AG is like the General Counsel of a big company whose business is state government.
And does a General Counsel ever go to court? If s/he wants to, on the important cases, and has the chops to do so (ably supported as needed by subordinates/outside counsel), why not?
2:23 p.m.
Mar 26, '08
Actually, there is already a precedent for the Oregon AG arguing certain cases in court. AG Hardy Myers' campaign site talks about arguing a case before the U.S. Supreme Court. I've found two mentions of the case, one in his photos section (you have to go to the last photo numbered on the page and then click next) as well as the front page:
"Pictured above: My grandson Joseph joins me in front of the United States Supreme Court last December after I had the honor of arguing a case for Oregon involving federal court review of state criminal convictions. On March 2, 2004 the Court issued an 8-1 decision upholding Oregon's position and reversing a decision of a lower federal appellate court."
There's also press release here from the DOJ about Myers arguing the case and its results.
I seem to remember hearing about other such cases as well over the past 8 years that I've lived here.
Mar 26, '08
Also, it is clear that G-mac is running for AG to lay the foundation for a run at governor.
This is completely and utterly false. This reminds me of the time people said Jefferson Smith was going to run for governor. There are smart rumors and there are stupid rumors. These are examples of the latter.
2:40 p.m.
Mar 26, '08
Jonathan,I think you're criticizing Kroger's plans based on the currern setup of the AG's office--which is a shambles of non-enforcement--and which Kroger pledges to change. There are lots of people at DOJ who can push paper for John...but there's no one who can raise the public profile of a case more than the AG. I applaud his effort to be a visible, aggressive face of the department. The mice will not play as much, to see the big cat watching from the porch.
John discusses his reasoning at length in part 2 of the Loaded Orygun interview. I found it compelling.
Mar 26, '08
@ ben rivers: My sense that G-macadocious wants to be governor is not even a rumor, much less a stupid one. In fact, I do not even know if anyone else thinks it.
His experience as a corporate defense lawyer is not a good fit for an AG is how I see things. In any event, he seems like one of the better positioned and qualified politicians to run for Governor in 2010.
Now that you brought it up, I sure wish Jefferson would run for governor...some day because he would make a darn good one.
Mar 26, '08
Jason Skelton: Macpherson is an employee benefits attorney, not a "corporate defense lawyer." Big difference.
Additionally, as Chair of the Judiciary committee in the legisalture, I am sure he has been exposed to all sorts of aspects of Oregon law and the Department of Justice. As a three-term legisaltor, Macpherson will be an effective advocate before the legisalture, a primary role of the AG. And as a senior partner at a huge law firm, Macpherson has the management experience to effectively lead the Department of Justice, which could be classified as the biggest law firm in the state. I think all of those things are a great fit for AG.
And on the court debate: Appearing in court is a very small aspect of the AG's job. I agree with Ben Rivers and Jonathan Radmacher. And, saying that Macpherson has never been in court is false. It's true, employee benefits attorney rarely makes court appearances, and Kroger's got him beat there, but I am pretty sure Macpherson has been before the Oregon Court of Appeals. Either way, court experience should not be your determining factor in this race, since it's not the primary job of the AG.
5:02 p.m.
Mar 26, '08
I think Kroger says that Mac has no trial court experience (Kroger has extensive history with both trial and appellate cases), but he may not make that clear each and every time. But clearly, court experience is advantage Kroger. And I'd think that overseeing people whose primary job is to go to court, makes it a fairly important information requisite for the head of that department.
And see vard's point that it's probably NOT legitimate to think of it as a law firm--not least because there is no profit motive, no fee-based pursuance of cases. We want it run LESS like a law firm, not MORE.
Mar 26, '08
Contrary to popular belief, the fact is that all branches and agencies of government are political. The judiciary and the AG's office are no exception. Perhaps this is not how it should be, but it is a fact of life. Also, there's a lot of evidence to suggest that the founders of the country intended it this way; thus the need to try to insulate branches of government and divvy up the power.
As far as agency law is concerned, it matters who is in control. If anyone doubts this, see the current state of the Federal DOJ.
If Macpherson wins the AG position, it's likely that much won't change. The DOJ will be remain a competent organization defending the state's interest.
On the other hand, John Kroger has expressed interest in steering the DOJ toward a more pro-active role in policy enforcement; especially in the areas of the environment and consumer protection. The laws already exist, it's the enforcement that's lacking (see this article posted on Blue Oregon last August: http://www.blueoregon.com/2007/08/novick-takes-ai.html). Kroger has the political will to actually put legal pressure on companies that refuse to comply with the law.
Oregon is one of a handful of states (if not the only one) that lacks a real environmental enforcement program; meaning with teeth.
Mar 26, '08
Stephanie:
You are incorrect in characterizing the DoJ as being more like a government agency and less like a law firm. I believe that the DoJ is somewhat segregated between activites. And agencies often have designated Deputy AGs, which only makes sense, because the legal work can be pretty specialized. Moreover (again, as I understand it) agencies are essentially billed for the Deputy AG time they use. Put another way, the entire state government is a whole bunch of different clients, all of whom receive legal services from the AGs office. So no, not Stoel Rives, but an awful lot like a big law firm.
Also, where does the idea come from that Kroger has "spent enough time" on "domestic policy analysis?" Do you mean he has read the newspaper? The chest-thumping "I'll go to court" doesn't suggest much appreciation of the actual job duties.
By the way ... the City Club of Portland's Friday Forum this week is an AG debate.
Mar 26, '08
A friend of mine went from the Marines to prison, but another from the Marines to an attorney. They are tough and brave, regardless.
Kroger's quote in WW about being banished to a US Treas. job in early because of his "abrasiveness" on Campaign CLinton '92 struck me as odd. WHy would one brag about that, or admit that they are abrasive?
I heard him tell a small group at "Rebooting Democracy" in Jan. that he was one of the first ten hires by the CLinton camapign in L.R, AR in the fall of 1991. WHy doesn't his name pop up then in CLinton accounts? Maybe he was office manager or something.
10:00 p.m.
Mar 26, '08
Jonathan: I don't think I said it was more like a government agency and less like a law firm. I said it was more like a law department, and your description sounds very much like the law department I work in. It is divided into subject area practice groups, each with a leader, but all reporting up to the regional counsel and/or GC. The only significant difference is that we don't keep timesheets.
10:49 a.m.
Mar 27, '08
John English: Why would one brag about that, or admit that they are abrasive?
I would put that down as introspective and self-critical. Having met him in person dozens of times, I would say that John is, at this stage in his life, extremely personable. Tremendously charismatic, actually.
5:21 p.m.
Mar 27, '08
Why would one brag about that, or admit that they are abrasive?
Well, given that we've seen what happens on the national stage when someone believes they're infallible and can find no flaws in their past actions, I find a little introspection rather refreshing.
Mar 27, '08
Having met and heard Kroger, and watched news coverage of him, my sense is that he is walking that fine line between being outspoken (a virtue) and being overly gung ho/ abrasive (impresses the fans but can turn off other people).
<h2>Whether someone considers that an asset or liability may mean whether they vote for him or not.</h2>