Honestly, BO readers don't you see this as over the top? It's one thing to attack a candidate and say that they need to change their position on a particular issue (hence the "independent expenditure")....

BUT, having the opposing candidate on the commercial?? Honestly, please tell me you feel this isn't COMPLETELY skirting the law!

Whether you prefer Gordon or Jeff, this is a whole new tactic as for as independent expenditures are concerned....

"Internet predators" and "sex offenders". Good to see "Democrats" sticking to their core issues, rather than petty Dateline-conflated mania.

McCain is in RNC ads that McCain raised money for. In fact, McCain's "public money" campaign is soliciting $70,000 checks, primarily in soft money, to be funneled to the RNC and four state parties to run McCain ads that are coordinated with the McCain campaign. It's all legal, I'm just demonstrating that there's no new ground here. In fact, I'd argue that McCain has gone much further. Yes, the two federal races have different applicable laws, I'm just reaching for the most accessible example of this sort of thing.

I love that Smith has dedicated trolls to jump quickly on BlueOregon senate race stories.

Troll iwmpb (I want my Party back? [in power]) - Smith has used campaign finance law for 12 years to rack up a massive incumbent advantage. Example - He said nothing while Tom Delay implemented the K Street Project to rid DC of Democratic lobbyists, replace them with Republican ones, and require those to pony up to Republicans like Smith. In fact, he fed the system with his own staff who is then on the hook to raise dough for Smith.

Face it. You want "Gordon" to be able to maintain his ill-gotten, but legal, advantage, define Jeff before Jeff has the opportunity to define himself, and keep his seat. Wah. Get ready to get wiped off the face of the Oregon map, Repub.

Yeah, the whole campaign finance system should be thrown in the crapper, but this is clearly legal or the DPO would not assume the liability with their modest budget. James X, as usual, you are right.

Peter Bray, in case you haven't noticed, the primary is over. Jeff needs to start cutting into Smith's lead with moderate-conservative Dems and pro-choice women who are currently in the Smith column. This race is no longer aimed at you.

The fact that you have the candidate saying "I passed" (which I find a little overstated) this legislation and "we passed" that legislation takes this over the line.

I agree that the RNC should have its hiney whacked for using McCain's image in their ads, but that doesn't let this ad off the legal and ethical hook.

The sorry fact is that Jeff Merkley did his deal with the NSCC devil to win the primary and now the moral high ground on which he stands makes Vernonia look like Mt. Hood.

PUMA.

if i remember correctly, didn't Bush and the RNC perfect this technique for the 2004 election?

Larry McD,

So by your logic, if the Democrats had someone else, anyone else, doing the voice over saying "we passed" legislation in which Merkley play a central role as the Speaker of the House, that would be a violation too because it is promoting Jeff's accomplishments?

That's absurd. Jeff was the Speaker of the House, and is the perfectly appropriate spokesperson to be touting Democratic legislative accomplishments.

To further my point, if Steve Novick had won the primary, and he were the spokesperson talking about legislative accomplishments in which he had no role, that would be a stretch, but because Jeff was instrumental in doing so, it is perfectly legit for him to be saying so.

"Internet predators" and "sex offenders". Good to see "Democrats" sticking to their core issues, rather than petty Dateline-conflated mania."

Ha ha ha ha ha. It's too true!!

A "call Congress" ad where the candidate speaks? And unlike the veterans ad, it appears to be more of an attack ad than about an issue. And the phone number is the "call Congress number". Why is that?

I agree with Paul, this ad is iffy.

Having just read this in the article, The Democratic Party says it doesn't have to count the money spent on the ads as a contribution to the Merkley campaign.

That's because the ads are technically only about issues, they say. Merkley never mentions he is a candidate for the Senate, he never asks anyone to vote for him, and he never mentions Smith.

"This ad is designed to talk about the issues that are important to Democrats," said Siegel, adding that Merkley is featured in the ads because he helped lead the party on crime and veterans issues as speaker of the Oregon House.

and how angry the Smith people are, I believe enterprising people (reporters, activists, or anyone just wanting to contact the Smith local office or campaign) should ask how he reacted to the Swifty ads of 2004.

After all, that was a 527 ad where we didn't know the contributors (doesn't DSCC have to file FEC reports?), that was an ad which blew up in the face of Oregon Bush supporters after it turned out that Al French of Clackamas County had used hearsay in the ad (had not served with Kerry). The reaction by Clackamas County vets led to French being investigated.

Yes, this may go against the spirit of the law, but the campaign finance laws have been crumbling for years. Also for years, Republicans have been claiming the moral high ground---the have "values" and Republicans didn't.

If Gordon Smith was as upset about the Swifty ads as many of us were (by us I don't mean registered Democrats, I mean veterans and their friends who thought those ads were a continuation of what was done to Max Cleland in 2002--patriotism is not risk and sacrifice in war but rather voting a Republican party line???) there should be a record somewhere of public statements, action on legislation to rein in 527s, etc.

If there is no evidence that Gordon spoke out or acted against the Swifty ads, then what goes around comes around and he doesn't have a leg to stand on complaining esp. about the vets ad.

Frankly, if I were Smith I would let them leave the ad on the air, legal or illegally. Jeff just doesn't come across well speaking into the camera. This is just not a very good ad.

Now that Smith has decided to run ads attempting to deceive voters into thinking Barack Obama supports him - I wonder if Smith would like to revisit this quote from August 22, 2006:

The senator quickly dismisses Democratic criticism of his votes.

"I've beaten them more than they've beaten me," he says. "The Democratic Party is not my constituency. These are people that believe in socialism. I don't."

Link

So Gordon, is Barack - your new BFF - a socialist??

So Gordon "Mr. Moderate" Smith - how can you be a moderate if you refuse to represent any Democrat who lives in Oregon?

What if Ron Wy

I love that Smith has dedicated trolls to jump quickly on BlueOregon senate race stories.

Oh, anyone who disagrees with Lord Jeff is a "troll," my bad. I apparently was under the false impression that BO was an OPEN forum for people to share their views. I had no idea that opposing points of view were unwelcome here. Guess I should have learned that from the fiasco surrounding the Merkley/Novick race....

Troll iwmpb (I want my Party back? [in power]) I give you credit for figuring that out, but you make a faulty assumption. I want my party back from right-wing zealots. I want my party to have visionary leaders like Tom McCall and Mark Hatfield. That's what I want back! Now if the party wasn't controlled by the far right wing, YES, I would want them back in power.

Well, I guess I'll go back to NWRepublican where I can be called a RINO because I believe climate change is actually occurring and that school vouchers and home schooling won't solve all of "society's ills"

P.S. I am in no way affiliated with the Gordon Smith campaign, although I will certainly vote for him.

"But is Merkley in the wrong, or just playing by rules that are badly in need of tightening? ... Isn't spirit/letter a false dichotomy?"

i actually don't think merkley's in the wrong here. in general i think breaking the spirit of a law or a rule is often as bad or worse than breaking the letter of the law/rule**. in the case of campaign finance, not only do i have a hard time defining what the spirit of the law even is, i believe it is common practice to dance up to the legal edge of what is allowed, even using the law to expand the boundary of what is acceptable.

in the case of robo-calling during the primary, that was clearly breaking the spirit of the law that merkley himself helped pass.

**(for example, think of an nba game; fouling a player is breaking the rules, but it is clearly not breaking the spirit of the rules, in fact, it is a common tactic intentionally used in every game)

Here are two questions that, if I knew the answers, would put the issue into better focus for me:

First, if Merkley had buckets of money, would the DSCC be putting up the money for, and running these ads in the first place?

Second, if Novick had won the primary and the DSCC was running these "issues" ads, would they still have Merkley as the spokesperson?

I'm guessing that the answer to the above are "no" and "no" in which case I'd say the ads are troublesome. The laws need to be tightened, for certain.

No answers here, just questions and pondering...

Ms Mel Harmon,

I think you've got that last question/answer backwards, in that if Novick had won the primary, would they have Novick as the spokesperson?

The answer to that is clearly no, because he had nothing to do with the passage of that legislation and the ad would be clearly serving to promote Novick, not the legislation.

Here, Merkley was central to the passage of the legislation touted by the ads, so he can legitimately be the spokesperson for them without it being construed as an inappropriate endorsement of him (unlike it would be for someone unassociated with the legislation, like Novick).

The ad is clearly a violation of the intent of campaign finance laws. No rational person can deny that. Is there a loophole that Merkley can skate through, as he did when he violated his own ethics rules by fundraising during the legislative session? Possibly.

But leaving the legal questions aside, how does this help Merkley? The ad is so blatantly a campaign ad, they had to know they would be criticized. His campaign must be hoping that he'll get enough positive exposure to overcome the negative press, but that's a dangerous game.

"I'm surprised that posters here defend an ad that may violate campaign finance laws simply because others are doing it, too."

So only Republicans should have the fundraising advantage, while Democrats should lose and remain pure?

Look, campaign finance laws are a joke. The loopholes are so big it's hard to read the parts that don't have holes. I'm all for strict reforms. But let the legislators decide what's legal and not, don't force Democrats to be angels while Republicans play to win.

don't force Democrats to be angels while Republicans play to win.

How far do you take that, James? Should we use Rovian tactics of fear and division? Should we intimidate Republican voters at the polls? Should we use the threat of terrorism to scare voters into siding with us?

The reality is that you don't think campaign finance is that important. You're fine with the Democratic party playing fast and loose with the rules because Republicans do, too. Using that logic, I can pretty much justify anything.

I'm with Jeff Alworth.

Aren't laws supposed to be clear? Isn't spirit/letter a false dichotomy?

If Merkley is following the letter of the law, then that's that. What does "spirit of the law" mean anyway? That you're supposed to do more than the law requires? That's dumb.

Has anybody here even read Smith's FEC complaint (pdf)? They say it's a violation because the DPO's ad has text from Merkley's website:

However, the advertisement’s most prominent feature is Merkley, and the script of the advertisement is taken largely from statements contained on the Merkley Campaign website.

Only that's not true. Here's the script:

Something is seriously wrong in Washington, D.C. When Congress votes to raise their own pay and cut taxes for millionaires, then sends American troops to war in Iraq, but denies them a tax deduction for their combat pay and cuts their health care when they return home. I'm Jeff Merkley and our troops have done everything we ask with distinction. We need to start giving them the respect they deserve.

Try and find those sentences on Merkley's website. The only one you'll be able to find is "I'm Jeff Merkley."

Miles:

You're asking Democrats to follow your particular, restrictive interpretation of the law, while Republicans disregard the law altogether. What we really need is for both sides to follow the same rules. If the rules are too loose, they should be tightened for both sides. Perhaps that means changing the laws.

But it's a death sentence for the left if volunteer to bring knives to gunfights.

Verasoie,

Actually, I meant what I wrote. My question was "if Novick won the primary and the DSCC still decided to run these 'issues' ads, would Merkley still be the spokesman?" And I think the answer is "no", becaus these "issues" ads never would have been made. You then stated that Novick wouldn't be the spokesman in the ads because he had nothing to do with the passage of the legislation.

But that's my point---unlike you, I don't think the ads are simply to promote the "issues" and that Merkley just happens to a)be the person involved with the passage of the legislation and thus the best person to be spokesperson and b) running for state office and lacking money to run ads against his opponent.

I think the ad IS a thinly veiled campaign ad. The DSCC has found a way to work (barely) within the legal framework of the campaign finance laws and is using that to promote Jeff via the work he did in the Oregon Legislature.

Nothing legally wrong with that, but let's call a spade a spade. If Merkley wasn't running for office, I don't believe these ads would ever have been made. Instead of making ads promoting the "issues" the DSCC, if Novick had won and needed money/ad help, the DSCC would have tried to find some way to create ads that highlighted Novick. But to claim that the ads are only about the "issues" and that its just happenstance that Merkley, who needs to be putting up ads to counter Smith but apparently can't do so without help, is the best person to be in the ads, is insulting to my intelligence.

It seems to me that it should be obvious to everyone that the Speaker of the House does not singlehandedly pass legislation. Therefore the use of the word "I" is inaccurate and inappropriate.

If the ad had Jeff Merkley (OR Steve Novick) saying "I'm proud to be a Democrat. Working together we, as Democrats, have passed legislation that....." it would be an issue ad.'

It is clearly not that and therefore is a campaign ad. It is wrong. It would have been no less wrong if Novick was the nominee and prattled on about his personal achievements.

I have one very good piece of advice for the Merkley campaign, though - keep your candidate off camera as much as possible. Sincere though he may be, his personal presentation suffers by comparison with his opponent... and I do NOT like his opponent.

It seems to me that it should be obvious to everyone that the Speaker of the House does not singlehandedly pass legislation.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "pass". If you mean, "was one of the 60 members of the House that voted", then you're right.

But technically, the Speaker does in fact singlehandedly pass legislation -- if by "pass" you mean, "signed the bill to send it to the Governor."

<h2>Yeah, it's a stupid technical distinction, but the Speaker does in fact have a role that no one else has. And this entire conversation is about stupid technical distinctions.</h2>