Carla's midweek effort to earn her keep at Blue O.
Carla Axtman
Yup. Here is this week's "keep-earning" post. Maybe I'll do one of these every week, just to remind the editors of how much they like me! They really like me!
Okay..enough of that.
Tossing out a couple of updates on Oregon House race stuff....
First, a follow-up to Saturday's story on Karen Minnis' apparent money-laundering scheme. PolitickerOR has been all over this one. Britten Chase writes up Bruce Hanna's reaction:
State House Republican Leader Bruce Hanna (R-Roseburg) responded harshly to House Majority leader Dave Hunt's (D-Clackamas) assertion that fundraising actions taken by state Rep. Karen Minnis (R-Wood Village) to give money out of her campaign contributions to candidates that have hired her on as a consultant were possibly unethical.Should Rep. Minnis seek legal action for defamation, House Republicans will stand firmly behind her, Hanna said. Oregonians deserve better from their elected leaders. I am deeply disappointed that such a dangerous accusation would come from a state representative, especially one elected to lead his party."
Wow. Somebody hit a nerve! Hanna is in hysterics. Could it possibly have anything to do with the fact that Hanna is the guy in charge of the GOP House races in Oregon and may have had just a little bit to do with campaigns funneling Minnis's cash around?
Apparently I'm not the only one whose eyebrows were raised over the situation. Rob Tornoe has his own critique, in his own inimitable style.
Meanwhile, the Gresham Outlook says Minnis "should have known better" and is "sending the wrong message".
Hanna's got other problems, too. Over at the paper of record in Forest Grove, Christian Gaston reports that finding a replacement for Jeff Ducyk in HD 29 is proving to be tough. And there are only two weeks left.
On the bright side for Hanna, The House Republican PAC had $42,283 on hand as of Tuesday.
But a closer look at the figures shows that even there, Hanna's crew isn't doing so hot.
At the bottom of the Account Summary page at Orestar for Promote Oregon Leadership PAC, they've got the following:
Cash Balance $31,009.81
Accounts Receivable $41,765.00
subtotal : $72,774.81
Total Outstanding Loans $0.00
Outstanding Personal Expenditures $21.00
Accounts Payable $30,470.48
subtotal : $30,491.48
Balance/Deficit $42,283.33
The actual cash they've got on hand isn't $42,283.33. Its $31,009.81. And their "accounts payable", which means the bills they've got to pay are at $30,470.48. That means they've actually got about $538 on hand.
As I understand it, the $42k includes money that's pledged to the organization, but hasn't actually been collected.
Bummer, Bruce.
 |
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
4:17 p.m.
Aug 13, '08
Carla,
Any word on how much of the payables are owed to Minnis?
4:34 p.m.
Aug 13, '08
I did appreciate The Outlook publishing an article on Minnis' actions. However, they've now run an editorial on how terrible it will be for the state if Democrats get better control of the state legislature. They said that the government works best when things are equal, and anything else is an "imbalance of power."
From the editorial:
When Democrats take more seats in the legislature, it's because people are tired of watching this state fall apart and not be able to take care of itself and its people. It's because there are more people voting Democrat than there are voting Republican. Having things equal, or close to, in the state legislature just ends up with a lot of stalemates and very little getting done. I'm looking forward to when the Democrats have a larger majority in the legislature so that we can get some things done and put this state back on the right track.
4:43 p.m.
Aug 13, '08
John:
As far as I know, payables don't show up on Orestar until they're actually paid. If someone has information to the contrary, please let me know.
There was a payment from Promote Oregon Leadership PAC to Karen Minnis and Associates on 7/1/08 and 7/22/08 of $1000 each.
Aug 13, '08
Wow, a Dem says that Minnis' actions are "possibly unethical" and a Gopper is threatening to sue. Amazing!
Perhaps Rep. Hanna should support W going after Gordon Smith for defamation for saying the conduct of the Iraq war "may even be criminal".
5:57 p.m.
Aug 13, '08
I don't think that account payables show up on there, but I think you may be able to request that information. I can't remember for sure.
6:26 p.m.
Aug 13, '08
For those who don't get the headline or Carla's opener, it's a reference to this comment.
Aug 13, '08
Is it really a surprise that Hanna is so defensive of Minnis?
After all, his chief of staff is Angela Wilhelms, daughter of Minnis's former chief of staff Gary Wilhelms.
Maybe after the House Rs get trounced yet again the caucus will finally wise up and kick the Minnis cronies to the curb.
Aug 13, '08
I think you need to somehow fawn over Jeff Merkley and at the same time gloat over the loss of Steve Novick to earn your keep at BO, because it's like that Metallica song, "Nothing Else Matters."
7:54 p.m.
Aug 13, '08
I think you need to somehow fawn over Jeff Merkley and at the same time gloat over the loss of Steve Novick to earn your keep at BO, because it's like that Metallica song, "Nothing Else Matters."
yawn
7:56 p.m.
Aug 13, '08
Carla - you seem to be confusing cash versus accrual accounting methods. The Orestar payables & pledges/receivables reflect accrual, not cash, accounting - so the fund balance figures in Orestar are accurate (at least as far as the info. the campaigns/committees have reported!) pictures that take into account both expenses the committees have incurred but not yet paid as well as money they've been promised but that hasn't yet come in. Of course, that tells you nothing about when the various bills need to get paid, and whether or not they'll have cash flow problems if a vendor put the squeeze on 'em....
8:06 p.m.
Aug 13, '08
The Orestar payables & pledges/receivables reflect accrual, not cash, accounting - so the fund balance figures in Orestar are accurate (at least as far as the info. the campaigns/committees have reported!) pictures that take into account both expenses the committees have incurred but not yet paid as well as money they've been promised but that hasn't yet come in. Of course, that tells you nothing about when the various bills need to get paid, and whether or not they'll have cash flow problems if a vendor put the squeeze on 'em....
Hmmm..Dan..
I called around and asked some of the folks who use this system on a regular basis to see if I was correct on what I was reading and was assured that I am....
8:31 p.m.
Aug 13, '08
Carla - if you're trying to get an idea of how much a committee has to spend, it doesn't work to just subtract the bills that need paying from the cash on hand without also figuring in the money that's been promised. If you've got $30K in the bank and $50K in bills that may be due a month from now, but you also know you've got $40K coming in by the end of the week, you wouldn't just subtract $50K from $30K and freak out that you're $20K short.
Aug 13, '08
[Off-topic comment about the Senate race removed. We have plenty of threads here about the Senate race. Please stay on topic. -editor.]
9:11 p.m.
Aug 13, '08
Dan --
One thing you're missing. The "Accounts Receivable" as listed in ORESTAR aren't really accounts receivable in a business sense.
Almost entirely, they're pledges of donations.
A business with an unpaid invoice could go to court to get the receivable paid. If a donor reneges on a pledge, there's nothing firm to be done about it.
Given the ephemeral nature of pledges, but the very real nature of accounts payable, it's more accurate to say that the House Republicans are very nearly broke.
9:23 p.m.
Aug 13, '08
Kari - look, I have no interest in shoring up the Rs' books, but I don't get your logic. You telling me you never heard of similar fuzziness on the payable side - like vendors getting stiffed or bills getting forgiven after the campaign's over?
On top of that, we all know that campaigns often hold off on booking certain donations in order to mislead the opposition re. the real status of their fundraising.
So - I'm not saying I know anything you don't re. current R fundraising; I'm also not an accountant - but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night...
11:07 p.m.
Aug 13, '08
That's all true. But you'll note that almost no one ever reports pledges - because they're not reliable.
So, if you're looking for an apples-to-apples comparison, remove the House R's pledges from the equation.
Compared to the House D's, they're broke.
Aug 14, '08
Well isn't this interesting about Dave Hunt:
http://www.votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=46446
Representative Dave Hunt repeatedly refused to provide any responses to citizens on the issues through the 2008 Political Courage Test when asked to do so by national leaders of the political parties, prominent members of the media, Project Vote Smart President Richard Kimball, and Project Vote Smart staff.
Urge Representative Dave Hunt to fill out the Political Courage Test
And (no) surprise, surprise:
http://www.votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=23644
Representative Jeffery A. 'Jeff' Merkley repeatedly refused to provide any responses to citizens on the issues through the 2008 Political Courage Test when asked to do so by national leaders of the political parties, prominent members of the media, Project Vote Smart President Richard Kimball, and Project Vote Smart staff.
Urge Representative Jeffery A. 'Jeff' Merkley to fill out the Political Courage Test
I don't agree with Smith down the line, but sadly he can actually hold his head up and tell the voters he took the test. What's more suprising is that the questions are hardly anything that an voter who seeks to be informed, and to judge just how much a candidate claims when (s)he is in front of friendlies, wouldn't expect to have the right to know:
The Political Courage Test asks candidates which items they will support if elected. It does not ask them to indicate which items they will oppose. Through extensive research of public polling data, we discovered that voters are more concerned with what candidates would support when elected to office, not what they oppose. If a candidate does not select a response to any part or all of any question, it does not necessarily indicate that the candidate is opposed to that particular item.
http://www.votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=425#11301
What is it with our Party that we can't come up with people with any more character than this? I know they run in the primaries because I've met some challengers from time to time who would do us credit as Democrats in Salem and DC.
On the other hand I guess it does take some kind of "courage" to even flip-off your fellow Democrats who might look to other than campaign literature to see the stands you've taken as you ask them for $upport.
Aug 14, '08
Why is this interesting? Do you have any concept how many of these things a candidate gets? Do you have any idea how long it takes to go through this stuff looking for traps and akward constructions that can lead to a misunderstanding and a gaffe? Why are you soooo special? Ooooh a rat bastard won't mess with this ever so important survey on questions already covered - ass.
2:45 a.m.
Aug 14, '08
Chuck:
Isn't that the truth? Working on questionnaires is actually what I am doing right now.
Aug 14, '08
Chuck Butcher,
It's interesting because Project Vote Smart is a neutral, initially grassroots populist effort that started at right in Oregon at OSU in the early 90s from the efforts of some major political leaders including former Presidents, to get average citizens info that isn't spun by the MSM. Despite some controversy, which you can read about by Googling, it remains a valid info source for non-partisan info.
Did you even bother to read the questions? Can you point all of us to an alternative non-partisan, non-political third party voter education information source that covers all of those topics, and that Hunt and Merkley haven't thumbed their nose at so we can judge all of the candidates ourselves?
2:45 p.m.
Aug 14, '08
They're hardly the only candidates to not participate - according to the group only 48% of candidates participate in it anymore.
McCain used to sit on the board until he was removed because he wouldn't fill out the questionnaire.
Some people may get their information from the Project, but I have to admit it my 18 years of campaigning, I have yet to run across someone who got their information from the Project.
Candidates have a limited amount of time to spend on things, and apparently across the board the "political courage test" isn't making the cut. Not only that, but from what I've seen of the questionnaire, it just wants "yes" answers, and nothing else. Many candidates won't answer such questionnaires unless they have the opportunity to give a short statement along with it - a statement that is then shared along with the "yes" answers.
<h2>It would be my guess that candidates are going to continue spending their time on the activity that wins votes - out talking to voters.</h2>