Gordon Smith's blatant disregard for the law
Carla Axtman
Gordon Smith's problems with the undocumented workers issue took an interesting turn last week that seemed to go largely unnoticed.
Smith gave an interview to KATU TV last week in a scrambling, panic-button response to the Willamette Week piece making note of some pretty fishy goings on with hiring practices at Smith's frozen food and processing plants. The attention-grabbing part happens around the 1:40 mark.
Smith says, "Everyone that works at our plant has a Social Security number. Now there's a process to find out whether those are accurate. That's the process that we're following."
But Smith's own plant manager, Kelly Brown, told the Oregonian that they had to fire 12 people (Smith told the Oregonian that they'd fired two in the same story). And the tax preparer in the WW story said that he'd helped at least 5 Smith employees without Social Security numbers file their tax returns.
Obviously, not "everyone who works" at Smith's plant has an SS# or they'd be able to file their taxes with one. Smith has tried to dismiss this story as a lie and a smear. But there's clearly a problem if his workers are on the job without having Social Security numbers.
Smith's plant also recently spilled wastewater into a nearby creek, triggering a Class 1 DEQ violation. That's the most serious type of violation issued, incidentally. Surrogates tried to brush it off as meaningless...just the way they're trying to dismiss the issues surrounding workers at Smith's plant.
And now, Smith's campaign is in trouble for violating campaign laws:
Television stations in Minnesota and Oregon are asking the Federal Election Commission and the Federal Communications Commission for advice regarding allegations that Republicans in two Senate races are shortchanging viewers with the brevity of their stand-by-your-ad statements.The argument is over a matter of seconds, but depending on how the complaints are evaluated, the decision could cost Republican Sens. Norm Coleman (Minn.) and Gordon Smith (Ore.) hundreds of thousands of dollars.
TV stations in both states received letters from Democratic challengers arguing that the statements of approval at the end of the GOP campaign ads violate election laws. Attorneys for Al Franken, the challenger in Minnesota, said Coleman's image does not appear for a full four seconds at the end of his spot. Attorneys for Oregon challenger Jeff Merkley said Smith's ad shows a written statement but not his image.
Now I would grant that this last one isn't exactly an earth shattering thing. But its definitely part of an emerging pattern--where Smith (and his surrogates) seems to believe its perfectly acceptable to skirt the law.
And before the comments devolve into a discussion of the legal merits of immigration reform, enviornmental regulation or campaign finance law--let me be clear. Don't bother. Smith is a U.S. Senator and has not just a legal obligation, but a leadership obligation, to obey and uphold the law. Especially given his power to make changes to law--to flout them as he is now shows a deplorable lack of leadership and character.
 |
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
10:40 a.m.
Sep 15, '08
He's not allowed to actually run his company, is he? So it can't really be his personal "disregard for the law." Furthermore, as has been noted more than once on this issue, simply having undocumented workers on your payroll is not illegal. What's illegal is failing to perform due dilligence. I haven't seen anyone allege that with evidence yet.
On the ads, Smith would only be "in trouble" if the stations in Oregon decide to start charging him more. The decision is discretionary, and past examples suggest they will not raise his rates. This last example would actually be the clearest case of Smith, personally speaking, "disregarding the law." Ironically, it's also the one with the smallest likelihood of meaningful consequences.
Sep 15, '08
Smith says they're "following the process" of verifying employee's social security numbers, but it's not the process set up by the federal government Smith's a part of. From the WW article:
An 11-year-old federal program called E-verify allows companies to check instantly whether Social Security numbers match prospective employees’ names and whether other immigration documents granting them the right to work are valid.
Smith Frozen Foods chooses not to use this program. “We tried it in the past, and we were not very happy with it,” Brown says of E-verify, which is used by 80,000 companies in the United States. “It doesn’t work very well.”
More than 80,000 other companies in the U.S. use E-verify; just because you're not happy with the answers it gives you about your workers doesn't mean that it doesn't work.
11:02 a.m.
Sep 15, '08
"More than 80,000 other companies in the U.S. use E-verify; just because you're not happy with the answers it gives you about your workers doesn't mean that it doesn't work."
There are actually concerns about false negatives more than false positives (although I wouldn't necessarily imagine that's a big concern for Smith), but 80,000 is actually a small minority if you think about it. And regardless, use of the system is entirely voluntary, so trying to say he's disregarding the law by failing to use the government's voluntary verification system is a big stretch.
11:28 a.m.
Sep 15, '08
Thank you, torridjoe.
Elizabeth Furse and yourself have been valuable allies in my scheme to pull the wool over the eyes of just enough Oregonians to get sent back to my $3.5 million home and posh offices inside the beltway.
11:40 a.m.
Sep 15, '08
He's not allowed to actually run his company, is he? So it can't really be his personal "disregard for the law." Furthermore, as has been noted more than once on this issue, simply having undocumented workers on your payroll is not illegal. What's illegal is failing to perform due dilligence. I haven't seen anyone allege that with evidence yet.
Smith Frozen Foods is wholly owned by Gordon Smith and his wife. Sharon Smith signs the company payroll checks. So yes, its very much his personal 'disregard for the law'.
Knowingly hiring illegal workers is a violation of federal law. Essentially looking the other way while its going on is easily skirting it--especially given the raft of anecdotal and direct evidence supporting the WW story.
Sep 15, '08
Honestly, I found the description of how he treats his workforce--undocumented or otherwise--more troubling than the fact that his company might employ undocumented workers. Frankly, it would be surprising if a company that size in that industry managed to avoid employing undocumented workers, no matter what procedures they followed. But by treating his workers in such a degrading manner, he shows his disrespect for working people. (It sounds like they could use a union!)
12:07 p.m.
Sep 15, '08
On the ads, Smith would only be "in trouble" if the stations in Oregon decide to start charging him more. The decision is discretionary, and past examples suggest they will not raise his rates.
Actually, no. While FCC rule says that the decision is discretionary, FEC rules indicate that charging less than the market rate would be an unlawful corporate campaign contribution.
Under the law, the rate is the lowest-unit-rate -- unless the campaign violates the disclaimer rules, when the rate bounces up to the full market-rate.
My firm built Jeff Merkley's website, but I speak only for myself. Also, I'm not a lawyer. For legal advice, get your own lawyer.
Sep 15, '08
torridjoe wrote:
He's not allowed to actually run his company, is he? So it can't really be his personal "disregard for the law."
As with financial investments, adherence to such legal proscriptions is often quite loose. A serious investigation into Smith's personal involvement might show this is the case with management of Smith Frozen Foods. Of course, Smith would claim he has no management role.
1:39 p.m.
Sep 15, '08
"Actually, no. While FCC rule says that the decision is discretionary, FEC rules indicate that charging less than the market rate would be an unlawful corporate campaign contribution."
And how many times has FEC enforced that rule based on previous revelation of violations?
The FEC doesn't control the broadcast outlets, who will decide whether to raise rates or not. I stand by the assertion that this will cost Smith nothing.
Sep 15, '08
Carla, if Smith's plant is disregarding the requirements for due diligence in the I-9 process then they should be prosecuted. However, until you actually learn more about how the I-9 process works when hiring, perhaps you should back off a bit.
E-verify is not required, or even mentioned in I-9 verification regulations. It is actually only used for about 6MM employee checks annually and results in bad information about 6% of the time (~ 350,000 wrong answers). The system is slow and cumbersome.
It is entirely possible and plausible that employees have presented good-to-excellent false social security cards that get through the due diligence process. If presenting an Oregon Drivers'icense, well, that really isn't difficult to fake pre-July of this year either.
The real issue here is stop illegals at the border. Stop cities like Eugene, Portland, San Francisco and Seattle from sheltering illegals. Once illegals are discovered deport them immediately, regardless their country of origin.
1:40 p.m.
Sep 15, '08
"Elizabeth Furse and yourself have been valuable allies in my scheme to pull the wool over the eyes of just enough Oregonians"
If you'd like to document the evidence of "blatant disregard for the law," go right ahead.
1:44 p.m.
Sep 15, '08
Who OWNS the company has little to nothing to do with who RUNS the company.
I'm not aware of any evidence presented that Smith Foods has knowingly hired illegal workers. Do you?
I also don't know what is meant by "looking the other way." There is no requirement to re-evaluate immigrant status of one's workforce, nor to investigate claims of undocumented status, that I'm aware of. Anecdotal evidence of undocumented workers--which I completely believe--has no bearing on whether Smith is complying with the law or not.
1:47 p.m.
Sep 15, '08
"The real issue here is stop illegals at the border."
What do you do about the other 50-60% of "illegals" who crossed the border entirely legally?
Sep 15, '08
What do you do about the other 50-60% of "illegals" who crossed the border entirely legally?
Such as those folks who overstay visas and whatnot? Sorry, TJ, but it is ideologically unacceptable to mention this factoid, which interferes with the fence-them-out approach.
One wonders how many of Smith's employees without proper papers fall into the category of those who crossed the border legally....
But trying to respect Ms. Axtman's requets to stay on topic, I'm wondering about something: why is it that Gordon Smith does not have an, uh, Zoe Baird problem? And how long with his fan base at The Oregonian keep failing to mention this story?
2:03 p.m.
Sep 15, '08
It is actually only used for about 6MM employee checks annually and results in bad information about 6% of the time (~ 350,000 wrong answers).
No, it doesn't. It results in bad information 0.5% of the time - and those errors are resolved in an average of two days.
The other 5.3% of the time, E-Verify returns a response that more information is needed (i.e. a negative response)... and that results in the prospective employee walking away. Almost surely, those folks are illegal immigrants.
"Debunking the “E-Verify Error Rate"
Sep 15, '08
Kurt, please go back and read what was said about trying to divert this discussion on Smith's blatant disregard for the law into a discussion on immigration reform. There is more than enough documentation of a pattern hiring those who do not have a valid social.
When six out of thirteen responses are from one person I guess that a nerve has been hit. An oath to see that all laws are upheld . . . naa.
Sep 15, '08
E-verify is not required, or even mentioned in I-9 verification regulations. It is actually only used for about 6MM employee checks annually and results in bad information about 6% of the time (~ 350,000 wrong answers). The system is slow and cumbersome.
This could not be farther from the truth in my experience. I have used EVerify more than 250 times during the past 18 months. In that time, every single use of the system resulted in an answer within seconds. I only had one no match, and that was due to confusion regarding her married name. She resolved the problem the next day.
2:11 p.m.
Sep 15, '08
Who OWNS the company has little to nothing to do with who RUNS the company.
The OWNER of the company is liable and responsible for what goes on at the company, Mark. It has EVERYTHING to do with it.
Carla, if Smith's plant is disregarding the requirements for due diligence in the I-9 process then they should be prosecuted. However, until you actually learn more about how the I-9 process works when hiring, perhaps you should back off a bit.
E-verify is not required, or even mentioned in I-9 verification regulations. It is actually only used for about 6MM employee checks annually and results in bad information about 6% of the time (~ 350,000 wrong answers). The system is slow and cumbersome.
Kurt--it would seem, based on the WW report, that even Smith's use of the I-9 system is sketchy. Especially given the evidence that Smith's former personnel director was told not to photocopy worker's documents...in order to make it harder for immigration officials to find problems.
3:13 p.m.
Sep 15, '08
If you'd like to document the evidence of "blatant disregard for the law," go right ahead.
Why would I want to do that, ol' buddy?
While I'm askin' questions - why is it that just about every time I've been caught with my political pants around my ankles over the last year up pops your salivating head between my legs to fend off the Democrats with some of that sweet lovin' that I've come to rely upon?
Smooches
Sep 15, '08
If, as I understand, there are stringent "due diligence" requirements applied to employers in verifying employee status, why isn't there a retention of records policy requirement within the "due diligence" rules? Where is the diligence when one fails to retain copies of documents provided by the employee? Hopefully Senator Smith will no longer have the impediment of public office preventing his re-ascension to board chair in 09. It seems he needs to pay closer attention to what is being done in his name. I continue to believe employer immunity to voluntarily report all undocumented workers is the best means of solving the underlying problem relatively quickly.
4:08 p.m.
Sep 15, '08
"The OWNER of the company is liable and responsible for what goes on at the company, Mark. It has EVERYTHING to do with it."
Not when the owner is being forced to hold his ownership at some arm's length to avoid conflict of interest. And you may be speaking of technical culpability; I'm talking about political culpability. If he isn't running things, he won't be held responsible.
4:09 p.m.
Sep 15, '08
"While I'm askin' questions - why is it that just about every time I've been caught with my political pants around my ankles over the last year up pops your salivating head between my legs to fend off the Democrats with some of that sweet lovin' that I've come to rely upon?"
Because Democratic zealots keep trying to overstate the issue and demonize Smith beyond what will stick in the political arena. To say Smith is breaking the law is heavily suspect, without any evidence that he's done so--and could backfire, IMO.
Sep 15, '08
Wow, You guys are arguing about the details of Immigration law and finally acting like the Law should be enforced, because a Republican may have broken it, no Far Left only agenda here at all, nah.
What if Jeff Merkley's company (the House leader who would NOT allow E-Verify to become law in OR. in '07)does not use E-Verify?
What if Ron Wyden's new Wife who owns a large Bookstore is Not using E-Verify? Kari, are you using E-Verify? Does the state of Oregon? CEO-Ted Kulongoski could via executive order (like the License thingy).
Merkley said NO, more than once to E-Verify and so Smith doesn't have to use it, simple fact. Otherwise YOU are judging his workforce by the color of their skin, shame on you and far lefty Beth for doing so as over 2 Million come here Legally, Permanently, every year.
So are we all going to work together and make E-Verify Law now? Good. Start with Pelosi and the Bi-Partisan S.A.V.E. Act, it includes E-Verify becoming Federal law, to Protect everyone of course.
My Firends with the Non-Partisan & Non-Profit OFIR thank you.
4:22 p.m.
Sep 15, '08
Because Democratic zealots keep trying to overstate the issue and demonize Smith beyond what will stick in the political arena.
You mean like when you jumped all over the distinction between Columbia and Colombia but didn't bat an eyelash at the distinction between Bill Gates and Robert Gates in the Pentagon?
Hey - as long as that selective memory of yours remembers that I like more tongue and less teeth then I'm copasetic with it.
4:28 p.m.
Sep 15, '08
Not when the owner is being forced to hold his ownership at some arm's length to avoid conflict of interest. And you may be speaking of technical culpability; I'm talking about political culpability. If he isn't running things, he won't be held responsible.
His wife is signing the checks, Mark. They wholly own the company. Just because he's not supposed to be involved in day-to-day operations doesn't mean he isn't liable for what goes on there.
To claim that the owner of a company has no culpability or liability for his business (even with the rules on conflict-of-interest) is absurd, at best.
But for the sake of argument, let's say you're right: Smith has absolutely no legal culpability for undocumented worker violations at his plant. Are you really going to make the case that a U.S. Senator has absolutely no responsibility for making sure that those who oversee his business are doing so in a way that is absolutely above reproach? That he has no responsibility whatsoever for documented, ongoing issues with undocumented workers at his plant? Seriously...?
Your defense of Smith on this issue is bizarre, to say the least. Especially given the direct evidence that there is at least very strong evidence to back up the WW story.
4:32 p.m.
Sep 15, '08
Rick:
Last time I checked, Merkley and Wyden weren't courting the hardcore anti-immigrant voters who swear by E-verify. Smith is and does..hence his flip-flopping around on the issue in an attempt to quell dissent about it.
Smith apparently has been directing his personnel people not to make photocopies of worker's documents, too. That seems to me to be even shaky for the I-9 standard. So this isn't just about E-verify..this is about an attempt to keep immigration folks from being able to do an audit.
Sep 15, '08
Carla--thanks for avoiding the term "illegal immigrant". For those of you who don't get it (I'm talking to you, Kari) here is Lakoff's take on the "illegal" frame.
Here is another take
5:21 p.m.
Sep 15, '08
"You mean like when you jumped all over the distinction between Columbia and Colombia but didn't bat an eyelash at the distinction between Bill Gates and Robert Gates in the Pentagon?"
I don't even remember him saying that--was it mentioned here? In any case, are you suggesting that you don't actually know that Bill and Robert Gates were two different people? Cause it seemed pretty obvious the person writing the Merkley piece thought that's how you spell Colombia the country.
All of which is to wonder--what does that have to do with whether Gordon Smith is showing "blatant disregard for the law" in this case?
Sep 15, '08
Rick Hickey wrote:
What if Jeff Merkley's company...does not use E-Verify?
What if Ron Wyden's new Wife who owns a large Bookstore is Not using E-Verify? Kari, are you using E-Verify? Does the state of Oregon?
If an employer has no problem with hiring undocumented workers, whether they use E-Verify is not an issue. If Smith Frozen Foods hires many undocumented workers, then that employer's method of verification is an issue.
Sep 15, '08
Please do not allow illegal aliens in your state as unscreened foreigners will cause untold havoc in your state. Los Angeles allowed illegal immigration for decades check out this LAPD website. It will scare the pants off of you! Please the link below on your browser or search engine.
http://www.lapdonline.org/most_wanted
Most of the people in their most wanted website are not American citizens and are extremely dangerous.
Sep 15, '08
Please, common folks. Gordon Smith is playing the same game Janet Napolitano, has been playing in Arizona for years. When it comes to illegal immigratiion issues, she has played the citizens of Arizona like a well tuned violin over the years. You know that Smith is doing the same. Just get rid of him and do yourselves a favor and save yourselves a lot of grief. Vote someone into office who actually respects the immigration laws of the U.S. P.S. How many laws does Smith allow Oregonians to break? That's what I thought.
Sep 15, '08
Irrelevant remark alert (aka Dork Moment Alert) - I cannot resist. Sir/Ma'am? WHY is it always a violin? And well-tuned at that? Dare I smear a liddle and call this a trite phrase?
Why is it never a bassoon? A bari sax? A mandolin? I demand parity for my instruments, forthwith. Violins require exceeding amounts of skill, and in using this tired imagery, you pay a sort of homage to the very person you wish to deride.
And you bore the reader. Or me anyway.
Erm.
Sep 16, '08
Erm aren't you overdoing it? Who cares if it is a violin, guitar, or flute?
Your post is a horrific bore.
Sep 16, '08
Gordon Smith has personally bankrupted the Oregon Health Plan as he foists the costs of his illegal workers "benefits" upon the state's Citizen-tax slaves. (Let's not forget the soaring birthrate, and education costs of their offspring to Oregon Citizens, gang violence, drug dealers, drunk drivers, etc) Whether or not Smith runs his company, he has long lined his pockets with Smith food profits made at the expense of the Citizenry, in essence he is promoting outrageous open borders policies that have resulted in transfer of assets from Citizen serfs to his illegal workers. Boycott SMITH products, and deport Gordon to Mexico. His first cousin, Mark Udall (Boulder, CO)and the many Udall/Smith politicians, have advocated/legilated for illegals -- even "liberal/progressive" Coloradoans are fed up with Mark's treasonous behavior. Smith needs to be prosecuted for his illegal activities.
Sep 16, '08
Teresa, I think you screwed up when you did your cut-and-paste job from the Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul websites.
Sep 16, '08
Carla Axtman
Smith Frozen Foods is wholly owned by Gordon Smith and his wife. Sharon Smith signs the company payroll checks. So yes, its very much his personal 'disregard for the law'.
Knowingly hiring illegal workers is a violation of federal law. Essentially looking the other way while its going on is easily skirting it--especially given the raft of anecdotal and direct evidence supporting the WW story.
Your wrong. Smith connot run his company because it is not legal for him to do so since he is an active member of the senate. Just because his wife signs the paychecks does not mean that Smith has any knowledge of the day to day activities at his business. The fact that his facility opted not to use E-verify is not a crime or illegal in any fashion since you Dems won't sign onto the SAVE act. If you want to say he "has a blatant disregard for the law" there has to be a law that is actually broken.
By the way I am not any happier about him not using it than you are but under the current system you fill out an I-9 form and send it in and they contact you if something is wrong and then you have to act and dismiss the employee. I personally have seen that take up to 6 mos to happen and in many cases the employee in question is no longer employed there.
2:51 p.m.
Sep 16, '08
Your wrong. Smith connot run his company because it is not legal for him to do so since he is an active member of the senate.
Hmmm... he can't because Senate ethics rules stipulate that he can't. That's not the same thing as it being a violation of a law.
Just because his wife signs the paychecks does not mean that Smith has any knowledge of the day to day activities at his business.
<h2>What's the premise behind spouses not having to testify against each other in a court of law?</h2>