GOP State Rep. Jim Weidner violating House ethics rules?
Carla Axtman
A few years ago, the Oregon House set a rule for itself that members would not take campaign contributions during a legislative session. The rule is 19.20 and it states:
Campaign Contributions During Session. No member of the House, during session, shall accept and/or solicit a contribution to the member or the member’s principal campaign committee or accept and/or solicit an expenditure in support of the member from any person. This does not limit a member from using existing campaign funds.
This rule, along with all of the others, were re-agreed upon unanimously by the House members at the beginning of the February special session.
Yet according to Contribution and Expenditure reports for State Rep. Jim Weidner (R-McMinnville), his campaign accepted a $300 contribution from Idaho Power Company on February 9, 2010, well into the session.
According to House Clerk Ramona Kendady, a number of House members did receive contributions during session. But a reminder was sent out to members to return any contributions. Unless the C&E reports are incorrect, Weidner did not.
If Weidner indeed accepted a contribution during session, this would be a violation of Oregon House rules (as opposed to campaign finance laws). Kenady said that the remedy for such a violation would begin with a sitting House member filing a complaint either with the Speaker's office or with Kenady's office. An informal inquiry would then ensue--with the Speaker's office working with the Clerk. According to House Rule 7.10, "..The Speaker shall enforce all rules, laws and regulations applicable to the body.”
Weidner has already been an embarrassment to his district, having been stripped of all but one committee for not dealing in good faith with his House colleagues. Weidner further embarrassed himself in committee testimony,not understanding that he was advocating for yanking 80,000 Oregon kids off of their health insurance.
This is quite a dubious list for Weidner to potentially rack up. Hopefully, the residents of McMinnville will choose different representation that includes competence and integrity.
 |
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 10, '10
I'm beginning to suspect that Jim Weidner is an evil mastermind who is trying to do everything possible to embarrass the Republican Party from within and to hand over this legislative seat to Susan Sokol Blosser.
Just saying.
Mar 10, '10
Anyone know how effective it would be to support Sokol-Blosser's campaign by buying her wine? Any chance she'll be self-funding to any extent?
I can't think of a more enjoyable political contribution I could make than by drinking it up for a good cause!
Mar 11, '10
What they didn't see when Rep. Weidner agreed – along with all other legislators – to this rule was that he had his fingers crossed behind his back.
Mar 11, '10
Someone refresh our minds (details) about how Merkley did something similar in '08 special session. No problemO.
6:40 a.m.
Mar 11, '10
Someone refresh our minds (details) about how Merkley did something similar in '08 special session.
Here's what the Oregonian and Gordon Smith had to say about it.
I know that there are several people who post or comment regularly on this blog, myself included, who criticized Merkley at the time, even though Legislative counsel said that the rule does not apply to candidates running for federal office.
In any case, why would you think any of that excuses Weidner's actions? It was either a stupid mistake or willful disregard for the rules, neither of which speaks well of him as a candidate.
Mar 11, '10
Posted by: verasoie | Mar 10, 2010 11:48:06 PM
Anyone know how effective it would be to support Sokol-Blosser's campaign by buying her wine? Any chance she'll be self-funding to any extent?
I can't think of a more enjoyable political contribution I could make than by drinking it up for a good cause!
Would she look as attractive if she wasn't running against Satan? The idea sounds a bit fishy, Vichysoise!
Mar 11, '10
Thanks Sal! I wasn't trying to excuse Weidner,let him hang if he broke the rules, but rather just reminding post author of potential hypocrisy. Let's look at the actual legislative rule to see if it explicitly allows Federal candidates to accept funds.
BTW, I know there are no sour grapes (no pun intended) on your part since this was a seat I think you ran for and lost to a true nutcase.
Mar 11, '10
just reminding post author of potential hypocrisy
She doesn't have to be reminded. It's her stock and trade. Add a little ends justify the means, spin well, and it comes out as simply fighting conservative disinformation. A walking answer to the question, "who disinforms the disinformers"?
8:19 a.m.
Mar 11, '10
Thanks Sal! I wasn't trying to excuse Weidner,let him hang if he broke the rules, but rather just reminding post author of potential hypocrisy.
I don't see any hypocrisy in the author not referencing a story that was well-covered two years ago.
As to the rest...
Donna was a much more effective, more relevant legislator than Jim. Frankly, I didn't think we could do worse than Donna but Jim has certainly proved me wrong on that score.
Nope. No sour grapes. No one liked losing but I never particularly enjoyed being a candidate. I'm fortunate to be in a position where I can work with legislators and candidates from both major parties to promote small but meaningful reforms that encourage greater citizen participation and a more collaborative approach to governance. Besides, no one thought I was going to be competitive anyway. In hindsight, it's difficult to feel anything but gratitude for the support I received from my community.
8:40 a.m.
Mar 11, '10
Bill - Is any part of Carla's post is inaccurate?
Mar 11, '10
Carla once again demonstrates the utter ignorance that Blue Oregon dingbats, along with right-wing knuckledraggers, mutually share.
The concept of "ethics" in Oregon and the NW is a straightforward definition of corruption: Our citizen legislature refuses to enact ethics laws that would actually constrain their activities BECAUSE they view their job in Salem actually to be to further their own special interests.
For anyone above the level of dingbats or knuckledraggers, it's pretty easy to understand how the joke works in Oregon and Washington:
1) Politicians limit consideration of ethics to piddly amounts of money in a campaign as a smokescreen that easily distracts the dingbat/knuckledragger freakshow.
2) Ethics enforcement is divided up into a professional support staff and politically appointed board who has the actual decision making and enforcement power.
3) Staff points out genuine ethics violations that typically aren't explicitly in the law but which are obviously unethical behavior. And which would be punished if Oregon and NW politics weren't genetically corrupted by self-entitled, ignorant dingbats and knuckledraggers (many with Ivy League credentials where the primary educational goal is instruction in elitist corruption of ethical society).
4) Crony political appointees engage in semantic evasion to shield their elected and appointed friends, the people they rub shoulders with in their "real-life" social, business, and political dealings, from sanctions. They then also implicitly warn the professionally trained staff to not embarrass them and their patrons that way.
5) If the problem is a little to obvious, laws are passed to simply declare the unethical, ethical. Such as the famous Tom Potter case where he, with support of most of Oregon's Democratic and Republican corrupt political leadership, argued accepting valuable considerations from private interests Paul Allen and the Blazers to induce him to work to deliver valuable public considerations back to private interests like Allen and the Blazers WAS PART OF HIS JOB AS MAYOR TO DEVELOP "BUSINESS" IN PORTLAND. And so the very definition of "corruption" is made the definition of "ethical".
5) Of course, this is mainly the system the legislature sets up for the executive. Our citizen legislators, Oregon's/Washington's "finest" (that's a joke, for you mentally deficient dingbats and knuckledraggers, are not going to subject themselves to this kind of scrutiny. After all, they have private lives and careers to conduct. So they reserve to themselves any ethics enforcement against their peers.
And that's why we have the smokescreen of piddly campaign contributions as pretty much the entire focus of considerations about ethics in government in the NW.
Magnify this with relevant variations in DC, and it's pretty clear why the neo-American "ethics" are excuses and support for torture, corrupt health care reform (rather than just Medicare-for-all), bailouts of financial predators, and never-ending war that knows no party bounds.
And why we have blogs like dingbat haunts like Blue Oregon and their knuckledragger counterparts across the aisle engaged in excited mouthbreathing rants like this that we see when elections role around. And jerkwads on national blogs like Daily Kos and Five-Thirty-Eight, Politico, etc. making excuses for those in the circles of power amongst whom they aspire to be the new insiders.
9:05 a.m.
Mar 11, '10
Bitter.
Mar 11, '10
y: Sal Peralta | Mar 11, 2010 8:40:59 AM
Bill - Is any part of Carla's post is inaccurate?
I think he was making a global attribution. On that score, being drop dead gorgeous doesn't exactly encourage getting real or having a clue where the average person is coming from.
Weidner is a disgrace. Will anyone argue that a majority of his district don't share his values? Aren't about 70% of the McM'ville "Fortune 50" solidly behind him? This is the problem with simple majority rulz representation. If 60% of the district are shitheads, and 40% progressive (just to be extreme), is a shithead or a progressive most representative? Neither are, and it is cases like this that show our system to be fundamentally unworkable in the 21st century.
I diverge, tho. This is a political blog and the theme is, "but how can we win, win win and RULE that broken system!" You want representative government? Alternate polling a media exec, and a Ouija ball. "Will of the people". Have you ever heard the statement that a measure's validity can never exceed its reliability? People vote illogically, undercutting their own stated ends willy-nilly. What they support isn't something you can derive from other things they support or what they oppose. It's purely random. No reliability = no validity. There is no "representing" them, unless you DO act randomly, illogically, and with capricious avarice.
As such, Jim Weidner is a pretty good rep. Granted, he's slime on two legs, but look at the "notable personalities" in McM'ville!
Naturally, the scrum will close to maintain party unity. Why do you think people like me bring this up? Nothing better to do? Trolls? I'm on vacation in BC, and I have MUCH better things to be doing. Unfortunately, the hypocrisy that runs through the system is eating all of our lunches.
9:38 a.m.
Mar 11, '10
Let me explain the idea behind this rule. Without it, a lobbyist could hold out a check during session saying, "You're voting on my bill in a few minutes; I really haven't decided whether to give this to you."
Such behavior may not technically be explicit quid-pro-quo, but it's damned close. By forbidding all House donations while the House is in session, the rule stops this in its tracks.
This House rule doesn't apply to federal races because federal business does not come before the Oregon State House. And when he was a candidate, Senator Merkley did the rule one better, by not accepting donations from any Oregonian, not just people with business before the House.
Forbidding out of state fundraisers for a different position is not covered by, nor was the intent behind, the House rule.
9:39 a.m.
Mar 11, '10
Will anyone argue that a majority of his district don't share his values?
Yes, I'd argue that point. Weidner campaigned as a moderate in the last session, and his campaign mail -- clearly not written by him -- cast him as competent.
He has demonstrated that he is anything but either of those two things and I fully expect that he will be beaten badly in November.
Mar 11, '10
This guy couldn't legislate a sandwich.
Mar 11, '10
"This guy couldn't legislate a sandwich."
And thank God for it. Only a democrat would try to legislate a sandwich and bring it into compliance with fines, fees, assesments and taxes. A sandwich does not deserve or necessitate the unlimited power of government brought to bear on its two slices of bread and hearty fillings. But leave it to democrats to find a way and justify it by creating a Sandwich Equality Commission and permanent staff.
Mar 11, '10
Yeah, and a sandwich wouldn't kick 80,000 children to the curb and deny them healthcare.
But a republican would.
Mar 11, '10
And a Republican would spy on the sandwich, torture it, lie it into war, vehemently oppose gay sandwiches and then eat one out in a gay bar or solicit its pickle in a bathroom, send other sandwiches overseas to die in the war into which the sandwiches were lied...and claim to be a pure lover of sandwiches, save for the gay ones.
Mar 11, '10
Of course, a lame Oregon/NW Democrat would say that if that sandwich has meat in it it is a threat to your health, and therefore you have to buy insurance from a private health insurance company before we'll let you eat it.
<hr/> <h2>Typical sad example of a NW/Oregon Democratic dingbat who just can't stand that fact that some of us know exactly what, and who, is wrong with our Party.</h2>Which proves the point exactly about the ignorance and genetic corruption of Democratic and Republican politics in the NW.
First, since it takes one to know one, we see by how they feel they have to put up a charade like this (without actually making themselves subject to a formal public ethics process, of course) exactly what kind of Democratic and Republican whores we elect if they know they have to pass rules against impulsively selling themselves on the spur of the moment. Of course, this doesn't motivate them to enforce CONTRIBUTION LIMITS which would at least give us a measure of just how cheap whores (and insult to the good name of sex workers) they really are.
Second, the session lasts how long? A couple of months? What this shows is they aren't even honest enough to stay bought after all the bundled fundraising those same interests groups did right before the session. And that they don't have even enough self control or integrity to honor a commitment, even for the length of the session, to those interests who agree during the session to do bundled fundraising after the session and throughout the off-term.
<hr/>The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem. And we have big problems with the kind of people we elect and the cling-ons who run smokescreens for them.
7:29 p.m.
Mar 11, '10
Of course, this doesn't motivate them to enforce CONTRIBUTION LIMITS which would at least give us a measure of just how cheap whores (and insult to the good name of sex workers) they really are.
You mean those CONTRIBUTIONS LIMITS that the Oregon Supreme Court says are unconstitutional..?
Jeez.
7:45 p.m.
Mar 11, '10
You mean those CONTRIBUTIONS LIMITS that the Oregon Supreme Court says are unconstitutional..?
At the risk of associating myself with ENiS - The precedent reached by the Oregon Supreme Court, which reversed more than 100 years of contribution limits, was every bit as bad as the corrupting decision reached by the Roberts court that President Obama and others have roundly criticized.
This is an issue where many of the power players on the Democratic side, with a few notable exceptions, are clearly on the wrong side of the issue.
Mar 11, '10
You mean those CONTRIBUTIONS LIMITS that the Oregon Supreme Court says are unconstitutional..?
You mean the ELECTED POLITICIANS on the Supreme Court because dumb Oregonians, Democrats and Republicans alike, think turning even judges into politicians is a GOOD idea? So we get dimbulbs like Kulongoski who couldn't decide what he wanted to be when he grew up and was poor at every office the stupid people elected him to? Rather than actually electing competent people to be Governor and Legislators who might appoint judges based on their intellect and genuine merit?
Yea, those contribution limits, typical Oregon dingbat.
8:30 p.m.
Mar 11, '10
You mean the ELECTED POLITICIANS on the Supreme Court because dumb Oregonians, Democrats and Republicans alike, think turning even judges into politicians is a GOOD idea?
Riiiiight...we're all just so fucking stupid that we can't possibly figure out for whom to vote into any office. And because the Oregon Constitution has a broad free speech clause--well, those vile and incompetent judges must be bought and sold.
Of course you have no evidence for any of this....but its quite a stream of word vomit.
In the meantime, Weidner's C&E's still show that he accepted a campaign contribution outside of the rules that he agreed to.
Carry on.
Mar 11, '10
You mean those CONTRIBUTIONS LIMITS that the Oregon Supreme Court says are unconstitutional..?
And of course, dingbat, they could also put a constitutional amendment to the people that non-persons like corporations have only the speech rights the people shall allow them. (Don't like it, stay a sole proprietorship or a partnership so there is no corporate veil.) Of course, that would be expecting the very people that dumb Oregonians elect and who benefit from the current situation to change it. Not likely. But it does provide more opportunities to expose just how disgusting they and their dingbat defenders are.
Keep setting them up dingbats, and we'll keep knocking 'em down and exposing you for what you are.
8:42 p.m.
Mar 11, '10
At the risk of associating myself with ENiS - The precedent reached by the Oregon Supreme Court, which reversed more than 100 years of contribution limits, was every bit as bad as the corrupting decision reached by the Roberts court that President Obama and others have roundly criticized.
Whether or not you agree with the OR Supreme Court rulings on this--it's the law in Oregon. The legislature and the Governor cannot make and enforce laws that the Court has ruled to be unconstitutional. It's unfair to shift blame to them for it.
This is an issue where many of the power players on the Democratic side, with a few notable exceptions, are clearly on the wrong side of the issue.
I'd be very interested to know who these "power players" are that would work against campaign finance contribution limits.
8:47 p.m.
Mar 11, '10
And because the Oregon Constitution has a broad free speech clause--well, those vile and incompetent judges must be bought and sold.
It's worth mentioning that this issue is currently before the Oregon court of appeals. I think it would be a mistake to assume that you know how the court is going to rule on its enforcement of Measure 47, as the "reform" bloc on the state supreme court has grown. If they take the same liberal view of stare decisis that the Roberts Court has taken we might see things shaken up significantly in the coming year.
8:50 p.m.
Mar 11, '10
And of course, dingbat, they could also put a constitutional amendment to the people that non-persons like corporations have only the speech rights the people shall allow them. (Don't like it, stay a sole proprietorship or a partnership so there is no corporate veil.)
Or genius--you could simply get off your ass and gather signatures to change it. Or you could go to your legislator and ask to have them introduce it. But that would..gasp! actually require that you DO something.
Of course, that would be expecting the very people that dumb Oregonians elect and who benefit from the current situation to change it. Not likely. But it does provide more opportunities to expose just how disgusting they and their dingbat defenders are.
Since they've already enacted gift limits from lobbyists (which was upheld by the Supreme Court, fyi), it would seem the legislature can manage it. But then to cite that would be outside that vivid fantasy life you've created for yourself.
Keep setting them up dingbats, and we'll keep knocking 'em down and exposing you for what you are.
Yeah..you do that. Your lack of self-awareness isn't helping your case.
Mar 11, '10
I'd be very interested to know who these "power players" are that would work against campaign finance contribution limits.
Start with everyone of the scummy Democrats and Republicans "citizen legislators" who have served in every legislative session since 1997 and who haven't introduced a clear constitutional amendment, rather than a ballot measure enacting law, that circumscribes the political privileges of corporations. Along with everyone of their major contributors who haven't actually made that demand along with their contributions.
Instead we got the idiotic Measure 46 that was so poorly conceived and written it proved the point about the stupidity of the usual suspects in the community that defend the losers we send to Salem, and Measure 47, which a Democratic governor and two Democratic Secy's of State and two Democratic Attorney Generals have not enforced.
Mar 11, '10
Or genius--you could simply get off your ass and gather signatures to change it. Or you could go to your legislator and ask to have them introduce it. But that would..gasp! actually require that you DO something.
Carla, how would a dingbat like you have a clue what I may or may have not done? Or whether my Representatives and Senator were smart enough to understand the point if it was brought to them? Or honest enough to want to change a system that benefits them in any event? And since your grade school argument depends on that unknowable assertion, it doesn't really leave you with much of an argument now does it?
Mar 11, '10
I supported Meas. 9 campaign finance reform, but was not impressed by 46 and 47---thought there were technical problems with the wording.
So, do I "support campaign finance reform"?
One much easier idea is from the Public Comm. on the Legislature
http://www.leg.state.or.us/pcol/final_report/lc_1586_campaign_funds.pdf
9:41 a.m.
Mar 12, '10
Carla, how would a dingbat like you have a clue what I may or may have not done?
Based on the ignorant screeds you've been posting in this comment thread--lots of clues are quite evident. It doesn't take a genius to sort it out. Even a "dingbat" can see that much.
Or whether my Representatives and Senator were smart enough to understand the point if it was brought to them?
It's amazing you're able to even bother breathing the same oxygen as the rest of us, given just how brilliant you are in comparison. Its a wonder the rest of us can even walk upright.
Or honest enough to want to change a system that benefits them in any event?
As I've already explained, they've done that. Sadly, that factual information interferes with your rich and varied fantasy life.
And since your grade school argument depends on that unknowable assertion, it doesn't really leave you with much of an argument now does it?
You being the expert on grade school arguments, and all.
Mar 12, '10
Weidner's staffer made an error. The money was deposited and a check was cut back to them as soon as the error was discovered. I called and confirmed with a staffer.
The house finance rules conflict with Oregon Campaign finance laws. Are we going to make a big deal over $300, apparently some people are.
Rep Weidner is always accessible. If anyone wanted the facts, they could have them. All they have to do is ask.
1:34 p.m.
Mar 12, '10
Weidner's staffer made an error. The money was deposited and a check was cut back to them as soon as the error was discovered. I called and confirmed with a staffer.
Which according to ORESTAR, happened yesterday--the day after this post. Gee, I wonder how the "error" was discovered?
Especially given that the House Clerk reminded all members about the rule DURING THE SESSION--this is an odd error. Either Weidner and his staff are grossly incompetent, or they were caught with their hand in the jar.
Neither is especially a good sign.
Mar 12, '10
I can't for the life of me understand the hatred and vitriol spewed on this sight. The only reason I read this is to remind myself how nasty and awful some people are.
If the people on this sight spent half as much time looking for solutions as you do tearing people down, the world (especially Oregon) would be a much better place. There are cowards on this sight that instead of throwing their own hat in the ring would rather demean and degrade anyone else who does.
Just another reason I believe why Portland is the most miserable place to live, and I'm glad I don't call it home.
Mar 13, '10
Posted by: RedTed | Mar 11, 2010 11:10:57 AM
"This guy couldn't legislate a sandwich."
And thank God for it. Only a democrat would try to legislate a sandwich and bring it into compliance with fines, fees, assesments and taxes. A sandwich does not deserve or necessitate the unlimited power of government brought to bear on its two slices of bread and hearty fillings. But leave it to democrats to find a way and justify it by creating a Sandwich Equality Commission and permanent staff.
How drole. Except Republicans have pretty much done it. Forgetting that monumentally wasteful policy- and more "permanent staff" than you can shake a stick at- implementing the War on Drugs? Protecting us from poppy seed rolls. Seriously. Many cases of persons on custodial supervision or in prison having parole revoked for testing positive for opium after eating poppy seed rolls. No appeal. No tolerance. No brains. Most Dems think government policy on poppy seeds (or hemp, etc) is just dumb. It's the Reps that think it is a critical public safety item. How close is the police state to being able to be drowned in a bathtub? Who's baby is that?
Glad you can see that, though!
Mar 13, '10
Zarathustra - Unfortunately, your attempt at cleverness demeans you. As already noted, Democrats and Republicans together have given us:
support for torture, corrupt health care reform rather than Medicare-for-all (notice how Wu is the ONLY Oregon Democrat on that list and neither Senator has stepped up to offer a Senate companion?), bailouts of financial predators, and never-ending "war"
AND they have continued the drug war all along. Elected Democrats count their share of former and current prosecutors in their ranks, and it isn't because they made ending drug prohibition a centerpiece of their campaigns early on. In case you haven't noticed, "drug courts" are still about keeping people who use drugs in the "justice" system.
The Democrats just have become much more cynical in the propaganda and much less concerned about being blatant liars. They know they have ethically and intellectually stunted foot soldiers out there, Blue Oregon being a showcase, as their shock troops to drive the propaganda effort.
Dingbats like Carla demonstrate why some of us learned a long time ago that one needs to clean up the trash in our own house (party, social network, etc.). The Democratic Party in Oregon and nationally has become a hypocritical fraud and until we quit defending the kind of losers we see elected in Oregon and national who disgrace the "D" label, the situation just get worse.
Mar 13, '10