Another candidate for Governor?

This appeared in the comment thread about Clean Money elections, but it's newsworthy and deserves its own discussion, so here it is.

From Rob Kremer, the conservative candidate in 2002 for Superintendent of Public Instruction:

Tomorrow a fellow will announce his candidacy for Governor (taking on Kevin Mannix in the Republican primary) who will have a self-imposed $200 per person limit on campaign contributions.

He will challenge Ted Kulongoski and Kevin Mannix to limit their contributions likewise.

Any bets on whether either of them will take the pledge?

You heard it here first.

Not sure who he's talking about (himself?) - but if we've got Republicans announcing campaigns here, then you know BlueOregon has arrived.


  • Aaron (unverified)

    Hey let the fun begin for 2006 election cycle. Not Ted Kulongoski or Kevin Mannix will limit thier contributions.

  • Chris (unverified)

    I doubt any of the candidates will limit their contributions as it would be to their detriment.

    The idea of limiting contributions (without first having public campaing financing) works advantages well known candidates with name recognition over newcomers. A newcomer may be able to raise money but doesn't yet have the mass name recognition and appeal, thus putting (s)he at a disadvantage out of the blocks.

  • (Show?)

    Nope; it's not me.

    Close friend of mine, very serious about turning the Republican party toward focusing on the economic/fiscal issues that win.

    Take a look at his site. His will be a totally open/clean campaign, and he is challenging Kulongoski and Mannix to do the same. Ten years of his personal tax returns are posted on the site. He will answer any question about his background, business, family or anything.

    All he asks is that people listen.

    He calls for a tax cut - especially for low income Oregonians who pay 9% at the ridiculously low threshold of $6,700.

    A tax cut as a way to INCREASE tax receipts and therefore pay for a full school year. History is on his side.

    He wants to represent the JFK wing of the Republican party.

    Take a look - and let the discussion begin!

  • Aaron (unverified)


    Mr Stucky has a hard long road to travel to win the Republican primary. Being a moderate or centrist nowadays is tough.

    Yes let the discussion begin for the office of Governor.

  • (Show?)

    When unknown candidates run with challenges like these, there are elements both of high and low motivation. Surely it's reasonable to wish to limit the influence of special interests on a campaign, but limiting donations is also a huge advantage to the unknown, who will get thumped in the money race.

    If Stucky is committed to campaign finance reform, I'd prefer to see that as a key initiative in his platform, not a stunt to hobble his opponents. If he is committed to campaign finance, where is that commitment except on taking small donations?

    Also, if he wants to engage the electorate via his blog (bravo!), then he ought to include comments. That's another one of those good-faith things.

  • (Show?)

    Limiting contributions to his campaign doesn't necessarily imply anything about being "committed to" campaign finance reform - it is a commitment to how he is going to conduct his own campaign, which any other candidate can decide to do on his or her own, or not.

    Stucky certainly is not going to make "campaign reform" a "key initiative" in his campaign.

    When I make a list of major problems facing the state, the "need" for campaign reform doesn't even appear. Why on earth would that be a central part of a candidacy for governor?

  • Jason (unverified)

    Todd actually provides no details to his tax cut; just whines that the poor are getting hurt. I want to know: what break is he going to give to whom?

    And his dream that a tax cut will increase revenues is, shall we say, idealistic?

    In theory, such an outcome could happen. Without specifics, however, it's much more likely that the tax cuts will cost the schools money. And the statement that Reagan's so-called tax cuts raised more money is, well, ridiculous. The tax rate changes coincided with removing many loopholes -- i.e. raising taxes while cutting them, so saying we got more revenue out of it may be true, but saying it's because we cut tax rates is incomplete.

    In short, Todd's web site seems to be the "cut inefficiency and waste" bullshit without any real targets. Yes, there are targets. Name them, go after them, and then you'll convince me. But general rhetoric is all this is, blowing smoke up somebody's behind.

  • (Show?)

    I remember a certain president who upon taking office in 2001 told us that we had to cut taxes for the top earners in the nation to keep Congress from having all of that "surplus" money to spend on waste fraud and abuse.

    When the surplus disappeared, Bush switched to saying that we needed a tax cut for the top earners in the nation to "stimulate the economy".

    Well, so far we haven't achieved the Holy Grail of knee jerk fiscal libertarian thought, which basically says that the more you cut taxes the more revenue you get.

    Is this the model to get Oregon back on track?

    BTW: Greenspan, who backed the Bush tax cuts just admitted yesterday that he was wrong on this one.

  • (Show?)

    Pat: Bush's tax cut resulted in a 9% increase in federal tax receipts last year.

    Bush's tax cut made the Clinton recession one of the shortest and shallowest on record, despite the 9-11 attcks. (And, yes, it was the Clinton recession. The recession officially began in the last quarter of 1999. Two consecutive quarters of negative growth define a recession. The first quarter of 2000 was the second consecutive quarter of negative GNP growth, meaning the economy was officially in a recession that began in 1999.)

    Every time in the last century that marginal tax rates have been cut, three things have happened: 1) income tax receipts went up 2) the higher incomes paid a higher percentage of the overall income tax burden than before the cut 3) GNP Growth accellerated.

    JFK knew this. Republicans who can win statewide know this.

    The problem in Oregon is that we have chronic slow growth, mostly due to tax and regulatory policies that make capital formation unattractive here. If you care about government services, you better start caring about the reason why the government has been short of the money it needs to provide them.

    Cutting taxes will help us grow. If we grow, there will be resources for the services.

    Unless, of course, you think things are going swimmingly well on that front right now?

    If so, keep Kulongoski. Yeah... that'll fix things.

  • (Show?)

    Rob, what reason would he have for demanding that his opponents adopt contribution limits? What's the incentive for his opponents to join him in this proposal if it's not connected to policy? Are you suggesting that although "it is a commitment to how he is going to conduct his own campaign," it's not a commitment he has with regard to campaign policy in general? If not, why on earth would his opponents hobble their campaigns?

  • (Show?)

    To echo Jeff's comments, I guess Todd's platform could be "I actually voted to limit my campaign's finances before I opposed limits on campaign finance."

    Good luck with that.

  • (Show?)

    So following the logic here, if we cut all state and federal marginal tax rates to zero, the federal and state governments will reap unprecedented income.

    I mean, all the investors are investing like crazy, the economy booms and the state of Oregon, awash in cash collected on its zero tax rate, has plenty to fund health care for the children of workers who used to at least get paid a minimum wage, but in the brave new world work for whatever "the market" decrees as fair.

    Would the minimum wage actually rise under this zero tax system to a point where these families could pay the $9500 per annum for a family of four? Would they be able to buy clothes and food too?

    Help me to see the light.

  • (Show?)


    I don't know where you get your Federal tax receipt facts from, but I get mine straight from the source. Here's the facts off the IRS website.

    Total tax revenues from all sources increased over the prior fiscal year:

    1997-9% 1998-9% 1999-8% 2000-10% 2001-2% 2002-(5%) 2003-(3%)

    And results aren't in for all of 2004, but the first three quarters show a growth of 3% over the prior year. If your 9% statistic is correct, then the IRS took in a record breaking 32% in the last fiscal quarter of '04.

    I will admit that Clinton should have done more to slow the economy because we were overheating and an overheated economy sucks the wind out of future stimulation for a couple years.

    And I will also agree with you that George Bush did approach tax cuts in a proper manner. What most progressives forget is that over 8 million low-income earners saw their Federal tax liabilities reduced to zero for the first time. And while the rich received about a 10% net benefit, people making under $40,000 received anywere from a 15-25% benefit.

    Where I part from you however and keep true to my progressive ideals is in saying that he should not have started spending more and gotten us into a war with these tax cuts in place. Tax cuts can stimulate the economy, but the unfortunate side is that they are burying us in debt.

  • (Show?)


    Here's the link:

  • Tenskwatawa (unverified)

    Talk on the street indicates the issues concerning Oregonians are: i.) preparing for a severe drought summer, ii.) bringing Oregon Guards home for state emergency efforts, iii.) getting all the Iraq occupying forces home -- Americans to USA, and Argentinians, Uraguayans, Columbians, Israelis, Malaysians, and the rest of the mercenary and soldier-of-fortune forces, respectively, OUT, iv.) impeachment proceedings and imprisonment of Republican Bush & Co. for war crimes and oath violations, v.) imprisonment and court-directed restitution for embezzlements of Republican Enron, PGE, Qwest, and more, executive officers directors and agents, vi.) and in Salem, restoring parity of corporate income tax with individual income tax rates, as being most acute and broadest achievable for state budget stabilization. Just off the top of my head, a few of the issues in recent discussions.

    Now, what's this about someone running for governor. Rob Kremer knows about it and has the inside scoop. (Right there, it's not happening.) Indeed, seems to have the whole story from 'Once upon a time ...' to 'The End.'

    Posted by: Rob Kremer

    ... tax cut resulted in a 9% increase in federal tax receipts last year.

    Hardly. Prove that. Cite reference, summarize yr2yr (sub)totals. Without data, common sense says it's a lie. Because lies are the established pattern of Republicans and Bush. And because dead jobs don't pay taxes, and bodies everywhere says a lot of people's jobs died. Just a quick coherence check on whatever numbers you find to cite, 'tax receipts' should rhyme with one-plus trillion and 'withholdings for entitlements' should range a bit more, say one-and-a-half trillion. Even if "9% increase in fed. tax rcpts." is only half a lie, that any "tax cut resulted in" it is a lie and a half.

    ... it was the Clinton recession. The recession officially began in the last quarter of 1999. Two consecutive quarters of negative growth define a recession. The first quarter of 2000 was the second consecutive quarter of negative GNP growth.

    This is ignorant blowhard lying. The kindest view could be "2000" is a typo for '(1st qtr of) 2001.'

    Here's the link to outside the propaganda bubble. But based on the lying so far I don't trust a reply's claim to have seen the citation so let's just take everybody's time and trouble right now to read an excerpt inline for the sake of Rob Kremer keeping up with the class: --snip--

    ...Evans pointed out that "technically" the recession began in March 2001. Later, in an exchange with Alan Colmes, Evans again acknowledged the recession's true start date:

    COLMES: But let me also get on this issue of the recession, the National Bureau of Economic Research's business cycle dating committee is the one that the president's own economic advisers say is the arbiter of when a recession begins. They say it began in March of 2001. And that is a group the president himself has said he respects as the arbiter of that kind of thing. So why do we keep saying it is a Bush-Gore -- Clinton-Gore recession?

    EVANS: Well, two points, Alan. ... You know, on the other issue with respect to when the recession, you know, you're talking about a technical issue of when a board technically declared the beginning of the recession. Oftentimes what you look to, though, is when you have consecutive quarters of negative growth. And we saw negative growth in the third quarter of -- of 2000. The first three quarters of 2001 were negative growth. So you know, you can debate whether or not it was January or March. The board said March of 2001. But there was no question in anybody's mind that the economy was going straight south. The stock market peaked in 2000, and it began its collapse in March of 2000. So the economy was clearly moving into a recession.[24]

    The Commerce secretary of the United States -- who was also Bush's 2000 campaign chairman -- admitted on Hannity's TV show that the recession began in March 2001.

    --snip-- [Emphases added.]

    ... the economy was officially in a recession that began in 1999.


    Every time in the last century that marginal tax rates have been cut ...

    Stop right there. First establish how many times is "every time" and date the occurrences, before combing out statistics in the data.

    ... three things have happened:

    or four. or two. Lies behind us, lies ahead of us, just skip to your 'invisible hand of the marketing reaching for my purse.'

    Republicans who can win statewide -- the null set.

    The problem in Oregon is that we have chronic ... unattractive here. -- I don't know what you see, but I see what you mean about the lying liars.

    If you care ... the government has been short of the money -- I step up, join in, add my effort, work on solutions, but no, it might not be that I care, probably I get paid a lot of money to be abrasive on the radio, magnify conflicts I can find and fabricate others, instill fear distrust and civil unrest, trash tradition and tear down community. And lie. But no, it might not be that I care. As for me and you (the government) being short of money, we popped off this week for another 80 billion bucks for Bush bullets and Bush bombs -- Isn't that guy in prison yet? -- a lump sum amount that could solve Oregon's problems for the next century, which would be our fair one percent share -- one year's federal waste goes to Oregon every hundred years. Signature-gather THAT.

    Cutting taxes will help us grow -- 'grow' a little, maybe, or grow worse. Raising taxes will help us grow. Doing nothing, staying stable will help us grow. 'We' are a sustainable crop. The only things I can think of that would cut us back are (lies) poisoning the roots or (lies) calling hatchet work 'standard maintenance.' Besides, I'm less concerned to "help us grow" and more concerned to help us mature.

    If we grow, there will be resources -- blahtyblahblahblah. If we contribute, here will be a bountiful land of plenty.

    Unless ... you think things are going swimmingly -- now that you mention it I do feel a rising tide. Of counterattack. Lifts all hopes on it. Crabs sink and lie under it.

    keep Kulongoski ... that'll fix things -- ain't broke, don't need fixin', except those public-interest broadcast projects you were entrusted with -- they're broke big time. At your station they just lie there.

    Look I don't know from no Todd or Troll or Toad for Governor or not. And it seems like Rob Kremer has got all the noise and the news and the nuance that there IS a campaign, behind a Hermit the Toad puppet. Who sings an It-Ain't-Easy-Being-Clean schtick routine. And as a pretense to Let the Discussion Begin tra-la, it's a dead non-issue. To my way of thinking, I wouldn't damn care much how much politicians got in lump sums nor much where they got it if they couldn't spend it on radio and tv ads, because they wouldn't have to get very damn much and 'donors' are not going to 'contribute' anyway to a clip campaign whose position papers are copy-n-pasted.

    We tried Republican tax-tweaks for ten years. We found 'em guilty. They put us in a world o'hurt, lotsa property damage. Now we're gonna hang 'em. Oh, uh, sorry, the sunglare off the silver sagebrush got in my eyes there and I couldn't see what I was typing ...

    I just was headed over to the next township a couple days to help out their barn-raisin' at their new schoolhouse. I brought some books I'm done reading so the area can start a library. With all the books everyone else is bringing them people are gonna have all the information in the world to help them.

  • Tenskwatawa (unverified)

    All the premature pre-promo hoopla here ended in an aerial bomb going off Sunday morning with The Candidate Todd being glimpsed in the glowlight of JeffGannon softballs from Kremer -- no klieg-light third-degree questions on that radio programming.

    So there were three points. One, he swerved away from saying the words 'clinton recession' so the truth kept him gagged on that. Two, he did not swerve away from saying 'Bush tax cut raised revenue 9%,' so it was truth's turn to gag. Third, and for the millionth time, some lackluster lackey candidate with zero statemanship in his character is campaigning on a 'businessman' resume and claiming the skills and experience 'of meeting a payroll,' say, suitably transfer to Executive Branch duties. Ha. Running for office based on being an entrepreneur is like marrying people based on putting the most gold in the alms box.

    That's a bad simile but here's the good rule I'm trying to segue to. Think of this whenever you hear a political candidate with corporate CEO-cred:

    When the government runs business it's called socialism.

    When business runs the government it's called fascism.

    Republicans left the American way when they followed Silent Cal Coolidge down the aisle of avarice under the axiom 'The business of America is business.' See, that's wrong. The business of business is business. The business of America is justice.

  • skinny (unverified)

    Well, Saxton is throwing his hat in the ring. Now if only Jack Roberts will join the fray, maybe we can convince Bev Stein or Jim Hill to play in "Bland Gubernatorial Candidates Part Deux: Revenge of the Losers"

open discussion

connect with blueoregon