The cornerstone of ethics is disclosure - which Kari did.

I have served on several public bodies, appointed and elected. When dealing with conflicts of interest, they fall into two categories - potential and actual.

With a potential conflict of interest, one in which the appearance of undue influence or self serving could happen - full disclosure is the response.

With an actual conflict of interest, one in which you or someone close to you would make money or have actual business advantage come from hiding a relationship - full disclosure followed by stepping down from any decision making body that could grant the advantage or make a decision in your favor is called for.

Kari is not a "decision making body" unto himself that grants advantages. His disclosure of his relationship to the Democratic candidates was proper, complete, and actually more than is required. Kari actually did himself a dis-service with his disclosure.

When I think of ethical abuse, I think of the Bush Administration's contracts to the company that the Bush family has a major ownership interest in, and the company that VP Cheney has a major ownership position in. No bid contracts that are self serving into the multi-Billions are clearly ethical violations (would be for $1 too).

There is no ethical problem with Kari working on blogs for Democrats.

On the other hand, there is a problem with those that point fingers at Kari and make the claim that he should either not do his blog work or should not make comments - they don't understand FREE SPEECH.

I can certainly appreciate the real politik dimension of this, but, ultimately, this reasoning is why I've left the party. Mother's milk and all, but when you grow up mother's milk isn't nutritionally sound. I hear Kari saying the Dems haven't grown up enough yet, but, to me, that still isn't the bottom line.

Simply put, the ends do not justify the means. Since the 2000 debacle there seems to be a consensus among the Dem leadership that we have to fight fire with fire, until the good guys win, then apply principles. To an objective viewer there was simply no difference between the methods employed by movon.org and the swift boat shleps last election.

A lot of my early Dem experiences were with the South Texas machine. I heard that reasoning a lot. I never saw the Bensons or Hightowers or Wrights deliver on that. It was LBJ that took the attitude that you did it because it was right or you did it knowing it was wrong, but you didn't confuse the two. He also realized that it's never the right time to make major changes; you do it when you have the stage. I never saw the Clinton White House move out of campaign mode into principles mode. Sure they were on the back foot and it kept them more political than they might have been, but that's a failure on their part to allow the Republicans to define the issues/message. And that's what I hear from Dems today. Demish sounding responses to Repulican crusades. How about changing the subject?

Ultimately, as a philosopher, there is no way around the basic fact that an ends justify the means ethical theory is not an ethical theory at all. It is a position that says you wait to see what develops and then try to fit the immediate, practical course to your stated a priori ethics.

I also think that it doesn't work. I imagine a core group of, say, 40% of the eligible voters that "play the game". They respond to dithering and PC speech. And they get tracked by the polls. Another 40% won't participate, because they do judge politicians by the means they use rather than the ends they seek to accomplish. As this happens more often, that core group gets smaller and both parties become even more refined, tailoring the message to not offend the remaining core group.

I'm afraid that the major Dem problem these days is that there is less appreciation in the country for the values promoted by the party. I garden next to Reed College and in just the last 5 years I've seen a change from students having positions on the major issues, to now, where a significant percentage will tell you directly, "I really don't care about that". And the Dems are not trying to teach those basic values anymore. I actually heard local party reps tell a group of folks that had assembled to discuss voting machine reform that their efforts to turn out the vote among young people had failed, "..because they realize that their vote doesn't count. They were smart...". They then move on to try to get someone from a particular county to write a letter to their election board so that the official doesn't know the letter is from the party. That'll show folks the difference between us and them. The basic message was sound. Not voting is criminal. No excuse. You think you're going to get those people to vote by telling them that the machines are rigged? But that wasn't the local party's decision, was it?

I guess I'm just tired of being told that we have to do un-Democratic things to beat the other guy. I don't care who wins; I care how we live. If you want to involve people like me, you're going to have to find a way to enlist our support without the current, requisite, brain transplant. Attending either party's functions has become like going to church. A lot of scared people not thinking very clearly, reinforcing each other on their lowest, common, primate insecurities. The apathetic, the fearful and those with a material stake. I can see nothing else.

As far as the conflict of interest goes... At least Kari plays by the rules and has everything duly registered. If you read the contributors- more the who than the what- it's obvious what the connections are. An amazing number of the local, charitable sites that I research have totally bogus registrations. Came across one very well known, door-to-door group last week that has registered a fictitous address, claims less than $2000/year gross income when they make about that every week-end, and has a registered officer that is currently serving time for fraud. Then there's the registrations through Domains by Proxy, etc. I think we just need to make sure the ICANN registration laws aren't watered down, and make sure that ISPs and governments enforce the requirements to maintain accurate corporations registration info. In the beginning the net was a free, open exchange among about 500 progressive thinkers. Back then, I think you would have had a legitimate point. Those days are long gone though. The battle today is against the unholy alliance of anonymous domain name registration and pay-per-view corporations data (Texas). Add that to the tax laws and you have vested entities creating charities without any obvious connection to the vested interest. Like credit counseling bureaus that are actually operated by the credit card companies. Register with domains by proxy and there is no way for the consumer to know that "mendyourcredit.com" or some such "charity" is actually Chase Manhattan Bank. Nice idea, but is there any chance of getting Fox TV to announce at the start of every programming day, "All content on Fox News has been approved by and edited for the Republican Party and is presented on their behalf..."?

"Money is the mother's milk of politics." So said Jesse Unruh, the great legislator and philosopher.

I want to cry when I hear a Democrat admit to this reality. American Democracy is in its declaration, and constitution, an ideal of government by the people and for the people. We allow the ideal to be perverted with the pursuit of financing of elections.

You don’t need to be a politician, or political wonk to see that the primary goal of our elected representatives is to solicit contributions from whomever needs an agenda pursued, all the while we’re to believe the job of governance is suppose to be a priority in this process. I could drink the whole bottle, and never get that drunk!

We need to reform elections in our state, and on the federal elections that exclude campaign contributions as a prime method of reelection. Good leadership, good governance should be front and center without the excuse “money is the mother’s milk of politics.”

In an election cycle of Republican corruption at all levels of government that has not been seen in my lifetime, wouldn’t election reform like that in Arizona that matches funding of any candidate in the race by 70%, leaving only 30% difference for the opposition to solicit to match their effort. This type of reform makes the kind of non-stop fund raising that has completely perverted the process become frustrated by the matching funds.

Why not be the Democratic Party of Democratic Reforms?? Let the Republican come up with the excuse, long explanations, or outright lies needed to argue for the status quo.

Happy Thoughts;

Dan Grady

Thanks for volunteering FuturePAC as a concrete example. Though they've owned their domain name for five years, they haven't seen fit to register with the Secretary of State like most every other PAC, charity and corporate entity have done. That's incredible when you think about it. People are writing off political contributions on their state income tax, for contributions to a PAC that isn't authorized to transact business in the state. Haven't bothered to put a home page on their web server either. Just links on other peoples' pages. Kind of a moot point, since everyone knows they are the Democratic Party in Oregon's PAC, but there are other valid reasons for complying with the statute.

There's another organization, Stand for Children, Inc. that is registered. Their prinicple place of business is one of the contact addresses for FuturePAC. According to ICANN, it's the same place of business. They are operated by Tom and Gun Denhart, well known Oregon Dem operatives. So, is there a connection? Officially, Stand for Children, Inc. is a social welfare organization and, as such, may do an unlimited amount of legislative lobbying and a limited amount of electoral activity. Certainly gives an appearance of impropriety. Why not just register, be transparent and not confuse the matter?

Maybe I'm totally missing something, but I really don't see how this could be construed as "best practices", unless you're admitting to my charge of using "their" methods. And looking at the Portland Citizens' Owned Election initiative, why is campaign finance reform practice a far-off dream?

First of all, congratulations to Future PAC.

Some clarification on Stand for Children for Zarathrusta and anyone else who read his words...

Stand for Children is not "a social welfare organization." Their primary aim is to train and organize adults to advocate on behalf of children. These advocates, in turn, do everything from fight to get junk food out of school vending machines to lobby state legislators to write letters to the editor (and much, much more).

Also, Stand for Children is really 3 separate organizations ---a 501(c)(3), a 501(c)(4), and a PAC. I used to work there and I can vouch for their constant, diligent adherence to the law in order to prevent any impropriety from occuring. I could not even find a link to their PAC on the website...

And Jon is absolutely correct that the office location being a former location for Future PAC is a coincidence.

Click here for more information about Stand for Children.

Way to go, Jon and Future PAC!

In the best of all worlds, nobody could donate a dime to a political campaign, and no political campaign could spend one. Instead, the government or some surrogate nonprofit corporation would provide resources to all campaigns appropriate to the issue or office being sought. There would have to be a significant effort to qualify for such support, perhaps a nominal contribution like Portland's $5 system.

Besides a free Voters Pamphlet, the support might include a mailing to all registered voters, an allowance for office supplies, and a modest allowance for other forms of advertising. At least a couple of sponsored debates would be helpful.

If no one could receive or spend money, all the controversy about whether money is "free speech" might go out the window (lawyers, help me out). Then the power of the message combined with the desires of the electorate should prevail.

Way to go, Jon and Future PAC!

In the best of all worlds, nobody could donate a dime to a political campaign, and no political campaign could spend one. Instead, the government or some surrogate nonprofit corporation would provide resources to all campaigns appropriate to the issue or office being sought. There would have to be a significant effort to qualify for such support, perhaps a nominal contribution like Portland's $5 system.

Besides a free Voters Pamphlet, the support might include a mailing to all registered voters, an allowance for office supplies, and a modest allowance for other forms of advertising. At least a couple of sponsored debates would be helpful.

If no one could receive or spend money, all the controversy about whether money is "free speech" might go out the window (lawyers, help me out). Then the power of the message combined with the desires of the electorate should prevail.

They've ejected the moderates in their party. They've done the bidding of their corporate masters

Well, you're right there Kari. But you forgot to write this about your own party:

"They've ejected the moderates in their party. They've done the bidding of their union masters."

And before you try to blow smoke and say your party hasn't ejected all your moderates, exactly how many pro-life Democrats are left in your party? And how many Democrats are there willing to stand up to unions?

If you weren't so partisan, you'd be more believable. And more of us independents might vote for your candidates.

Andy N, which union does DNC member Jenny Greenleaf belong to? She ousted union lobbyist Mary Botkin to become the new DNC member. But maybe you didn't know that.

And as far as pro-life Democrats, look at Bob Casey in Penn. and Chuck Lee running in House Dist. 25 here in Oregon, not to mention Harry Reid.

But then maybe you want the party of the anti-taxers and the social conservatives to rule without explaining their actions?

Could somebody explain to me why a "moderate" would be anti union?

Jon, thanks for the info on Chuck Lee. Since I can't vote in the primaries, I usually don't pay much attention until after they are over, so you're correct, I wasn't familiar with him.

Kari, a moderate would be anti-union if they were a person who values rewarding merit over protecting poor employees.

LT, I don't think either party should be able to govern without having to explain their actions. And I'm glad to see the Ds are treating Casey better than they treated his late father.

And I'm glad to see the Ds are treating Casey better than they treated his late father.

The difference is that the son is more willing to work with others and not be in-your-face.

If a presidential nominee says "no one speaks in prime time unless/until they endorse the ticket" does that mean only those who endorse the nominee get to speak in prime time?

Or does that mean a governor with a particular point of view thinks the rules don't apply to him and he has the right to say "I'm not endorsing the nominee but if I don't get to speak in prime time they are only doing that because I am pro-life"? Casey Sr. made very clear to all that he had no use for Clinton. It was Clinton's convention. Just as other public figures have found themselves excluded from the prime time slots at other conventions, Casey didn't get what he wanted. He just made more of a stink about it than some have. Casey Sr. always reminded me of the sort of kid who gave someone a bad time and then wondered why they weren't given favorable treatment. Or (as some suspect) are there those in the anti-abortion movement who think it is all about them and they deserve better treatment than anyone else because they are "pro-life" and thus flawless? Sounds like "pride goeth before a fall" to me.

I attended a Democratic convention once as a delegate. I met someone who was pro-life but very low key and not trying to convert every other delegate to the cause. I also met someone who was handing out full color flyers with the picture of a fetus as if that would convert delegates to being anti-abortion/ pro-life. I had a pleasant conversation with the first person, and asked a tough question of the 2nd person. Does that mean I treat pro-life Democrats poorly? I also happen to be a friend of Chuck Lee. What does that say about the way I treat pro-life Democrats?

There are people who've had experiences with Mannix and Saxton being rude. Should they generalize from that "all Republicans are rude"?

Parties are made up of individuals, and it is time more people recognize that.

are headed for trouble if we start buying into the notion that direct solicitations for contributions for candidates and candidate committees

As I understand the recent FEC or other rulings with regard to blogs, a blog like this is OK as long as people only express their opinion and don't try to raise money here. For instance, if I were to say "OK here are the candidates I am supporting--does that make me a progressive, a moderate, or what?" that would be OK. But saying a candidate is the only worthwhile candidate or anyone backing an opponent is stupid could result in the proverbial avalanche of criticism.

But, the sort of political campaign blogging which raised so much money for Dean 2004 in so short a time falls under a different category.

This blog is self policing in that people jump on someone they think is doing wrong (look at "can't we do better in HD 13?" followed by "Nathanson belongs in 13" --or whatever the exact titles were).

There aren't many blogs I visit on a regular basis--this is the one which is most user friendly, although I sometimes click on "leftyblogs" links on the side of the page to see what they are saying.

In 2002 the OEA gave Kulongski $250,000.00 They'll do it again after the primary.