Did Hooley opponent Mike Erickson violate federal law?
It's pretty simple, actually. On April 15, all candidates for Congress were required to file a report of their contributions and expenditures with the FEC.
According to the DPO... Mike Erickson, a Lake Oswego Republican running against Darlene Hooley, filed a report stating that he hadn't raised or spent any money at all.
But here's the thing: He's got a statement in the voter's pamphlet. And to do that, he had to have paid the the Elections Division $1000 by March 9th.
As the DPO points out, it's a stunningly obvious violation of federal law:
By failing to disclose both the source of funds for this campaign expenditure and the $1,000 expenditure itself, Mr. Erickson's campaign committee has violated federal law. Both the Act and Commission regulations require the disclosure of all receipts and disbursements by a federal candidate's principal campaign committee for the relevant reporting period. See 2 U.S.C. § 434(b) and 11 C.F.R. §§ 104.1, 104.3(a)-(b).“There is no justification for Mr. Erikson’s flouting of these disclosure requirements,” said Pender. “It’s amazing how incompetent Republicans when their candidates for Congress can’t follow the most basic rules. This calls into question what other contributions Mr. Erickson failed to disclose to the FEC – or what expenditures his campaign made on his behalf. What else is Mike Erickson hiding or plan to hide from the public?”
What's wrong with these GOP congressional candidates in Oregon? Can't they even follow the most basic rules? What happened to the "rule of law" and all that jazz?
|
May 2, 2006 |
Kari Chisholm | Comments (23 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: scott | May 3, 2006 11:41:35 AM
Hooley's camp would be smart to look into Erickson's company (and see how women are treated), as well as, look into his social life.
Posted by: Charlie Burr | May 3, 2006 12:00:30 PM
Heckuva campaign, Mikey!
Props to DPO for exposing Erickson's violation.
Posted by: Independent | May 19, 2006 11:10:08 AM
Follow up - looking closer at the FEC filings (following the link from the article) it just shows that no fundraising or campaign activities were done during hte 1/1 to 3/31 time period. That very well may have been the case.
I like this web site, and appreciate the cause, but the posters must be more careful. I don't believe the author meant to misrepresent the situation, but it would be good for him to issue a follow up on this article.
Posted by: Independent | May 19, 2006 11:25:14 AM
This conclusion assumes that a campaign committee had been formed. Another possibility is that he was so late to join the race that all expenses to that point were paid out of his own pocket. That would represent poor planning, but not an illegal activity.
Please keep the discussion well reasoned.
And Scott... all candidates at this level are put under a fine microscope throughout the campaign. So your suggestion implies that you know something. If so, come out with it!
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | May 19, 2006 12:22:43 PM
Independent -- He'd still have to report it as an in-kind donation to his campaign. Which he didn't.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | May 19, 2006 12:23:59 PM
it just shows that no fundraising or campaign activities were done during hte 1/1 to 3/31 time period.
It's YOU that's not paying attention. The $1000 check to the Elections Division was due by March 9.
Posted by: Independent | May 19, 2006 4:29:54 PM
Kari - I stand corrected on the date of the mentioned expense. I assume you are referring to the voter pamphlet filing deadline. (http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/may162006/may162006.htm)
I also note that your original post was dated May 2nd, and an additional FEC filing dated the 3rd covers the mentioned money.
date (http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00422097/)
detail (http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00422097/215553/sd/10)
Maybe you straighted them out on this issue!
Posted by: Larry Davis | Aug 21, 2006 5:06:54 PM
It's interesting to find this site. I've been watching and hearing Erickson's ads for weeks now and actually became annoyed that no party affiliation is ever even suggested. So I googled him to confirm my suspicions that he is a Republican. As far as I'm concerned there's nothing he could say about his qualifications that's more important than knowing his party affiliation. He must sense how negative an impact that would have with voters since he tries to hide it. I wouldn't vote for Jesus Christ himself if he ran as a Republican....
Posted by: John Dunagan | Aug 21, 2006 8:38:56 PM
Jesus would never run as a 2006 Republican, Larry. Hating gays, pounding the war, and cozying up to the money-lenders is most definitely NOT in His playbook.
Posted by: Steve | Sep 5, 2006 7:26:50 PM
Kari, interesting you exclude the options that keep the filing legal. Last time I looked, the FEC was the only opinion that counted. I am a registered Democrat and embarassed by postings like Scott and Larry. Scott sounds like a bitter employee acting like a man; and Larry sounds like a lemming. True Democrats do not follow blindly unless they have class envy (Look it up Larry) or are illegal. Stop letting the far left run our party and lets vote ideas. Do your research, Hooley is an embarassment just like Larry and Scott. Don't you get it guys (and you Larry)? You are the minority... join the rest of us and lets make a difference.
Posted by: LT | Sep 5, 2006 9:21:25 PM
Steve, are you a Kaza supporter? Or an Erickson supporter?
Stop letting the far left run our party and lets vote ideas. Do your research, Hooley is an embarassment
What ideas would you have us vote on? Where do you stand on those ideas, and why didn't you mention them in your comment?
Exactly which Hooley votes do you oppose? Or are you angry at the number of people in the district who support Hooley because of her record of excellent staff doing constituent work?
For that matter, which of the varied members of Congress from the 5th District in the 24 year history of the district have you admired? Any of them?
I ask as someone who was involved in that very first 1982 primary for the Democratic nomination for 5th District.
And as far as "True Democrats do not follow blindly", darned right they don't. They don't have to follow elected officials blindly, but they also don't have to take comments like yours at face value. Let's have some specifics about why you are so angry. Or is it just generalized anger?
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Sep 5, 2006 10:21:11 PM
Kari, interesting you exclude the options that keep the filing legal.
Um, OK. Educate me. Name the options.
Posted by: steve | Sep 6, 2006 4:17:52 AM
Out of respect for the "comments" section please be realistic about the length of a posters email.
Kari... lets start hear.
Why don't you go ahead and list the amount of votes Hooley has actually made? She is a no show and embarrasment.
How about her party line record? How about immigration? How about her record on spending?
Interested voters should check it out for themselves and NOT take your or anyone elses opinions as fact.
And why don't you answer the question about the FEC? Or do you just think you are smarter that organization et all?
Posted by: powkat | Sep 8, 2006 12:24:03 PM
What I really noticed is that his ads never mention his party affiliation. Every time I see one I holler at the tv, 'Hey, Mike, what party do you belong to?' In fact I sent him an email and asked the same question.
Posted by: Lestatdelc | Sep 15, 2006 4:18:30 PM
Posted by: steve | Sep 6, 2006 4:17:52 AM
Yawn... (scroll)
Posted by: Eileen Stone | Sep 19, 2006 6:53:08 PM
I went to Steve Erickson's website and it loads so slowly I lost patience.
He says that he has a succesful business advising companies how to cut
costs and operate more efficiently. I am curious -how succesful is his business?
Apparently no one indicates party affiliation on their political pamphlets.
It seems strange to me. I would like to know the following about every candidate:
Do they support embryonic stem-cell research. I do.
Would they use public funds for vouchers to private schools. I don't support this.
Where do their campaign funds come from.
I will be checking in to this blog from time to time--hope you can answer some of these for me.
Posted by: Nick | Sep 19, 2006 8:39:53 PM
Good luck getting a reply from the Erickson campaign. I have emailed three times trying to find out more on his positions rather than the comments on his website. Not one answer. Thereagain, I was aksing his position on Iraq, so he probably ignored me rather than provide a voter with information. BTW, Hooley's office has always been prompt and sourteous about answering inquiries. What a difference. BTW, most of Erickson's money seems to come from..... Erickson.
Posted by: Jo | Oct 2, 2006 7:05:25 PM
Interesting. I came to this site as a result of googling Mike Erickson's name. I received a campaign flyer in the mail and I was trying to figure out which party he belonged to. Your site has answered my question and also answered a few questions I hadn't thought to ask myself yet. I'm still voting for Darlene Hooley. Thanks for the info.
Posted by: Walt Davies | Oct 27, 2006 10:47:59 AM
Boy what a nit picker. You Democrats have real problem with real life. One thing its a real strecth to call that filing with the voter pamphlet in march is campaigning when it doesn't come out till october. Two you forgot that he lied in his campaign for class president in college, now that's really digging down deep to find dirt on someone. bet he lied to his Momma once or twice as kid why don't you look that up.
Come on people it's what a person does now that counts not what he did as kid or that he made a mostake on not reporting a measly $1000 fee he paid.
What are the real issues here is against or for what you are for. Is he going to vote for what you want your congressman to vote for or is he going down the wrong path. Lets get off the jump on Mike at no cost and get down to what really counts when you are placing your vote. think about what you are voting for not what the candidate did when he was a kid or if he left out some little thing when disclosing whether he had paid out any funds for campaigning.
Lets look at Darlene Hooley. she voted against giving out troops a raise. She voted against letting have new and better equipment to fight with. she voted against funding the war that means she didn't want them to have the means to fight with. I don't think that's supporting our troups as her add says.
She think a child is not a child if still in the woumb she thinks it just a piece of garbage to throw away if the mother doesn't want it. I got news for you ask any mother if that nothing in her body ever kicked her. have you ever seen a 5 months old fetus well my freind had one and now its a very viable young boy who was born at 5 months.
Walt Davies
Posted by: LT | Oct 27, 2006 11:06:48 AM
Lets get off the jump on Mike at no cost and get down to what really counts when you are placing your vote.
OK, Walt, let's get serious. Erickson has a very flashy website (takes several minutes to load with a dial up connection) but not a whole lot of substance.
For all the attacks on Hooley because some outside group is making a big deal over some vote which is never quite specified (did she fail to vote for the majority report and that made her uncaring about veterans?), I saw nothing about veterans on Erickson's website. I know veterans who were helped by Hooley's office. Why should we believe Erickson knows or cares about veterans issues?
Erickson doesn't state the affirmative (does he really believe that attending all committee hearings is so important that he'd drop off one committee if 2 committees he was on scheduled meetings at the same time?), just the negative.
What does he stand for beyond spin? When has he appeared in public outside his home town? If he is elected and Hastert is re-elected, would he vote for Hastert for Speaker or is it time for someone else?
Does he support Pay As You Go, or does he think tax cuts solve everything? Do current deficits bother him, or is it OK to be spending money on a war and cutting taxes at the same time? Does he care about people who make closer to $20,000 than $50,000, or only about people who qualify for all Bush tax cuts?
I live in Marion County. I was talking to someone yesterday who works with Republicans. I said Erickson makes Zupancic look good--at least we knew he was passionate about one issue. There was no argument about that comparison.
What is Erickson passionate enough about to talk about it in public? Does he support Walden's Healthy Forests bill?
Who besides Erickson is funding Erickson's campaign? What public figures have endorsed him?
In less than a week it will be November. If someone who follows politics closely doesn't know the answer to those questions, isn't that the fault of Erickson thinking he could campaign on slogans and negative ads?
Posted by: C Wallace | Oct 30, 2006 12:19:52 AM
I can tell you first hand who Mike Erickson cares about and thats Mike Erickson. My fiancee played football on the semipro team the Oregon Thunderbolts, which is owned and operated by Mike Erickson. On July 15th my fiancee seriously broke his ankle in a game in Seattle. Not only did Mike not call him to see how he was but he didn't even know he broke it. When I finally called him almost two months later to ask why the team didn't have organizational insurance and why almost 1/3 or the team was playing without medical insurance he stammered and stumbled over his words and quickly assured me he would personally help out our family with the rising medical bills. Here we are almost two months later my fiancee is still not walking or working and he due to have another surgery and Mike never came through on any of his promises and won't return our calls. A new voice for Oregon? Yeah, right.
Posted by: dee | Nov 6, 2006 7:27:15 AM
Don't feel bad if Erickson doesn't get back to liberals. Mike doesn't even give people from his own party the time of day. Maybe we are not rich enough to matter for him. He even blocked my email address, so hows that for a new voice?
I voted for Bush twice that is how conservative I am. Even though I'm not happy with things in this state I had to vote for Hooley again, because Mike didn't make the cut. He is not the sharpest tool in the West. If we thought Bush was slow he looks like Einstein next to Erickson.
Mike didn't even know what IDEA or NCLB meant answering my education question by telling me what a great football player he was. He is too green to do any good in office. To be a new voice one needs to know how to speak. You can't teach an old dog new tricks he said to Hooley. You can't bridge communication if you offend people, due to ignorance either.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: activist kaza | May 3, 2006 1:13:15 AM
It's a pretty inauspicious start for Mr. Erickson, to be sure. You gotta wonder how a supposedly competent businessman can allow this to happen. Since he's unopposed, he simply could have skipped putting a statement in the Voter's Pamphlet completely.
The other observation to make: I guess Mannix and the state Republican party leaders are too caught up in their own intra-party squabbles (i.e. the Gubernatorial primary) to provide any coaching or direction to their hot, new recruits!