Macpherson's analogy between the DOJ and Stoel Rives is not exactly accurate. Macpherson is not any old lawyer at Stoel Rives, he is a well known, politically powerful partner. As such, he had to know his votes in the legislature (such as allowing PGE to overcharge rate payers) was going to raise questions with the public. Furthermore, as a partner, he potentially will benefit from clients that he does not work for directly, such as Enron.

As a kroger voter (already voter for him) I do have to give credit to greg for his answer. I think Kroger had heard a rumor like many of us about Greg and Enron and simply inquired to whether it was true. Nothing outstanding in this video other then that a rumor that has been around a while has finaly been put to rest.

The clip above is without context, so we don't really know how the issue came up (does anybody have a link to the full debate?). Also, as I said above, the analogy is not a good one. Prosecutors do not (or at least should not) have a personal stake in the outcome of their cases. However, as a high profile partner (not just a regular associate), Macpherson potentially had a stake in the Enron legal work, even if he was not a lawyer for that particular client. As such, his vote to allow PGE to overcharge rate payers raises some questions, just as his silence on Stoel Rives' client Northstar's LNG project raises questions.

A. Rab.--

How about some intellectual honesty here. No one in Stoel Rives's corporate department ever knocked on Greg Macpherson's office door to ask whether the pension-benefits partner would grant his permission to allow Enron or Portland General Electric as a client. The partners at Stoel Roves do not vote on whether to accept particular clients -- that's up to the individual attorneys who represent the clients.

Could Greg Macpherson have insisted that Stoel Rives stop representing Enron and Portland General Electric? Maybe. But why would he? Stoel Rives's lawyers represent convicted murders, white collar criminals, and other really bad people. For the love of Jebus, that's what lawyers do. Lawyers represent bad people. That doesn't mean the lawyers themselves are bad people or that the misconduct of a client is in any way attributable to the lawyer.

Furthmore, most of Stoel's representation of Enron occured long before anyone realized that Enron was breaking the law. Are the lawyers who negotiated lease agreements for Enron's office space accountable for corporate misconduct they knew nothing about?

This guilt-by-association stuff has got to stop. Rev. Wright does not speak for Barack Obama. John Ashcroft does not speak for John Kroger. And Kenneth Lay does not speak for Greg Macpherson.

As a partner, Macpherson potentially has a monetary stake in who his firm represents. Furthermore, in two high profile instances (PGE overcharging rate payers and the LNG project), Macpherson has decided to back the companies that (may) pay the bills. It is not guilt by association, it is a legitimate question about Macpherson's conflict of interests.

Personally, I don't like Kroger's insinuation, but Greg paints himself as such a saint here that it makes me want to hurl.

I wonder why MacPherson voted against SB 408 in 2005, which prohibited PGE from collecting taxes from ratepayers and not paying those taxes to the city. Why did Macpherson think it was OK for PGE to screw both the city and the ratepayers? Oh, that's right...because his firm represents PGE and PGE was using that tax money to subsidize the Enron losses. The record in the House even notes that Greg declared a "conflict of interest" on the vote. BOY, I'm sure he did have a conflict. In fact, I wonder what he stated on the record as his "potential" conflict...or maybe there's a typewritten note in the bill file at the archives? Has anyone gone down and looked?

Yes, Greg...your shit stinks too.

A. Rab.,

Please stop lying. Macpherson does not have an economic stake in the business success of his clients. In fact, lawyers often profit from their clients' economic losses. For example, clients involved in litigation resulting from failed deals and clients who declare bankruptcy may give a particular law firm more business than if the client was in a profitable period.

You seem to be saying that Macpherson had a conflict of interest in the legislature whenever he voted on a piece of legislation that would affect one of Stoel Rives's clients. Give me a break. According to its website, Stoel Rives has 365 lawyers! The firm has thousands of clients, all of whom are affected by new laws passed in the legislature. But the impact of these laws on Greg Macpherson's paycheck is incidental.

This has seriously gotten ridiculous. Could we please talk about real issues, like the candidates' respective views on Measure 11, rather than fabricating this guilt-by-association stuff? Please.

JTT--

I guess Rep. Brad Avakian voted "no" along with Macpherson on that bill for the same reasons?

Because your post presumes there couldn't possibly have been any legitimate rationale for Macpherson's vote.

Technically speaking, Macpherson did have a conflict when he voted on legislation that effected a client, and that is one reason I think we need a professional legislature. However, the vote to allow Enron to continue to improperly collect payments is different. On that issue, Macpherson himself noted that he had a conflict - and it occurred after we knew about all of the wrong doing that Enron engaged in. Macpherson has still not explained that vote to any degree. Similarly, he has not explained his position on Northstar's LNG project, another issue in which he has a conflict of interest. Macpherson may have perfectly innocent reasons for making these political decisions, however, because he refuses to explain his actions there is still the appearance of a conflict.

"there is still the appearance of a conflict."

Well, I don't know about you, but I'll stick to voting on the issues. You can go ahead and vote based on your speculations about Macpherson's possible motivations when he cast one or two votes and the "appearance" of a conflict in those cases. (Lucky for Kroger, he's never cast any votes at all, so he has no record to defend.)

Rather than choosing the next AG based upon speculation, I'd rather cast my vote based on actual issues.

I love how our elections have become proxy battles. Greg Macpherson worked for a company that may have dome some business with Enron (who didn't really they were big) and then we've got Barack Obama who may have sat in a church when some guy spewed something that white people don't really get (full disclosure: I think 9/11 was our chickens coming to roost considering our actions over the last 50 years and if you don't agree I'll be happy to inform you of how we've wronged the middle east) so yeah...booo

Point is...I'm German...doesn't mean I'm a Nazi. After doing some recent research I'm fairly certain that I had plenty of relatives living in Germany during WWII. That doesn't mean I'm not disgusted by what happened there. That's exactly what our freaking elections have come down to. We're blaming people for something their fathers/uncles/3rd cousins/never met before 18th cousins may have said...get over it.

So facts... like Macpherson was one of only two Democrats who voted to allow Enron to overcharge rate payers and he may have made money off of that vote. Similarly, Macpherson is the last statewide candidate who refuses to take a stand on LNG, and again, he may have a monetary stake in the project. Or, we can talk about policy, such as the fact that Kroger has a plan to curb meth by increasing treatment and focusing enforcement while Macpherson's wants to let more users go into the criminal justice system (via drug courts) and hope the federal government bans cold medication (which by the way does nothing for transnational drug trafficking). Finally, maybe we should talk about environmental protection; Kroger wants to toughen enforcement against polluters, while Macpherson does not.

This is clearly an attempt by Kroger (although a weak one) to use guilt by association. It's not surprising, since this is what he probably did as a former prosecutor. This is just another example why Macpherson should be elected.

"and Macpherson turns it around as if Kroger were behind the rumor."

T.A.,

I know from a pretty credible source, working at SEIU, that their membership was told, directly from the Kroger campaign, to tell everyone they know that Greg represented Enron. Now I am not saying Kroger himself let this happen, but it is people that are working on his campaign letting it happen. This whisper campaign has been going on for months and could have continued until Kroger decided to let it out of the bag. I would say this is a poor move on his part. Kudos to Greg for nailing the answer!

Macpherson did have a good answer for the (edited) video, but, he has still not explained why he voted to let Enron-PGE overcharge rate payers, why he will not take a stand on the Northstar LNG project, or if, as a partner at his law firm, he is profiting from Northstar and PGE.

A. Rab,

This is a pointed question from the Salem City Club debate. The candidates were given a chance to ask questions directly to each other. This was Kroger's question to Macpherson and his answer, no more no less. Also, you should watch the Portland City Club debate for the answer to the PGE overcharge question. He explains what happened with the bill when asked by the panel. As for LNG, why is this such a big issue for the AG candidates? Just because Kroger takes absolutist stances (LNG, M11) and blocks discourse and debate, doesn't mean Macpherson will follow suit.

Because your post presumes there couldn't possibly have been any legitimate rationale for Macpherson's vote.

I'd love to hear the legitimate rationale of why Greg thinks that PGE should have been allowed to keep charging ratepayers for muni taxes and then turn around and stiff the government to subsidize Enron's losses.

I'm sure that Avakian will have to explain that vote when he runs (again) for statewide office, but I'd LOVE to hear Greg spin that one now...especially since he's running to be the state's top lawyer and he thinks that practice was somehow justifiable and should have been allowed to continue. I'm all ears.

I was at the Portland City Club debate and Macpherson did not really answer the question. He said the dispute was about one set of big companies against another, and he picked PGE (though he did not say why), however, this is not a very accurate way to describe the bill.

LNG matters because it is potentially a major environmental disaster for our state, the Attorney General matters in the discussion because the AG has the power to challenge some of the legally shady ways the project has been (and is likely to be) advanced. Macpherson will not say if he supports or opposes the projects - which when coupled with his conflict of interest in it, raises questions.

From NoSpinZone: "This has seriously gotten ridiculous. Could we please talk about real issues, like the candidates' respective views on Measure 11, rather than fabricating this guilt-by-association stuff? Please."

and

From Ben Rivers: "Just because Kroger takes absolutist stances (LNG, M11) and blocks discourse and debate, doesn't mean Macpherson will follow suit."

Look, I hate Measure 11 just like many other people who read BlueOregon, but can we stop this debate, too? Greg's position is really not much different from Kroger's, since, for the most part, both of them support it. See here for proof. Greg even said, "Measure 11 is the law in Oregon, and I think the reason that it works as well as it does is because of the good work of the people in this room." Now, maybe he doesn't love, or maybe he's just pandering to his audience, but the guy is not some fierce Measure 11 opponent. If that's the type of Democrat you want to vote for, he's not in this race. That's the reality.

Further, the Attorney General cannot decide Measure 11 sentences. In criminal cases, they handle appeals, not trials, so they're not going to be recommending sentences. The local D.A. will do that. And I can guarantee you that if a defendant appeals his Measure 11 conviction, A.G. Macpherson is not going to tell his staff to support the defendant's appeal because he is, on some very small level, personally opposed to Measure 11.

Look, if you want to vote for Macpherson because you personally disagree with Kroger's stance on Measure 11 (which is not an absolutist stance, if you read what he's actually said), fine. Vote for Macpherson. But don't vote for Macpherson because you think his view on Measure 11 matters. As A.G., it simply doesn't. Measure 11 sentences won't go away, and they won't shrink in number. If you really care about the criminally charged, I think you'll find access to good alcohol, drug, and mental health treatment, along with educational opportunities, are far more important to reducing the recidivism rate and the total prison population than is Greg's position on Measure 11. And, at least to me, Kroger's unapologetic promotion of those programs is the far more progressive position.

I can't believe Kroger asked this question!

TA is exactly right that Kroger asked this question to give Macpherson the opportunity to dispel a nasty rumor (just listen to Kroger's tone of voice and the words he used). This wasn't meant as a gotcha question (well perhaps the second part of it was a little gotcha, but Machpherson just ignored that part).

Macpherson is constantly attacking Kroger with high, mid, and low blows and Kroger is busy playing the consummate nice guy. Fine Kroger, don't get in the gutter with Macpherson, but at least don't throw him up soft balls to hit out of the park. This question did make Macpherson sound really good. Why would you ever want to do that for your opponent?

First, this notion that Kroger's question was a softball to which Macpherson responded inappropriately is just silly. Kroger may have asked the question with a nice-guy tone, but he was definitely playing "gotcha." (I'm sure he has used that tactic skillfully as a prosecutor as well.) He fully expected Macpherson to say that he had done legal work for Enron, and failing that, Kroger insisted on asking the second-part of the question, demanding that Macpherson defend his firm's representation of Enron. (Thankfully, Macpherson didn't take the bait.)

Second, Macpherson's response was not an attack on Kroger. Listen closely to what Macpherson said about linking Kroger to Ashcroft and Bush. Macpherson prefaces this point by saying, "I'm not going to make this accusation because I think it would be inappropriate, but I think it is the proper way to think of this." And then his actual question is, "Are you responsible for what other lawyers were doing at the Department of Justice at the bidding of John Ashcroft and George Bush, or are you responsible for the cases you handled?"

Obviously, the answer to this rhetorical question is that a lawyer is responsible only for the cases he or she handles, and not all of the work undertaken by his or her colleagues. So Macpherson is simply saying that he is no more responsible for Enron than Kroger is responsible for Ashcroft and Bush -- a good point!

Macpherson is not accusing Kroger of having ties to Ashcroft and Bush; he is mocking Kroger's question by showing that the rationale underlying Kroger's question could result in the same kind of guilt-by-association argument. This is a perfectly appropriate (and indeed quite an effective) response, because it is an illustration of just how silly these guilt-by-association attacks levied by the Kroger campaign are.

Third, A. Rab. continues to assail Macpherson for not explaining one or two pro-energy votes he cast in the legislature. Look, if you think Macpherson did an inadequate job explaining these votes at the Portland City Club debate, then why didn't Kroger ask him that question? Or why don't you just email the Macpherson campaign and ask yourself. I'm sure there is a perfectly sound justification for his vote. (And he was in good company on those votes, since respected Democrat Brad Avakian voted the same way.)

Finally, I reject Matt's claim that the AG's views on sentencing don't matter. They do. The AG constantly leads special commissions and task forces for the state on sentencing and he is regularly asked to advise the legislature on these sorts of criminal justice issues. Kroger's enthusiastic embrace of mandatory minimums as contrasted with Macpherson's cautiousness on the topic says a lot about the two candidates.

Macpherson is a partner at his firm, right? Doesn't that mean while he didn't represent Enron directly, he made a profit from the firm's representation? I did not hear Greg did deny the firm represented them.

His comparison of John working for the Department of Justice is unfair. Enron was the client at Stoel, not the other partners or managing partner. That's the apples to apples comparison. The people of the United States are the client of the USDOJ. John was representing us, not Bush and Ashcroft. While they were horrible bosses, should he have turned down the chance to represent the American people and do great work because of it?

Frank Carper--

Macpherson never represented Enron. The question is: Should he be responsible for the decision of other attorneys at his firm to do legal work for the energy company? Macpherson's answer is: he is no more responsible for legal work done by his colleagues than Kroger was for the unsavory work done by his colleagues at the US-DOJ.

But here's my larger question (read my posts above): Why should we care who Stoel Rives represents? Lawyers always represent bad people -- if they didn't, we wouldn't have any public defenders! Indeed, Stoel Rives has a whole division committed to defending white-collar criminals. The fact that some of Stoel's clients are bad doesn't say anything about the lawyers who represent them and it certainly doesn't say anything about the lawyers, like Macpherson, who don't represent them!

In fact, the AG will be expected to defend state laws in court that he disagrees with. (For example, Hardy Myers successfully defended Oregon's Death With Dignity law at the U.S. Supreme Court, even though he did not support the law.) That's what good lawyers do! They provide good representation to clients whose conduct they do not personally support. So why should we care who Stoel Rives has represented?

Wow. Isn't one of the first things lawyers learn is to know the answer to the questions they ask of witnesses?

For someone who brays about his court room experience, Kroger fell face forward on this one.

And for those who want the "profit" to imply guilt, how do we know that Kroger has never owned stock in a company that did something wrong?

Hell, my mutual funds contain stock in companies that do evil things, despite them being "socially responsible" funds. Come on. Asked, and answered, move on.

Greg is a partner at Stoel Rives, so that means their clients are his clients. Furthermore, if you're curious about his corporate ties, just look at his major contributors.

The problem many of us on this thread have with Macpherson's relationship with PGE (or, to a degree, Northstar) is not that he may have been their attorney. The issue is if he has used his political power to benefit clients of his firm, and, if as a partner at that firm, he personally made money from that exercise of political power. This is why working for the DOJ or owning stocks is not a very good analogy. This issue is about conflict of interests, not guilt by association.

Is it me or does anyone else HATE the MacPherson's negative ad. If I ever thought about voting for him, that ad sealed my support for Kroger. You can complain about Kroger's various position - but to say that there is a lot of "open space" in place of his brain is wrong, silly and stupid.

but to say that there is a lot of "open space" in place of his brain is wrong, silly and stupid.

kg,

You need to watch the ad again. It is saying that there is open space in his record in Oregon. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. Face it, you are a Kroger supporter and of course you will hate Greg's ad. If you don't like it, don't watch it.

Good conversation. None of this is cut and dry. It deals with influences that cannot be directly quantified. I do think some of the arguments made warrant comment.

• Criminal law and civil law are quite different. Representing a criminal defendant does not necessarily tie you to that person in any other way. That is particularly true when the defendant is poor and disenfranchised. If the defendant is rich and powerful, there is more likelihood that his attorney is materially involved with him. I said "more likelihood". Such a relationship may not exist. It takes more information to form an informed opinion.

-Representing a corporation in tort, contract, or regulatory matters is much more likely to align an attorney with the interests and values of that corporation. An attorney should not work for a business he feels does not act ethically and in the public good. This is quite different than criminal law.

-MacPherson's relationship to Enron is more distant. Attorneys in the firm where he is partner work[ed] for Enron and PGE. The influence on MacPherson is more difficult to gauge, but as a partner in the firm, he clearly may have been influenced by the interests of a very large and active client that paid his firm a lot of money. There would have been many opportunities for lobbying in informal settings, lobbying either from Enron and PGE employees or directors, or from Stoel Rives attorneys who did work for those businesses. It is not easy to gauge this from outside, which is why ethical considerations in government and politics include appearances of impropriety, not only actual impropriety.

I believe it will always be troublesome to have powerful government positions held by people with economic and/or personal ties to powerful entities that have interest in government decisions. It does not require that a public officeholder be corrupt for him to be influenced in a way that is detrimental to the public good. Sometimes the acceptance of common values by people who associate with a powerful interest is enough to subvert public policy.

• Kroger's work for the Justice Department under John Ashcroft is also a legitimate issue for questioning. There may be political alignment among people working together, but the situation is also significantly different than that of MacPherson at Stoel Rives. Kroger had little economic interest in the overall success of the justice department. His opportunity for advancement was not closely tied to Ashcroft's success, or the success of other federal attorneys [except perhaps in a negative sense], or to the success of individuals and groups that were supported by justice department positions on legal issues.

• Concern about such relationships should not be dismissed as nothing but guilt by association. The issue is the nature and extent of the influences resulting from such association. Noting the association is the first step. If guilt is automatically assumed, then that is guilt by association. Examining the circumstances is how of guilt by association is avoided.

Ben: That is not true. The AG's office was the last office in which I had not made a decision. I was going back and forth. The ad sealed the deal.

I've watched the ads a number of times, and I think it more than infers that Kroger is an intellectual zero. Of course, you got me! I'm not a Rocket Scientist!

Does our "No Spin Zone" remind anyone else of Fox's "No Spin Zone?" Namely, that both copiously use ad hominem attacks, both yell to get their point across (ours just bolds every other sentence), both have way too much to say, and both have a complete inability or unwillingness to understand opposing viewpoints.

Dylan,

How can you denigrate of greatest living journalist? You must be a terrorist. SHUT UP! JUST SHUT UP!

Has anyone seen this? Cara Ellison provides some compelling reasons why John Kroger should publicly apologize for the underhanded tactics of his campaign staff. What a joke!