That's interesting and borders on psychotic. I know some people, some who post here and elsewhere who are quite boisterous, at least online, and claim to be media consultants, complete with phony business names they make up on the fly as their whim suits them. But they have yet to take it to the level Sid did. Only massive fibbing and lying - like raising $200 on paper but that turns into $2000 as they try to impress you with their "deeply involved political activism". Oh, how I would love to expose them if they ever dared to actually run for office.

An aggregious case to be sure, and I'm glad he got caught and is suffering for it all.

Meanwhile though, it's perfectly legal for legislators to hire their own family members, many to do nothing more than answer a phone or some emails occassionally, on the taxpayers dime. How is that not also personal gain?

And they can use campaign funds - even after being elected - to pay for gas, hotels and basically anything else they want (see Randy Leonard's portrait), despite the fact that they receive a generous per diem, as well as the standard mileage reimbursement, $ for office supplies and equipment, and so on.

Potatoe - Patatah. I fail to see much difference.

Yeah real interesting. Far more interesting than the tens of millions in energy tax credits covered up to get legislation passed and the many Oregon scandals BO ignores?

Good intentions no doubt.

No, I get that Kari. My point is, and by your comment you agree, that things like allowing nepotism and the unbridled use of campaign funds SHOULD be illegal, just like the stuff this guy did. Converting campaign funds for personal use is illegal in Leiken's case, but it's ok to convert those same funds for personal use for say gas, or living in a nice hotel suite while the leg is in session, when they already get generous taxpayer- funded $ for those purposes? To me, it's a double standard.

So yes, Leiken said he paid a family member for services that weren't performed. Yet it's ok for legs to pay a family member who does not (or does very little to) perform the service of an aide? What's the difference? The aide is paid by taxpayers to do nothing, while Leiken's mom was paid by campaign donors to do nothing. The only difference I can see is who is getting ripped off.

So, why protect campaign donors and not taxpayers? The answer is pretty obvious is it not?

BTW: egregious, not aggregious. Duh! : )

Kari, You use the phrase "sad saga" twice here, so it must have taken a lot of personal courage on your part to see past the sadness and delve into the more comical parts of the story on KPOJ this morning.

  You seemed amused - and rightfully so - that this involved the candidate and his mother, even suggesting that their dubious explanations for the phone polls was them talking their way into prison.

  This has been a good story for you - we get that, so why not skip the phony, "sad saga" bit as well as the disproportionate moral outrage that the law was broken here? It's a 250-dollar fine and you act like he was caught doing renditions.

   Never mind that politicians do legal things that are 10,000 times as outrageous everyday. Usually it takes the form of a charitable foundation in the candidate's name with his or her family knocking down hundreds of thousands to work for it, and campaign contributors and other "friends" simply funneling big bucks through the foundation to the politician's people.

  Plus there's all the illegal stuff politicians do that political types like you let slide in the name of party loyalty. For examples, see the things that were illegal under Bush that Obama has continued. Where's the moral outrage on that?

 But since we're in nitpicking mode, here's one from me:

  When you talk on the radio you say, "Uhh" over and over again with as much emphasis as a word. It is uhh very annoying and it is uhh hard to listen to for very long without uhh starting to do it yourself.
  After you hung up both Carl and Christine continued with the pattern for a while. They couldn't help it.  
  While you're working to make politics a better, more moral place, you should work a little on that. Here's some advice:

  Listen to Matt Davis on KPOJ on Thursday. Okay, it's true: He does sound a little like the Geico lizard, but the man really has his radio call-in chops together.

He's just a crook. Pure and simple. He is either monumentally stupid or greedy, who knows which? $2000? Absolutely, text book, how a 15 year old would think to do it? Come on. Is this the calibre of the Rep candidate pool? No wonder he isn't getting support from his own. Reps are supposed to know how to game the system a LOT better than that.

Meanwhile, as I've said a gazillion times, Oregon needs criminal penalties for not registering a business when required, and state oversight of the validity of those registrations. Every time I pointed out it is the sine qua non of consumer rights and a red flag every time. As stands, the only penalty for failing to register a business in Oregon, when required to do so is that you don't have standing in the courts, and you might be required to reimburse someone who has to research who "P&G Consulting" really is for the costs of the research or $500, which ever is greater (a very handy statute that has made me some spending money on many an instance).

Guess it's not Kari's day to edit Richard's unresponsive, dittohead off topic comment. Proof that talk radio dittoheads get more consideration than progressives here.

Oh, and spot on barkeep and Pat!

Uuhs aside, Kari does a great job on radio interviews. I've been happy to have him on my show to provide in-depth analysis of the governor's race and other topics.

Jack,

Where do you get your rose-colored glasses? I'd like a pair.

It seems clear that this issue, and his increasingly lame response, has hurt his already slim chances of defeating DeFazio. The evidence is the bottom falling out of his fundraising, which seems to coincide with this issue coming out.

A more likely outcome is that Leiken ends or "suspends" his campaign before the end of the year. In fact, I would be surprised if this didn't happen within the next few days.

Bill,

it's only a $250 fine if you somehow ignore the $2000 that's also part of the fine. Yes, that happens to be the amount that Leiken paid himself, but that doesn't mean it isn't part of the fine.

Pat:

First off, I never said aides are paid generously or even well. I
don't recall what they make, so I couldn't say one way or another. I
believe that leges get a certain amount of money for assistants and it
is up to them to decide how many people they want and what each of
them is paid, as well as what their duties are. I could be wrong tho.

What I did say is that leges get a generous per diem and other
monetary perks to pay for things that some of them say they need
campaign $ to fund. And yes, sorry, but $100+ per day untaxed (I think it was
$109 a few years ago, so I'm sure it's more now) for housing, meals
and incidentals is generous in my opinion. I'm sure some of you
disagree. But I know I could survive quite nicely on $3 grand a month
just to pay for my room and board and meals. Especially if my vehicle
expenses, office equipment and supplies, phone, medical insurance, etc. were all paid too
AND I got a salary besides!

We can agree to disagree, but I don't think padding lege's expense accounts by dipping into funds meant for campaigning is a lot different than what Leiken did.

And, while I may not be as well versed as you on the intricate
workings of the legislature, I've worked in support and administrative
positions enough to have a real good idea of what types of things the
aides do. Thanks for the condescension tho.

I'm sure - just like in the business sector - some of them do a lot
more than others too. I'm not addressing these comments to them. My
ire lies with the wife or mother or son of the lege who gets paid to
sit at home and answer a few emails a month. In my opinion, anything an aide like this gets paid is too much.

[I remember this issue being discussed quite extensively in the media
a few years back. I recall that someone's wife was never even seen in
Salem, and all she did was answer the phone at home. Remember? I'll dig it up
again if you want.]

The argument that they need to hire their "relatives hoping that their combined income will keep their housholds afloat with the offset from the really crappy legislator's salary" is really lame, IMO. What other jobs offer this kind of perk? The corporate world has strict guidelines against nepotism, for good reason. And if the leges' salary is really so pathetically crappy (and considering the part-time nature of their job, and the extensive benefits and perks they get in addition to their salary - which you conveniently neglected to mention - I don't think their overall compensation package is crappy at all) why not put an end to the nepotism, perks and use of campaign funds to subsidize it and pay them, straightforwardly, more?

If as you say, "[m]ost of them.. take the jobs for love of the game, resume enhancement, ideology, or all of the above," their salary was obviously not the deciding factor in taking the job. We all make choices. I work at a minimum wage + tips job although I have an education and extensive experience in other areas that would pay me significantly more. But I choose to tend bar because other factors are more important to me, like the flexibility it affords me and my family. I can't go out there and say, "I do a lot more than just pour drinks, I should make more money," and seriously expect to get it.

Whatever. I'm not going to get into a long debate about lege's compensation here. Been there, done that. And since so many of BO's audience works for or with leges - or aspire to being one themselves - I know a lot of you feel they are horribly underpaid. But get a clue folks. There's a lot of people out there - especially in this economy - who would disagree. Democrats were supposed to be the party of the little people. You'd do well to remember the economic hardships faced by the little people who elected you.

Just had time to do a very quick Google search and found this within 10 seconds.

From The Center of Public Integrity:

Nepotism is rooted in virtually every level of government. But Oregon lawmakers have taken the practice of using public office to take care of relatives to an extreme.

At least 15 representatives and senators, 26 percent of the 58 officeholders, have placed spouses on the public payroll as legislative aides.

The lawmakers defend the longstanding practice, saying they need the additional income so they can afford to live in Salem during the legislative session. Surprisingly, good government advocates have resigned themselves to this conflict of interest.

But in a bold display of self-interest, the Oregon legislature in 1999 gave legislative assistants a 60 percent pay raise, boosting salaries to more than $1,800 per month.

I really doubt all those 26% have master's degrees and are more qualified than other viable applicants for the job of aide. Especially when this is the first argument they throw out.

If I'm given a certain amount of money to hire people to effectively help me do my job, I shouldn't be able to give the job (or one of them) to my spouse, solely on the basis that I need his money to "survive." And especially not if there are other people out there better equipped to do the job.

That is the very definition of "personal gain" and the basis for the laws that made what Leiken did illegal. You can debate the details ad nauseum, because yes, the situations are not exactly the same. No two ever are. The fact is using funds designated for other purposes to help yourself is personal gain, pure and simple. And it's unethical. And should be illegal. No matter how you manage to do it.

Kari, The mistake that Sid Leiken made was not calling his Mom a political consultant. They got specific about what she did and that's when the story unraveled. But do you really not know that it is standard operating procedure for Democrats and Republicans alike to put their immediate family members on the campaign payroll as consultants? That's why these 12 posts don't make sense. You are digging into an area that your perspective clients would rather not have you looking at. Kari, getting high and mighty about politicians pocketing money is a career-threatening move for you. Politicians paying wives or husbands or daughters or sons as consultants is standard stuff. It's called legalized bribery and many politicians count on it. A brief Internet search will get you many names - some of them like Barbara Boxer - are pretty big. I guess it comes down to what your definition of "is" is, but if I was paying my wife, for example, I'd consider that to be enriching myself. Here's how it would work: "Honey, could I have some money to go shopping?" "Just use that money I paid you for consulting last month." And LOTS of them do it.

And if I remember correctly, that's mostly Republicans.

Ahh, Kari, ever the party loyalist. Sigh. IF that is true, (don't know if it is, but several notable dems come up when you search "Oregon legislature nepotism") does it even matter? Are we keeping score here? What a low threshold for ethics: your guys did it more than our guys did, so we're superior. Never mind that both parties are guilty of the same thing.

Oh, and huh? Oregon has 90 legislators. Weird.

Yeah, sorry. As I said, I did a very quick search, then cut and paste from a site I have always believed to be credible. My bad. How's this one then:

===== Article Excerpt Byline: The Register-Guard

<h1>Sifting the rubble of state Rep. Kelly Wirth's political career, The Oregonian took a look at legislators' staff hiring practices and found that at least half of them have relatives on the payroll.</h1>

Is that better? It's from an article in the Register-Guard that references another one in the O dated almost exactly four years ago, on Nov. 18, 2005. Maybe you remember it?

As I wrote over on BlueOregon, there are surely relatives who do a fine job -- but I think that a blanket policy that outlaws employing family members would cost less (in losing the few good ones) than the current practice, which has a tremendous cost in eroding public confidence.

I remember one '94 GOP revolutionary who was surprised to discover - upon arriving in DC - that there was no limo to shuttle him around (since he ran against those very perks).

Most of what the public believes about legislators is wrong (they confuse 'em with Hollywood celebs) - which is why it's critical to squash the few examples that are true.

It's time to put an end to legislative nepotism.

Posted by Kari Chisholm | November 20, 2005 2:28 PM

on bojack's piece on the whole ethics matter and the O article.

Have you changed your mind since then? Have you changed it since your comment at 7:30 am this morning? If you agree with me, I don't understand why you're being argumentative, especially with such points as you've listed. I'm the first one to one pick apart someone's logic if I think it's in error or hypocritical, even if I agree with their stance. So I'd understand if you were doing that here. But I'd never do it if my counter-points were as weak and irrelevant as yours are above.

Sorry, am I stepping on too many toes, by speaking truth to even - gasp - Dem power? Or is the voice of a non-insider, but truly liberal progressive, just not welcome round your water cooler?

Maybe you should institute that paid subscription scheme for the privelege of commenting here that you all keep throwing out there. That way you can investigate everyone and screen out the ones who make you so uncomfortable.

Kari, Do you see how ridiculous it is for a male politician to pay his wife as a political consultant? If anything I'd have to pay my wife NOT to tell me what she thought.

 To show you how fast you could become the guy who cut the big fart at the party, take the case of Bernie Sanders. Bernie is a regular guest on KPOJ - the same station you go on. Though I have no independent knowledge of the facts here, I see sites that suggest that Bernie paid his wife and stepdaughter with campaign funds.

 Maybe you can ask the next time you're on the air? Politicians love talking about this stuff.

And I'm not being sanctimonious. If God forbid I was an elected official and I had a bunch of money left over from a campaign, I'd call some friends and say, "I want to take you out for a consultation. We can say all the same things at an Arby's but I think the words would come out sounding nicer if we hit a fancy restaurant. Are you game?"

Hey Jack,

Most disappointing of all was Springfield, Oregon, Mayor Sid Leiken, running against Democratic Rep. Peter DeFazio. A Republican whose candidacy generated early buzz, he’s all but disappeared from the national radar. Over the past three months, he raised just $18,000 and has only $21,000 left in his account. Pencil DeFazio in for a 13th term. Politico

I bet there are many Republican donors who have said, "I was going to donate money to Leiken before this came up."

Kari, I see this post as another story of a politician with his hand in the cookie jar. You are morally outraged because a law was broken. I'm morally outraged because it's usually legal. You slip into the standard "we do it less than they do" mode, and that is actually a valid point. It's also important not to be too visible about things. The key with politicians is not to flaunt it. Tom Delay flaunted it. Rick Santorum, who had the foundation that paid his people, flaunted it. Unfortunately for you, there are many people looking at these nepotism situations and bringing them out to the sunshine where all of America can get a good strong whiff.

  That is why I questioned your strategy of focusing on a politician enriching him or herself. It's one of the "Don't go there"s in your line of work.

Yes, it was against the law in this case. It normally isn't against the law, and I suggested that this guy just showed a lack of skill by not taking a legal way of getting the campaign money  to the family. You said yourself that the campaign finance laws in Oregon are admittedly loose. Gee, I wonder who voted for those?

   Of course, it is standard procedure to mention that many of these spouses could be doing terrific work and could deserve the money. I backed up my point by suggesting most spouses share their opinions quite willingly, at least in my experience. That is what is known in comedy as "funny because it's true."

 Do you think Barack Obama had a meeting where he said, "We've got to raise some money so I can find out what Michelle thinks"? No, that is completely ridiculous and sort of an insult to the role most spouses play.

   Now let's look at your fractured logic. Just read what you wrote:
  "Bill claimed upthread that lots of politicians put their spouses on the campaign payroll as "campaign consultants". I asked him to name one in Oregon. So far, he hasn't. He's talking about U.S. Senators in California and Vermont, but this post is about Oregon state law.

Lots of handwaving and fingerpointing, but no actual examples to back up Bill's original claim."

  "No actual examples to back up Bill's original claim."

 You mean my original claim where I said I had a list of Oregon politicians who had done it? Oh wait...I never said that.

  If that's your idea of a logical argument, you should write USC and demand your money back. God knows they haven't been spending it on the football team lately.

Sal - I do understand what you're saying. And I was drawing a parallel by bringing up the subject of nepotism and the aides who do little or nothing, yet receive payment for it:

Leiken said he paid a family member for services that weren't performed. Yet it's ok for legs to pay a family member who does not (or does very little to) perform the service of an aide? 

As I also stated, I realize it's not an exact apples-to-apples comparison. But I believe that hiring family members who are either not as qualified as other applicants, and/or who do little to earn the pay they receive, amounts to personal gain. They are hiring spouses - by their own admission - primarily to supplement their household income. Why is that not personal gain? Because our leges have decided that it isn't, and therefore have done nothing to police themselves and make it illegal.

Are you saying that you believe that as long as you receive ANYTHING of value - even if it's shoddy or incomplete or in some other way substandard - for the compensation and service that is supposedly provided, it's not unethical? So paying a spouse $1,800 a month for doing nothing more than answering the phone from a home in Hawaii is fair or appropriate? According to our leges it is, and I think it's wrong.   

The facilities the no-bid contractors built in Iraq cost billions, yet are literally falling down around our troops' ears, electrocuting them, and poisoning them with dirty water. But the buildings are there, so we did get SOMETHING of value, even if it's value is very low, or even detrimental to the cause. So this is not unethical, and could never be interpreted to be illegal? By Oregon's definition of "personal gain", that's the conclusion I reach. And I think it's wrong.

I also get that this is the way it stands in Oregon today. I'm simply saying that I think the law should be changed to make this type of thing illegal. But leges are the ones who benefit from keepng things the way they are and are also the ones who can change it. But as we've seen, they won't.

Nonetheless, Bartender, I think you're confusing the issue you raised - legislative staff nepotism (which is legal) - with the issue that Bill McDonald and I have been discussing, which is illegal self-dealing with campaign funds.

I don't know how to make this any clearer. I KNOW nepotism (which amounts to self-dealing with taxpayer funds) is legal and that "self-dealing with campaign funds" is not. I'm not dense. Our leges made these laws, and they are the ones who have decided what's legal or not. Using their self-serving definition of what is or isn't legal to defend or condone (or simply ignore) these practices is circular logic.

For the umpteenth time, please - anyone - explain why it's ok to enrich yourself at the public trough, but not the private trough that is campaign donations?

Could it possibly be that our leges primary concern is to gain or stay in office, rather than serving the people that elect them? That they care more about protecting the interests of those who donate money to help them gain office, than they do about protecting those whom they supposedly serve - the taxpayer? Perhaps not, I'm just saying it could be construed that way.

I don't think it is ok to draw such distinctions, and find it rather duplicitous and self-serving of them to do so. As Bill said about the misuse of campaign funds, I'm morally outraged that the misuse of taxpayer funds is usually legal.

Kari - So we agree that nepotism is wrong and shouldn't be legal.

And we agree that ripping off taxpayers is as bad as ripping off campaign donors and neither should be legal.

And, as you wrote, I guess we agree about both campaign funds and taxpayer funds and feel misuse of both for personal gain should be illegal.

It's ok to express outrage at what Leiken did, it was outrageous. It was most definitely a more egregious case than we normally see. But are we seeing more of the outrageous details of this case simply because Dems have pursued it so, while failing to turn such a critical eye to their own actions?

I know this is BLUE Oregon, and it wouldn't be logical to go after a Dem in this way. But I believe you have to judge your guys and their guys by the same moral standards, if you want to be credible and not dismissed out of hand as a hypocritical party loyalist. I don't mean to speak for Bill, but I think that was his point, as it was mine. (If not, Bill, I apologize.)

You and Carla are fond of saying that a person's motivation for writing what they do is as important as what they say. You both routinely question the credibility of (usually anonymous) commenters, or simply dismiss them out of hand - no matter how logical their arguments might be - if you don't know and judge their pedigree to be sufficiently progressive.

The shoe's on the other foot now, and it seems you don't like it very much. I know how you must feel.

Kari, How about Dan Rostenkowski? We sure heard about him. Oh wait, you said "a Democrat" when you meant an "Oregon Democrat." But in your spin world your sentence sounds so much nicer. "You know, I feel quite confident that if there was a Democrat who had violated the law as badly as Sid Leiken, we'd have heard about it by now."

 This is a Democratic Party site. You send people from here to the Democratic Party national convention. You write about national Democrats like Al Gore.

Stop hiding behind the Oregon part and take ownership.

  Maybe the real story is that this state

doesn't produce as many indictments as others because politicians of the Democratic Party don't get the same scrutiny here.

  The most disingenuous part of your comment was that this was some sort of breaking free from the bonds of your potential clients. If I understand this correctly, you spent 12 posts slamming a potential rival to DeFazio. Wow, way to overlook the party affiliation and just be you. 
  I just think it veered near a standard procedure in the Democratic and Republican Party nationwide. 
    Google it if you don't believe me.

What's amazing about all of this is that Leiken threw away his political career for a measly $2k. Very odd.

Bill, Dan Rostenkowski served 15 months in prison. Are you suggesting prison for Leiken?

Kari, My examples of Oregon politicians who accept this slush-fund-system whereby campaign funds are legally diverted to enrich a politician's life, family or friends would probably include all of them. Let me ask you a question: How come they still call them campaign funds when the campaign is over? Why don't we ask Randy Leonard to look into it. Maybe he'll suggest meeting at Nick's but that's not good enough for a player like you. Let's see if Randy will spring a few hundred dollars at Ringsides so we can discuss this with him. He can dip into leftover campaign funds and pay the bill with those. No strings attached. Of course the lobbyists might complain when politicians lean on them for campaign contributions, then end up spending the money on a rib-eye steak after the campaign is over, but so what? Of course, let's not forget to do some official business. That's essential. Something like, "Randy, do you come to this restaurant because it's extra conducive to getting results for Portland, or do you just like the food? That should cover it. Now let's eat."
Wake up, Kari. You're so far into wonkville that you can't even see the real world.

I have to ask, Bill M, do you work in gov? You seem to be carrying an assumption that I found to be common there. But I'll ask before I characterize it.

Kari, First, I wouldn't bring up goal posts after the USC/Stanford game. Second, you don't understand what "standard operating procedure" means. One system can have many standard operating procedures. It does not mean it happens with everything the system does. Look it up. I was talking about politicians nationally. You moved the goal posts stating that I was talking about specific Oregon politicians. Let me restate it for you: It is routine across the country. I do not have a specific case from Oregon but slow way down and read the following: I never claimed that I did. That was you doing the standard blog move of inventing something someone has said, then arguing against it. Not everyone is married in Congress. It would be impossible for everyone to do this. My point is that it is legal if they want to do it. Let's review: When it comes to enriching a family member it is...wait for it...standard operating procedure to name them as consultants. Are you saying that it would be illegal to hire your wife as a consultant in Oregon or put a family member on the campaign payroll as a consultant? Never mind if it has happened, is it legal? Frankly, you seemed a little unclear about that for a jedi wonk. We do know it happens routinely across America.

  That's what I find amusing about your position. You are a quivering mass of moral outrage at the idea that this politician pocketed money illegally from campaign funds. I'm not happy about it either. But this guy and his mother seem like that other Oregon politician wanna-be Emilie Boyles who hired her daughter and leased a building for a year, in such a clumsy manner that it blew up on her. Meanwhile when Bernie Sanders or Barbara Boxer hire family members, it's okay 'cause they're better at it. 
  I'm just saying where's the moral outrage that it's normally legal to do? You don't dispute it, you just change the goal posts and say it has to be a politician in Oregon. I know Emilie lives in Montana now so that doesn't count.

 I think this is more about Sid as a political opponent than moral outrage. This is more about helping DeFazio, right?

By the way, going to the Ringside restaurant does qualify as enriching your life and Randy does legally use leftover campaign funds to do it, so I don't see how that example is so far off. I'm not the only one who has complained about this. Some call it a slush fund. Campaign funds - the gift that goes on giving long after the campaign is done.

Bill,

You're missing a big part of this issue--it appears as though Sid didn't actually hire his mother. He paid her $2000, but it appears no actual work was done.

And I'm with Kari that this could be just the tip of the iceberg.

There is a substantive difference between hiring a relative to do real work versus "hiring" your mother in a money-laundering scheme, which is what this appears to be.

Not money-laundering as in cleaning cash illegally obtained, but money-laundering in converting campaign cash for personal use.

Wow. Live long enough and all. Kari and I view the subject, this article and the responses identically.

I look back and wonder why my BS detector went off on this. 1. It was that "sad saga" phrase like Kari was all torn up to see anybody fall this low - even a political opponent. Be brave. Maybe someday your sadness at all this will pass. 2. The 12 separate posts about it. It reminds me of that endless series of posts about the national committee affiliation crisis early in the last campaign. I didn't know whether to debate Kari or try and get him into a blogger's intervention. 3. The moral outrage. I thought it was phony and Kari's radio appearance proved he wasn't too sad or morally outraged to hide how funny he thinks this really is.

  There's going to be a certain amount of anger at the Democratic Party, especially by People who were counting on the Dems to reverse the damage of the Bush/Cheney years. If I've gone over the line venting at Kari about this, I apologize.
   My hope is the Dems will get off their collective asses, because the way this is looking, we could have another national wave of GOP rule and that would be a lot worse than Sid Leiken and his Mom.

Bartender-- Do you have a specific person or incident in mind, or are you just throwing mud at everyone?

Throwing mud, eh? Bringing up questionable ethics and behavior is throwing mud? Well, by that definition, your exhaustive series on Leiken would be called a real shit storm. No matter.

The answer to your question though is: a little bit of both.

There are several specific examples of abuses of both taxpayer funded and campaign contribution money, that though they weren't illegal, are unethical at best. Since little has changed to address some of these allowable practices, the potential for abuse still exists.

And if we continue to leave the door open for leges to game the system, some of them will. So though I do not believe that all leges and/or their aides are crooks or scammers by any means, even just leaving the door open a crack for these abuses to continue makes them all somewhat complicit. They get to make the laws and policies that affect themselves, after all. If I were a clean lege, I'd be eager to reform ethics laws, so that no one is allowed an advantage over everyone else, and to raise the credibility and reputation of those in my profession.

I'm a little hesitant to give you specific examples, because you're a political wonk and insider and should be more aware of these than I, so I question your motives for posing this inquiry. I'm not hinting at any current impropriety that I might be privvy to, if that's what you're getting at.

Those of us who aren't political insiders usually don't become aware of these abuses until they end up making the lege crash and burn in a big way and the media jumps on the bandwagon and exposes it. By then, it's too late. The damage has been done. So I'm only aware of the highly publicized cases and I don't think any of them are serving in the legislature anymore.

But, oh well, I'm game:

Kelly Wirth - For paying her mom a couple thousand a month while she was rarely, if ever, seen in Salem. No one said anything until Wirth infamously flamed out and raised her mother's pay to $6,500 per month in an effort to empty her office budget before resigning in disgrace.

Only then did Merkley, who was House Minority Leader at the time, write to Wirth questioning what legislative work her mom was doing, saying: "Your office has been unresponsive to constituent phone calls and e-mails during the interim, making this high payroll completely out-of-synch with the actual provision of service to the public."

I don't want to jump to conclusions, but Merkley's quote here kinda insinuates that had Wirth's mother actually answered the phone and e-mails, $6,500 per month salary - plus the health and pension benefits she received - would have been acceptable.

I don't know if that's what Merkley meant, but the fact is that leges can pay whatever they want to aides, until they empty their office budget. And because their staffers do not have to submit time cards or any evidence that they actually work, no one really knows what they do to earn their keep, if anything. This hasn't changed, to my knowledge, and has a large potential for abuse besides just not looking good. Or right, or fair.

Bill Garrard - His wife got $1,000 a month for four years to check phone and email messages and type letters from her home in Las Vegas. She had no personal contact with constituents. She was a full-time employee of the Legislature but also had a full-time job in Vegas at the same time.

Billy Dalto - Brought his mother out from NY to staff his Salem office, answer email, and do administrative work over a 3 month period. For which she was paid $10,000 and got medical and dental benefits.

Brad Avakian - Paid his wife $4,500 per month for 3 months to answer email, phone calls, set up town hall meetings and to "make up for previous [unspecified] work for which she had [inexplicably] not gotten paid." After Wirth got busted, he dropped her pay to $1,500.

Derrick Kitts - Raised his aunt's monthly salary to $3,300 before dropping it back to $1,800. Her job? To act as his "PTA mom," handing out business cards and "serving as his eyes and ears in Washington County's farm and school circles."

Are those enough examples for you? That was just in 2005, BTW, when Wirth's actions brought this all to a head and the media asked a few questions. Since then, we haven't heard much about the subject of nepotism and the laws haven't been changed. If no one's looking, it's pretty hard to recognize abuse of the system unless someone really goes overboard as Wirth did.

Per the National Conference of State Legislatures,the federal government and nearly half of all states have laws prohibiting a legislator from hiring a relative. And, all 50 states have laws that either prohibit or suggest guidelines for conflict-of-interest situations, which may include nepotism restrictions depending on interpretation of the law.

Oregon has general ethical considerations, but no specific prohibition. Paraphrasing ORS 244.040: "A public official may not use or attempt to use official position or office to obtain financial gain for the public official, a relative or member of the household if the financial gain would not otherwise be available but for the public official’s holding of the official position or office."

Since legislators are the only public officials allowed to practice nepotism (see ORS 244.177), and their family members would likely not be hired as aides other than for the fact that their boss is a legislator, I think it's pretty clear that the financial gain that the lege and/or their aide get from this would not otherwise be available but for the public official’s holding of his or her official position.

I'm not as upset about the nepotism as I am about the complete lack of oversight when it comes to aides. How is it right to pay anyone - let alone a family member - anything, without any evidence that they actually worked? It's outrageous, and since it's my money they're using to do it with, it pisses me off.

Here's some examples of what were legal - but highly questionable - misuses of campaign funds:

Billy Dalto - Created a PAC, then transferred money from his own campaign to that committee, from which he paid himself $1,800 in salary. And it was all legal.

Laurie Monnes-Anderson - Reported paying $4,100 for gift certificates.

Kelly Wirth - Was reimbursed with $2,300 in campaign funds, but only explained $210 of it on her reports.

I know the law was changed after the Dan Doyle debacle, but I don't know if the changes make any difference in these cases. Which brings us to the example I find most outrageous, and one which I know the new campaign-finance laws do not address:

Derrick Kitts - Legally used more than $8,000 of campaign funds for expenses that taxpayers were already paying him for through his per diem during the 2005 legislative session. These expenses included meals, rent in Salem, gas, and a leased car. In December, 2002, his campaign fund paid him $3,500 for gas while also reimbursing himself for mileage for the same vehicle. Campaign funds were also used for a $600 limousine ride and $775 for hotel rooms for friends and supporters on election night. All still perfectly legal.

Kitts, who helped craft campaign legislation in response to the loophole used by Doyle, curiously left one thing out of the bill: the provision that prohibited leges from using campaign funds for food, lodging, or travel expenses on days that they receive per diem and mileage payments from the state.

Bartender, But that's not the part of Oregon Kari is talking about. Besides 2005 was 4 years ago. Kari's talking about no political corruption on top of Mt.Tabor from 8 to midnight January 3rd, 2007. How dare you move the goal posts to include all of Oregon?

Hey, Jack, can you tell us (or go ask Sid and then tell us) what the heck he meant when he said he commissions polls all the time on city issues -- and why those polls don't show up in his C&E's anywhere?

Oh, now I get the "tip of the iceberg" reference. Stay tuned for parts 16-32 of the ongoing BO melodrama: The Demise of Leiken. Just in case he does manage to rise from the ashes, I guess. Go get him, tiger.

I wonder if Sir Anthony Hopkins will play Sid Leiken in the movie? He did a terrific job with Richard Nixon - the other great political story of our times.

Kari, We can't help you 'til you realize you have a problem. We need you to address the entire group and say, "My name is Kari, and I'm addicted to the Sid Leiken story. Please help me." Then after that it's one post at a time.

Here is what is interesting to me. There are those among us who are avid politicos, would do a lot for everyone were they to be able to get into office. I have not noticed the same level of scrutiny upon those. I know the backgrounds of some include affairs ("understandable" or not), current recreational drug useage that is not just pot on a sunday while listening to old vinyl, bits of income diverted, junk like that which may well deserve consideration... but do not get that notice!

While I get what Kari is doing here, and that level of reportage should follow such a trail, I just kind of wonder where that same level of scrutiny is in the case of certain ones among us who would make good legislators, but who also have blemishes that rate alongside those being elevated to the view of all. I am as craven as the next dolly - I want cover and forgiveness for my all-too-capacious human failings. I raised this question after Edwards. And I raise it again, mainly because somehow the premise of dogging the guys we don't like and not investigating those we do like seems not quite cricket.

I guess nobody would have any political life or political friends if we applied these tactics absolutely across the board.

rw reminds me of Jack Nicholson when asked if he would endorse a candidate. He said, "Yeah, but are you sure any of them want that".

Good points that underscore that our representative based democracy isn't very.

(BTW, love the phraseology, of course!)

Zara: which phraseology you loving? Yours? Mine's? Someone's?

... & Z'enthustra: cricket? Heh. Clunky site, perfectly addled. Heh. :).... good one!

You crack me up Bill. And give me some hope for the Democratic Party. I'm glad some people here can still see the forest for the trees and are more concerned with what is right than with winning the next election.

As for hammering away on Kari about this, nobody tried to rain (much, anyway) on his little gloat fest until he insisted on picking away at reasonable comments that didn't necessarily relate to the EXACT details of Leiken's case, but to the basis of the case: unethical behavior. Although he agrees with my (and Bill's, and TJ's, and a few others) contention that things like nepotism and double-dipping are wrong, he refuses to acknowledge the duplicity of wailing his alleged moral outrage at Leiken out one side of his mouth, while saying stuff like this out of
the other:

Now you're talking about the silly but legal thing where campaign funds are used to pay for expenses that may not be very campaign-related. Fine. It's dumb. I've said it again and again on this thread.

Silly? Dumb? Hmmm. So giving money to your mom is OUTRAGEOUS. Because it's illegal. But buying a several thousand dollar painting of yourself is just silly. Because it's legal.

Kari, do you not understand that laws are (or should be) consistent codifications of commonly accepted ethical standards? The key word here being "consistent." That's what makes the justice system, just. If it's wrong to divert campaign cash to yourself for unspecified reasons that aren't related to campaigning, it's also wrong to divert it for specified ones like portraits that cannot reasonably construed to be related to campaigning either. And it's wrong to use campaign funds to reimburse yourself for things taxpayers are already paying you for.

You know this, you agreed. I'm fairly sure this whole thread would have died out long ago had Kari simply said not only that these things are wrong, but that they should be made illegal. He stopped well short of that, as well as moving those frickin goalposts all over the field.

Do you not see Kari, that using the laws that legislators themselves have self-servingly - and inconsistently - implemented as the basis for your wrath, is circular logic? I'm sure you must, you're no dummy. That's what makes this so frustrating.

So, sorry for hammering away, but I find it hard to resist when faced like stuff like this:

Oh, now I get it. This is a generation-gap thing.

I wasn't using "sad" in the traditional unhappy/weepy kind of way. I was using "sad" as in pathetic, ridiculous, amateur, absurd.

OMG, seriously? Was this meant in jest? I hope so, because if it was meant seriously, I ..... I don't know what to say. Have you fallen on your head lately Kari? This whole conversation stems on your contention that Bill's an old geezer who doesn't understand the hip lingo of you Gen-Xers? I think an intervention is in order, if you truly believe that. Or if you really believe that is what this is all about.

If it was meant to be ironic or funny, I'd suggest you leave that to Bill. You are missing your mark, and statements like that make you look, well... really desperate. Or crazy.

Bartender, Thanks. I really appreciate the way you came through on this with those Oregon politicians. That was beautiful. And Kari, don't worry about eating your hat. I think you can handle it.

<h2>It was my pleasure Bill. I happened to have a lot of research material on hand about this very subject, because I did a paper on it when I went back to school a few years ago. It took me a while to find it and pull it all together, but it was worth it. Even if Kari doesn't have the stones to acknowledge it.</h2>