Good on Speaker Hunt
Carla Axtman
Taking on a corporate lobbyist who put himself square in the center of anti-tax-fairness in Oregon is a tough job. Apparently, Oregon House Speaker Dave Hunt isn't afraid to do it:
The Bend Bulletin's Nick Budnick reported how Hunt had told Head Start officials last year that they should replace Nelson because the lobbyist was running the campaign against the tax measures.Burdnick last week was the first to report that Hunt had warned several groups that Nelson wasn't a credible figure to lobby for more state spending for them. The latest story is based on e-mails Nelson gave him that were exchanged among Head Start officials and the speaker.
I'm not sure why Hunt would do it any other way. Nelson has historically been very effective at getting legislators to do his bidding. Hunt is letting Nelson's clients know that the Oregon Legislature isn't working that way anymore. When a guy like Nelson decides to deliberately work against the best interests of his clients--it shouldn't come as a shock that the Speaker is going to point it out to them.
Now if we could just get the Speaker to put Kicker reform on the table, we might just have something.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Feb 18, '10
First!
Let me get this straight, a Federally funded program, Head Start, is using tax payer dollars to pay for the services of a lobbyists who outed himself as an anti-tax right-winger during the Measure 66 and Measure 67 campaign?
Too funny. Reminds me of Eric Cantor, Jim Boehner and all those sleaze balls who rail against the Stimulus as raising taxes, but just recite talking points when those from the other side of the aisle bring up how many of their constituents received a tax cut from the Stimulus.
Feb 18, '10
This is more of what real progressives have been asking for for years. It's very welcome. Can't really cope with being in full agreement with Ms. Axtman since it became clear how kicker "reform" was going to go. Need to sit down, draw a long breath and wait for it to blow over...
Feb 18, '10
Well, it really depends on the phrasing, doesn't it? Head Start said it was more of a threat, while Hunt's office said merely that recipients of state funds who didn't support these measures would reap what they sow when it comes to cuts. "Obey or be punished" isn't terribly attractive, but the latter phrasing seems to be a statement of the obvious.
The point about having a lobbyist at all is well taken. Groups like this tend to hire professional lobbyists without vetting the lobbyist's client list. We don't have a full time legislature, so the professional lobbyists aren't ideologically very consistent. I think it's more honest to visit with legislators as a citizen lobbyist. It allows some education of the citizen-lobbyist by the legislator as well, which makes for a more informed political conversation.
11:46 a.m.
Feb 18, '10
RyanLeo --
Note that the organization that is doing the lobbying is the Oregon Head Start Association, a private advocacy organization -- not the individual Head Start programs.
That said, state agencies and local governments hire lobbyists all the time. Nothing unusual about that.
Feb 18, '10
Kari,
My bad, I saw Head Start in the post without reading the link and immediately thought of Head Start, not the private advocacy association you informed me.
That being said, is there a process that organizations use to vet lobbyists in order to make sure the lobbyist's political views are in line with the mission of the organization?
Feb 18, '10
RyanLeo
Organizations are free to use whatever process they like to choose whether to hire a lobbyist and who to hire. Lobbyists often represent clients who align with their ideology or political views, but just as often not. The most prosperous lobbyists keep quiet about their personal ideological or political views so they can be a credible representative of as many different views as possible (and thereby make money from as many different clients as possible).
Generally, it is easier to articulate a case for something you believe in. In the workplace, however, personal political views and ideology are irrelevant, and as hard as it may be to believe this is often the case with lobbyists too.
2:35 p.m.
Feb 18, '10
As a board member of a non-profit that runs an Oregon Head Start program I have been urging that Nelson be dropped. Our exec. director took that request to the board of the Association last Fall and they didn't understand why they should stop paying the guy who was trying to strangle their future. Maybe they got the message now.
As for Ryan's concern about funding, most of the agencies involved have other sources of funding such as private contributions. The amount involved in the association is also pretty trivial.
3:59 p.m.
Feb 18, '10
When it comes to threats, coercion, and outright lying, no one can hold a candle to the boys manning the Budnick Sock Puppet.
They are now attempting to demonstrate that 66/67 is already driving business out of state. One of the more recent efforts is on display over at Victoria Taft's humble abode.
By all means read the whole exchange between the Speaker and "Mark D T(ownsend? Just guessing). My favorite line? Well, during the election they accused Oregon Small Business for Responsible Leadership (OSBRL) of being a shill for unions but now:
I prefer to support NFIB (National Federation of Independent Business) rather than OBA/OSBRL who cater to the larger businesses here in Oregon. NFIB’s primary focus is on the small business owner (less than 50 employee) and they were AGAINST Measure 66/67.
So OBA (which remained neutral) and OSBRL (Which supported 67) are now shills for Big Corps, and AOI & NFIB are working in the best interest of small business. As they certainly were when they suggested a $300 flat corporate minimum on every business from Intel to SuzyQ's Diaper Service.
Gotta love 'em.......
4:58 p.m.
Feb 18, '10
Pat,
My favorite line in the email from Mark D T was his explanation that he needed to earn $93k to pay $4k in taxes. No wonder he is losing money.
4:58 p.m.
Feb 18, '10
Pat,
My favorite line in the email from Mark D T was his explanation that he needed to earn $93k to pay $4k in taxes. No wonder he is losing money.
Feb 18, '10
Yes, good for Speaker Hunt. Scorched earth politics should reign supreme. Winning has its perks. apparently winning graciously is not yet in the Progressive lexicon.
6:10 p.m.
Feb 18, '10
Perhaps "losing gracefully" might be a nice place for conservatives to start. Especially since a number of Nelson's clients did have bills that were supported and worked on by the House leadership.
Feb 18, '10