HD-37: Caught with her hand in the cookie jar, Julie Parrish admits to dirty Koch cash

Kari Chisholm FacebookTwitterWebsite

Koch Industries - the corporate home of right-wing titans Charles and David Koch, and one of the biggest polluters in America - has dropped a lot of cash on Republican politicians in Oregon, as detailed by TA Barnhart a couple of weeks ago.

Just a few days later, we learned that Koch sent mailers to their employees - thousands of whom are in Oregon - putting on the pressure for Republican votes.

Which might explain why, as TA and Carla Axtman have noted, Rep. Julie Parrish (R-West Linn) went crazybonkers trying to hide her dirty Koch cash from voters (among other things.)

Well, facing the heat, it now seems that she's decided to follow state law and report the contribution as having come exactly where it came from: Koch Industries. Of course, it took a nice, polite letter from the Elections Division to set her straight. From WW's Aaron Mesh:

Rep. Julie Parrish (R-West Linn) has amended a campaign contribution filing with the state Elections Division, disclosing that a $1,000 donation came from Koch Industries—and not from Georgia Pacific, as she had earlier reported. ...

A letter from the elections division to Parrish earlier this month asked why she had disguised the check from Koch.

"On September 26, 2012, your campaign reported receiving a $1,000 contribution from Koch Industries, Inc.," the letter read. "The transaction was amended September 27, 2012, changing the name of the contributor to Georgia Pacific Financial Management LLC."

Records show Parrish amended her report again on Oct. 29 to show the check came from Koch.

Nice one, Julie. By trying to hide the donation, you shone a nice big fat light on it. Real sharp.

Of course, if you'd rather not have a legislator who wants to take secret dirty Koch cash, support Carl Hosticka.

Comments

  • (Show?)

    Wow, the elections division played Parrish for a sucker--a dirty Koch-sucker.

  • (Show?)

    Have to wonder why WW endorsed her, I mean,they knew or should have known about the Koch "amendment".

  • (Show?)

    You talk about making a mountain out of a molehill. With respect to political contributions, see http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php It looks to me like it is unions that buy or rent the most politicians and almost all of them are democrats.

  • (Show?)

    This is kind of a reach. Of course the Koch Brothers own Georgia-Pacific but it is Georgia-Pacific that has a presence in Oregon. If Rep. Parrish's campaign was trying to hide something, filing an amended return in the first place wasn't the best way to do it.

    And what is this all about? A $1,000 contribution. Does anyone really think a candidate can be "bought" for $1,000?

      • (Show?)

        The people who know and care about the Koch Brothers are unlikely to be voting for Parish in any event.

        It is at least as likely that she saw an advantage in claiming a donation from Georgia Pacific as that she was afraid of being tied to Koch Industries.

        And, of course, this situation isn't the kind of cash transfer you're talking about. The donation came directly to her.

        • (Show?)

          Jack,

          I don't see how her acting this way because "she saw an advantage in claiming a donation from Georgia Pacific" makes it any better.

          There appears to be a pattern of underhanded behavior by Julie Parrish--she paid for robocalls that disguised the source.

          Full disclosure--I'm being paid to knock on doors for Carl Hosticka.

        • (Show?)

          Jack, we all should know, and care.

          Julie Parish famously voted against regulating BPA in children's bottles and sippy cups, arguing that "parents can make their own decision," or something to that effect. (Full report from BO is here: http://www.blueoregon.com/2011/06/bpa-ban-and-lame-excuses-julie-parrish/ ) Silly, of course, since the WalMarts of the world are not known for sticking "Contains BPA" stickers on products without being required to do so by "job-killing regulations," as Parish would no doubt call them.

          So, when it comes to prioritizing the profits of her corporate funders over the health of her constituents, Parish's record speaks loud and clear.

        • (Show?)

          Seriously Jack? You're sugar-coating a violation of campaign finance law. Perhaps sometimes you should take off your political hack hat.

    • (Show?)

      Does Georgia-Pacific make democratic and republican political contributions in Oregon? The parent company, Koch Industries, I would guess ONLY gives money to Tea Party type republicans and other destructive elements in our polis. I don't think this is a reach at all Mr. Roberts, but your efforts to defend Parrish in no surprise either.

  • (Show?)

    Frankly, I wonder a great deal about why Jack Roberts, long-time Republican officeholder and candidate is posting HERE in defense of Republicans who are considerably to the right of Roberts. I also wonder about the credibility of Willamette Week's endorsements -- Parrish, Wand, etc. Seems like WW would really like to tell us who the good candidates are and are not. I have watched Carl Hosticka on Metro Council over the years, and he has been at the top of that not-so-august group in matters of land-use and transportation, well ahead of Barbara Roberts, for example, who is doing the bidding for her cronies and that's about all. To even suggest that Wand and Parrish should be re-elected, no matter their hiding of contributions, makes me wonder about the judgment of Zusman and Jacquis and crew, who seem to prefer a right-wing legislature, much in keeping with their fellow editorial-writers at The Oregonian these days. Elect Tom Hughes over Bob Stacey, burn Jefferson Smith down, support Randy Leonard and then tear him down for his behavior and call out his treasured fire bureau. Zusman and Jaquiss have no philosophical consistency and their judgment on candidates is terrible. When there are only two noted endorsers of candidates in Portland, and the new right-wing publisher of the Oregonian has picked out his own right-wing editorial page editor, it is too bad we no longer have ANYONE you can rely upon. And it's not as if the advertising is helpful, or the press coverage anywhere, fed as it is by opposition research. We are in a bad way in Portland. We can't solve our problems, and we get no help from the press in sorting through who might be best at finding real solutions.

    • (Show?)

      Ron, Wikipedia describes Jack better than I every could. They say, "A political hack is a negative term ascribed to a person who is part of the political party apparatus, but whose intentions are more aligned with victory than personal conviction. The term "hired gun" is often used in tandem to further describe the moral bankruptcy of the hack".

connect with blueoregon