I do not like any of this behaviour by any of our legislators because at its very best, even if legal, it is not the right thing to do.

Having said this, we as citizens put our legislators in the position of trying to cut corners because they are not paid a living wage. We think that the city should pay a living wage to hot dog vendors at the ball park, but we won't do it for our legislators. We have made it impossible for anyone who is trying to support a family to be a legislator, unless they are independently wealthy, retired, supported by a union, or have a spouse who supports them. This is not right and we should not be surprised when individuals seek the loopholes in the system. Having said that, if people can not survive on the wages, they should resign and let someone else fill their position or be upfront and vote to change the salaries.

While Burdick's expensing teeters on the line of proper ethics, I find much more damning the point that Carla raises here:

Although Minnis co-authored the proposed ban on double-dipping, the Wood Village Republican had her campaign pay her $5,200 for gas and mileage at the same time she received state per diem.

It's one thing to rapaciously squeeze every last dollar from your campaign to re-line your own pockets, and excuse yourself by noting that it's technically legal (although the types of expenses Burdick declared seem to violate the spirit). It's quite another to claim an interest in preventing the activity altogether...and then do exactly what you supposedly wanted banned. Imagine if Russ Feingold sponsored a bill to ban lobbyist paid travel--and then let the CEO of Leinenkugel beer fly him to Oktoberfest.

But hey--at least Ginny's not "taking money from taxpayers" in general; just those who thought they were helping her to get elected. Caveat votor!

Yet another tempest in a teapot on the front page while Rome burns in the background--or whatever set of hopelessly mixed metaphors you would prefer.

We pay our legislators squat and they try to sqeeze out every dollar legally available. Now there's breaking news. New slogan: If it's been going on for [50/100/148] years you'll find it in the Oregonian--'cause that's the kind of stuff we love to read.

Can't fund schools but don't worry, we soon won't have any in the poor parts of town anyway so that should help. City budgets go up every year (even against inflation) while services go down. The huger their profits the more likely it is that a business is whining about taxes and/or trying to torpedo voter owned elections.

Oh yeah a few hundred bucks of Ginny Burdick's campaign money used on gas is a sign of moral bankruptcy for sure.

Just can't underline enough the disparity between Burdick asking for state money to fund her campaigns, her double-dipping into state funds to pay her expenses, and her saying Voter Owned Elections are a bad idea. I guess her hypocrisy knows no bounds. Hopefully, it won't kill a good idea.

The Portland Tribune recently wrote, "Ginny Burdick is one of the most liberal Democrats serving in the Senate." The next bit in the Trib was a "how dare she run against Sten?" Her voting record has been consistently worker friendly, pro-gun control, and pro-choice. Sten needs to be challenged by a good Liberal Dem who has the big picture of state needs. Maybe Ginny realizes Portland isn't the center of the universe and will help Portland provide better schools because she knows how the entire state funds education. Maybe Ginny will help Portland reign in it's wasteful spending and piss poor fiscal management of the city. Our dear Kari wrote a naughty little piece about Senator Burdick being taken over by pod-people. Perhaps it is Sten who has been taken over by the Tram people. My old neighborhood on SW Gibbs..well don't get me started.

Tom, as I said I think it's less an issue of "scandal," and more one of hypocrisy. Burdick has made a point of trying to appear as a sound custodian of "taxpayer funds," and I think that concern should apply just as aptly to campaign contributors as to all other taxpayers. Minnis was one of the authors of a bill to prevent exactly what she is taking advantage of now.

I agree the legislature needs more pay to encourage full-time attention. But anyone who thinks that will cause legislators not to seek whatever money is available to them--living wage or no--is being a little naive.

Yes, you made the same comment at LoadedO, Charlie. I don't necessarily agree with killing the bill (although I'd need to read it closely to decide whether it was worth passing as written), but if Senate Democrats voted to keep the current system, they are only acting based on that vote--ie, to be able to double dip legally.

Minnis, on the other hand, voted NOT to keep the current system--but is acting COUNTER to her vote--that is, to do what she voted not to allow.

To be a hypocrite is to say one thing and do another. On what alternate grammar planet is Minnis not guilty of textbook hypocrisy?

It's not legal to take double reimbursement for expenses and not declare half the money as income on your tax returns. Ask the NBA referees who lost their jobs for doing just that. Did these upstanding Oregon civic leaders do the right thing on their 1040s, and more interestingly, on their 40s? Maybe they'll show us! (Sure...)

Under Portland's Voter Owned Election system - which Senator Burdick opposes - candidates who opt in are strictly prohibited from using funds for personal use. In addition, any money leftover after the campaign is returned to the city, not used for further expenses.