Republicans for Jim Hill?
Kari Chisholm
By now, you've almost certainly seen the latest ad from the Oregonians Against Off-Reservation Casinos that attacks Governor Ted Kulongoski and supports Jim Hill for Governor. (See the ad here.)
Who is this broad-based coalition of Oregonians who oppose off-reservation casinos?
Actually, it's not a broad-based coalition at all. There are only two contributions to this political committee. The first, for $410,000 on 3/22, was from the Confederated Tribes of the Grande Ronde. The second, for $205,000 on 4/25, was from.... you guessed it: the Confederated Tribes of the Grande Ronde.
[See the campaign finance reports here and here.]
All but two grand of the $615,000 was delivered to the ad buying service Multi Media Services Corporation in Alexandria, Virginia. Most of the money they received went to our local TV stations, while about $25,000 went to Mercury Public Affairs - a political consulting company in New York City. (Presumably, to develop and shoot the ad spot.)
So, who are these out-of-state firms producing ads supporting Jim Hill for Governor? Mercury is a prominent right-wing media firm. Roll Call even called its founder, Kieran Mahoney, "a protégé of the legendary bare-knuckles GOP consultant Arthur Finkelstein — and the son of one of the founders of the Conservative Party." On his bio, Mahoney lists Gordon Smith first among his clients - even ahead of Bob and Liddy Dole, Governor Pataki, and Senator Alfonse D'Amato.
So, there you have it. Gordon Smith's media firm is behind these strange pro-Jim Hill ads. Not only that, but his his long-time political consultant -- Dan Lavey -- is the guy pulling the strings for the Grande Ronde tribe.
Here's my questions: Why does Gordon Smith's political team want to boost Jim Hill? Why are they getting involved in the Democratic race for governor? What do they have to gain?
And, most of all, why hasn't Jim Hill demanded that these right-wing Republicans get out of our party's primary?
[Disclaimer: I built TedForGov.com, but I don't speak for the governor or his campaign.]
 |
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
12:53 a.m.
May 9, '06
Following the money suggests the Grande Ronde tribe is paying Smith to be their Abramoff/Delay. Smith may make a bundle from this for his campaign.
So I'll ask something I'm really curious about: since tribes are sovereign entities, can they exceed the standard limits on campaign contribution limits? If so, that'd explain why so many GOPers are cultivating tribal bidness.
Btw, nice catch on that, Kari. Sounds like there's more digging to be done there....
1:00 a.m.
May 9, '06
As for Hill, he may be free of any taint on this. But if the ads boost his chances, there's little to motivate a complaint from him.
I think the real question is 'what is Smith up to?' If his goal is to take down the sitting governor, (what's Ted's position on casinos?) I'd start looking for a Saxton/Smith alliance behind it.
1:18 a.m.
May 9, '06
I do think Hill is free of "taint" (careful with that word) but unless he's OK with these right-wing Republicans and their special interest money diving into the Democratic primary, he oughta call on 'em to knock it off.
May 9, '06
Don't look for conspiracy where there is none. Lavey and the others get one simple thing to gain for running this campaign: money.
Your logic is flawed. Lavey consults for Smith. Lavey consults for tribes. Therefore Smith has something to gain by Lavey consulting for tribes.
8:04 a.m.
May 9, '06
Sasha.... yeah, that's all fine and good -- but why THESE ads?
May 9, '06
Kari-
Why THESE ads. Let's think about the great thing with Independent Expenditure campaigns:
-Gobs of money -15% commission -Angry motivated client -Free reign -No candidate to cause head aches -Gobs of money
SIGN ME UP!
8:38 a.m.
May 9, '06
So far, it looks like the commission is about 4% -- a $25k fee on a $600k buy, but whatever.
The point is that these are Republican operatives inserting themselves into a Democratic primary and telling Democrats how to vote. Democrats have a responsibility to tell them to butt out.
May 9, '06
Hey Kari, While I'm normally willing to attribute many bad acts to Senator Smith, I think you've missed the mark with your strategic analysis of this campaign.
The Confederated Tribes of the Grande Ronde long ago chose Gallatin Group to help them stop the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs from putting a casino in the Columbia Gorge. While Gallatin has a decidely Republican roster (except for former Interior Secretary Cecil Andrus), if I wanted to sway a Republican administration and Republican Senate (McCain is Chair of Indian Affairs subcommittee, which has legislative jurisdiction over off-reservation gambling legislation), I think I probably hire them too.
When you buy GOP pull, you're going to end up with GOP heavy vendors like Mercury. BTW, the 25K you attribute for ad generation is more likely a polling buy--that's what they're going for these days.
And speaking of polls, I've seen some numbers that show Hill being a more successful candidate in the general than Ted--In a 2 way, or a 3-way (Westlund) race! Knowing that it's only May and lots can change, if one assumes Hill's got a better shot at it than Ted, and if I were the Grande Ronde, that's how I'd place my bets.
Oh yeah, and it puts the hurt on Ted for going back on a promise he made in 2002, to oppose off-reservation casinos.
Payback's a #%$^@, ain't it?
8:58 a.m.
May 9, '06
Fair enough. These Republican operatives have plenty of reasons to get into the Democratic primary.
But Jim Hill should make some kind of statement asking them to get the #%$^@ out.
May 9, '06
Kari, nice try at undercover work. I didn't know much about the tribes and the companies they hire other than the tribes were upset at Ted for lieing to them about locating a casino off tribal land. Ted said he wouldn't and then he did. The tribes have taken out these ad's independently of the Hill campaign.
But here's the difference between the casino ads created independently of Hill and Kulongoski's actual record. Remember Ted Kulongosi, Democrat, riding around the state in AOI's (Associated Oregon Industries) motor home a few years ago? AOI makes no bones that they are extreme Republicans - killing the biofuel bill, killing the bill to eliminate toxic mixing zones that pollute Oregon's rivers, and fighting minimum wage. And there is Ted, riding around with the Republican led business group, smiling for the cameras and shaking hands.
So Kari,dig all you want and try to create a smoke screen to divert attention from Ted and his actual record.(I know you are a paid staffer of Ted's as I am a paid staffer of Hill's) ButI am disappointed in this reporting that try's to tie Jim to Republicans - that is so far from reality. Apparently Ted's campaign is running scared otherwise I doubt I'd see Kari do this type of blog.
9:10 a.m.
May 9, '06
In case Kari doesn't have a chance to get back online for awhile, let me note that he's NOT a Kulongoski staffer. He runs a strategic consulting firm and built Ted's website. BIG difference. This blog is not Kari's blog, it is just hosted by Mandate Media. We have scrupulously avoided, from the start, any political affiliations. Most everyone who blogs or reads this blog has (generally strong) partisan views and a lot of us have connections to various politicians--through business, friendships, or working directly with them. But BlueOregon has always been designed as a forum for progressives, not an advocacy site.
9:22 a.m.
May 9, '06
So I'll ask something I'm really curious about: since tribes are sovereign entities, can they exceed the standard limits on campaign contribution limits?
Oregon has no limits on campaign contributions. None! This is why Loren Parks can spend $650,000 during this election cycle propping up the otherwise unelectable Kevin Mannix.
If you want to do something about that, I would encourage you to visit FairElections.net and help them pass their initiatives limiting campaign contributions.
May 9, '06
Mari Anne and I agree on something---this sounds like an attempt to tarnish Jim Hill by someone who built Ted's website. It is OK for Ted to have been associated with AOI as she mentioned (which he clearly knew about) but Jim should drop everything and respond to charges he is connected to an independent expenditure ad? Kari, do you have information when / that Jim Hill knew the information provided here before it was published?
That sounds like the sort of guilt by association which many of us scream at when Republicans do things like that (the worst being things done by the Bush folks and what was done to Max Cleland by the Chambliss campaign and the RSCC or whatever they call themselves).
What we need is campaign finance reform to clean up this swamp. But until then, Dan Lavey has as much right to make an honest living with the Gallatin Group as Kari has the right to make an honest living building campaign websites.
I have not voted yet but I will be marking my ballot for Jim Hill.
Tribal politics gets complicated---a friend of mine who has seen the casino location says it is not unspoiled wilderness but near a highway and a train track and thus will refuse to contribute to any environmental organization that is part of the anti-casino coalition "because of the danger of mini-Abramoffs in this state".
The ballots are due by next Tuesday. Those who are sure Ted will win should be thinking beyond that date. Are you really going to win over Hill volunteers if he loses by saying "Jim should denounce these ads" as if there is no better way for him to spend his time because that is what Ted's people say? Would Ted's campaign people spend their time the way Hill staffers told them to spend their time?
May I remind you that history is littered with people who got nasty near the end of a primary campaign and then wondered why the volunteers for the losing campaigns didn't come flocking to their HQ in late May or June! I've been involved in primaries where unity events were already scheduled by this point, and those general elections went smoother than the ones where the battle went tooth and nail until primary election day.
Lest anyone forget, PEOPLE WHO VOLUNTEER OR ARE PAID BY PRIMARY CAMPAIGNS ARE NOT REQUIRED BY LAW OR PARTY RULE TO SPEND ALL THEIR SPARE TIME ON A NOMINEE'S CAMPAIGN IF THEIR CANDIDATE LOSES!
When I was active in party politics, it always amazed me how many partisans got so wrapped up in politics they forget that volunteers have the right to determine how much of their spare time the devote to any campaign, and that paid staffers in a primary have the right to take a job in or out of politics (and in or out of Oregon) once a primary is over---they cannot be compelled to work on a nominee's campaign if they disagree with that nominee.
We saw that insanity 10 years ago when Bruggere won the nomination without much investigation into his background or proposals. He was the DSCC's guy, so why weren't all Oregon Democrats lining up to support him? And why were they asking pesky questions about his stands on issues?
Could it have been that the peer pressure backfired? That when questions of the "where does he stand on...?" variety were answered by "You're only saying that because your friend lost the primary", that turned people off?
Folks, Westlund is a more credible candidate than any of the 1996 US Senate third party challengers were. Yet Gordon Smith won in 1996 with a margin smaller than the number of votes for third party candidates.
So, everyone involved in a gov. primary campaign, take a deep breath. It will be over next week (unless there is a recount). I have been involved in hotly contested primaries (was once a recount observer after a primary--the process then can last until June). This year I'm not involved in any primary campaign.
Can those who are caught up in this just admit that there are voters who will never visit Blue Oregon, didn't hear Kari this morning on Hartmann, and may be so busy they never saw the TV ad because they seldom turn on a TV? Those people's votes count just as much as those of the people who get involved in these debates.
Just so the complexity of this issue is clear, here is part of the WW piece. And, full disclosure--although I disagree with Dan Lavey's politics maybe 98% of the time, I don't see him as a demon.
He was the first person (10 years ago) I ever heard say "the fastest growing party is no party at all". And having been NAV for 6 out of the last 10 years (only registered Dem. to vote in primaries in recent years) I tend to agree with the idea that to win elections it is necessary to win the support of those who are not rabid partisans.
Here's the WW quote:
The most active foe is the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde, whose casino west of Salem would lose its lucrative spot as the Oregon gambling hall closest to Portland (about a 90-minute drive).
Joining the Grand Ronde are groups such as limousine liberals in the Friends of Columbia Gorge; Salem's most powerful pro-gambling lobby, the Oregon Restaurant Association; and the Oregon Family Council.
In recent weeks, Dan Lavey, the Republican political consultant running the Grand Ronde's opposition campaign, has bought time on both Air America and Christian radio in addition to mainstream print and TV.
"There are a lot of people who usually have nothing in common who oppose this casino," Lavey says.
Lobbyist Len Bergstein, who is guiding the Warm Springs tribes through the federal approval process scheduled to finish next summer, disagrees.
The Grand Ronde and the restaurant association, whose members get hundreds of millions in lottery proceeds, just fear competition, Bergstein says. Other than Friends of the Gorge, he notes, mainstream enviro groups are neutral, and labor is a big supporter of the project. "It's a coalition based on greed, and a thin one at that," Bergstein says.
May 9, '06
Jeff, doesn't Kari receive money for maintaining the Governor's web site?
10:38 a.m.
May 9, '06
Jeff,
I hope that the spectre of Loren contributing another $250,000 in the past week to Mannix will finally move this state to some sort of campaign finance reform.
Some aspects of the politics of this purportedly populist and progressive state continue to surprise me.
(By the way, just got a copy of Clucas, Henkel, and Steel's book on my shelf. If there's interest, I'll finally take up Kari's invitation to be a contributor and write a review.)
10:49 a.m.
May 9, '06
Paul--
As a pro-campaign finance reform, pro-Burdick voter, yours is truly a unique voice. I look forward to the posts.
11:27 a.m.
May 9, '06
OK, just for the record... Just like it says up in the post, I built Ted's website. And yes, I got paid for my work. I think the distinction between staffer and consultant is interesting, but not particularly relevant here. I do have a vested interest in Ted's campaign. Fine.
That said, I don't speak for the campaign - and BlueOregon isn't a mouthpiece for his (or any) campaign. That's why BlueOregon has been loaded with lots of pro-Pete, pro-Jim, and pro-Westlund stuff. As Jef Green wrote previously, "For the record as Jim Hill's campaign manager I want to say that Kari has been completely objective and accomadating when it comes to BlueOregon and has offered to have Jim do a live blog which we will be doing in the near future."
Here's what I do know. I'm pretty damn pissed off that there are Republicans getting involved in the Democratic primary -- telling Democrats how they oughta vote.
As I said on KPOJ this morning, Jim Hill is a good man. And he's a good Democrat. That's why I would hope that he would call Gordon Smith and ask him to ask his political team to take the ads down.
12:03 p.m.
May 9, '06
Yeah this seems almost as cynical as Hillary raising funds from Rupert Murdoch of Vast Right Winged Conspiracy fame, or John McCain making nice with the Wyly brothers, and the Swift Boat Bastards, who torpedoed McCain's 2000 run and Kerry's 2004 run respectively.
May 9, '06
Maybe the GOP knows that they are backing a candidate that is not electable state-wide and thus, allowing their candidate to win.
To wit, Oregon is not as open-minded as a place as the people in the Portland-Salem-Eugene corridor like to think it is.
Remember Oregon had racial exclusion clauses in its original constitution.
Do you think values and opinions change that fast?
Look at BlueOregon itself. With the exception of one or two people, how many people of color are contributors or columnists?
May 9, '06
Kari, your bias is showing on this one.
The illogical leaps from (1) independent ads from the Grande Ronde to (2) "tell Gordon Smith" that he can't "tell democrats how to vote" is pure shrill rhetoric with no substance at all. Maybe you've been listening to a little too much right-wing radio? Everyone reading the papers a month ago knew that these ads were from the Grande Ronde Tribe. Anyone paying attention also knew that Gallatin was involved. Great detective work.
The real kicker is your fatuous call for Jim Hill to denounce these ads. First, you know full well that these are independent ads. If a candidate tells an independent group to stop (or start) running ads, the wall between the two disappears. The legal effect is that now Jim Hill has accepted a huge in-kind donation from the Grande Ronde, without including it in his C&E report.
Second, the ads talk about protecting the Gorge from development. Hill takes that position. So what exactly should he be denouncing? That the Grande Ronde hired Dan Lavey? Why should that be any of Jim Hill's business, any more than it's his business that Ted hired you? (Actually, starting today, that one probably IS his business.)
This is a cheap ploy from a Ted staffer to get Jim off message in the last week of the campaign. It won't work.
John Mulvey
2:30 p.m.
May 9, '06
John -- Again, I'm not a Ted staffer, but I did build his website. I haven't got any idea what Ted thinks about all this. It's certainly off-message for him, too.
Am I biased? Of course. Duh. I am NOT an impartial and neutral arbiter of truth and light. I am an editorialist, an activist, a blogger. You're welcome to evaluate every opinion I share on its merits.
If Jim Hill denounces these ads, that doesn't make 'em an in-kind contribution. That's just plain wrong. Many, many, many candidates have denounced independent expenditure ads in the past. The legal threshold for coordination is much higher.
Here's what I want to know: If he isn't denouncing the ads, why not?
May 9, '06
Just a couple comments, I believe, are in order...
1) For the record, in regards to sjp slipping in the plug for the allegedly FairElections web site, not all of us who consider ourselves progressive would support the ballot measures posted on that site -- especially #37. This is the one with text that reads as follows: "Prohibits corporate, union, organizational contributions and expenditures except through political committees funded solely by individuals." My point is not to go into the particulars. I have gone round and round with one of the Eugene #37 ballot measure guys about how putting us in a basket with corporations is by no means what I would call fair, especially given their profound advantage in the grand scheme of things. But all I got was blue in the face.
2) Much of the conversation above does not take into account the issues that the ad is intended to call attention to, one in particular being Ted breaking his promise in regards to future casino development and why there are many Oregonians (including the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community) concerned about this ( http://www.gorgefriends.org/land/Casino/ ).
Progressives, please don't forget to vote, and please remind others to vote, even if you gotta walk em to the drop box! And...I hope those votes are being cast for Jim Hill.
2:34 p.m.
May 9, '06
Conspiracy Theorist asked: Look at BlueOregon itself. With the exception of one or two people, how many people of color are contributors or columnists?
Three, out of 35. About 8.5%.
I'd love to get more people of color writing in these pages. But I can't hold a gun to anyone's head and force 'em to write. We don't pay contributors, so bribery is out. I'm open to suggestions.
May 9, '06
Just a couple comments, I believe, are in order...
1) For the record, in regards to sjp slipping in the plug for the allegedly FairElections web site, not all of us who consider ourselves progressive would support the ballot measures posted on that site -- especially #37. This is the one with text that reads as follows: "Prohibits corporate, union, organizational contributions and expenditures except through political committees funded solely by individuals." My point is not to go into the particulars. I have gone round and round with one of the Eugene #37 ballot measure guys about how putting us in a basket with corporations is by no means what I would call fair, especially given their profound advantage in the grand scheme of things. But all I got was blue in the face.
2) Much of the conversation above does not take into account the issues that the ad is intended to call attention to, one in particular being Ted breaking his promise in regards to future casino development and why there are many Oregonians (including the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community) concerned about this ( http://www.gorgefriends.org/land/Casino/ ).
Progressives, please don't forget to vote, and please remind others to vote, even if you gotta walk em to the drop box! And...I hope those votes are being cast for Jim Hill.
2:44 p.m.
May 9, '06
My point is not to go into the particulars. I have gone round and round with one of the Eugene #37 ballot measure guys about how putting us in a basket with corporations is by no means what I would call fair, especially given their profound advantage in the grand scheme of things.
Measure 37 provides for the creation of small donor committees which will significantly benefit labor unions by taking their biggest competition (corporations and big money donors) off the field and leaving the primary mechanism for labor funding virtually untouched -- small contributions by lots of people. The efficacy of these committees has been proven in Colorado.
Some people have raised the concern is that Petition 37 will make unions too powerful in Oregon since their fundraising ability will be hampered only slightly while everyone else will be significantly limited.
The provision barring unions from making direct contributions to candidates will bring Oregon into line with Federal law, which has barred direct union contributions to candidates since the 1940's.
May 9, '06
Sounds like Kari has a bad case of "kill the messenger" syndrome.
All due respect to Kari who I am sure is a good Dem., but he is trying to change the focus away from Ted and his record of breaking campaign promises. In 2002 Kulongoski repeatedly promised to uphold Oregon's policy prohibiting off-reservation casinos and to oppose a casino in the Columbia River Gorge just like his predecessor, John Kitzhaber. As soon as he was elected he broke this promise and look at the result. We have a protracted battle over the Gorge casino proposal, three new proposals for off-reservation casinos in Oregon and a ballot initiative that would erase Oregon's constitutional prohibition of casinos. Thanks to the Governor, our statewide policy on casino gambling in in shambles.
The goal of the TV ads is to stop the casino in the Gorge to stop off-reservation casinos in Oregon. Two-thirds of Oregonians are opposed to a casino in the Gorge. Maybe the Governor ought to rethink his position on the Gorge casino, line up with the overwhelming majority of voters and oppose a casino in the Gorge and off-reservation casinos in Oregon.
We should thank Jim Hill and Peter Sorensen for fighting to protect the Gorge from Las Vegas-sized casino resorts.
May 9, '06
On this subject... Just got off the phone with a reporter at the AP, following up on the Kulongoski campaign representative's comment/spin that the Oregonians Against Off Reservation Casino is some how a Republican campaign which will taint Jim Hill's message of Leadership for a Change.
Good for you Ted supporters to know that everybody got their talking points this morning...
Kind of a George Bush/Swift Boat like campaign tactic don’t you think.
May 9, '06
Jef Green -
I thought you were Pete Sorenson's campaign manager...
Hmm.... I must have heard wrong?
May 9, '06
In response to the sjp sideline conversation in support of Petition 37 (not to be confused with Measure 37, which passed), here is another web site to refer to when reviewing ballot measures folks are gathering signatures for -- Our Oregon.
http://www.ouroregon.org/cgi-bin/display.cgi?page=OnTheStreet
9:46 p.m.
May 9, '06
Kind of a George Bush/Swift Boat like campaign tactic don’t you think.
Yes, Jef, the Grande Ronde ads are very much like a Swift-Boat tactic. That's why I'm so damned annoyed.
Answer me this: Why is it a good thing that Republicans are telling Democrats how to vote?
May 9, '06
Answer me this: Why is it a good thing that Republicans are telling Democrats how to vote?
Why is it a good thing when a week before the primary a big deal is made of 3rd party ads which many people may be ignoring?
If I had my way there would be no 3rd party ads, but "he should demand they be stopped" (about anyone ) has a tinny ring to it.
Maybe that is because I recall a time when an outside group thought they were "helping" by making bumper stickers for a candidate--looked very similar but a different color---and they sprung them on the public who then thought the fringe group was part of the campaign. Real headache for the "good guy" candidate who really hadn't known about the bumper stickers until they started appearing.
But maybe it is because I don't hate Dan Lavey and this seems like a stretch to say he is telling Democrats how to vote.
The Gorge casino is a complex issue. Whether or not Dan Lavey is involved, either Ted said one thing before he was elected and another thing afterwards, or his position now is what it was in 2002. I understand that he thought it a good idea to have the casino in a town that really wanted it.
But did a Republican make me say the previous sentences?
There are lots of Oregonians who are barely hanging on financially, who don't follow politics closely, and who don't like this sort of fighting. But what they should really care about is who is behind some TV ads? Nothing more important the week before the primary?
A few minutes ago, I read this on ABC's THE NOTE. I sent it to a friend and said I really liked the "moving beyond consultant" part. So what does that make me?
From THE NOTE: Dean's Democrats: Keying off of Michael Tomasky's much-talked-about American Prospect essay, Robin Toner of the New York Times explores the intra-party debate among Democrats about how best to seize the opportunity provided by the current political landscape and a desire by some in the party to move beyond the consultant and poll-obsessed style of the last several cycles and return to a set of core beliefs and broad vision.
May 9, '06
Kari just so I'm clear: you have no problem with the donations of the Grand Ronde tribes. Your problem is the out-of-state ad groups who produced the requested product and cashed the checks?
6:50 a.m.
May 10, '06
Folks may deem this off-topic, but the front page piece in this morning's Oregonian raises much more troubling concerns than Kari's post on R-consultants.
I haven't actually heard Hill's spots that the article refers to, but if he's really attacking Kulongoski "for his statements in support of a possible sales tax and for a national health care plan," that strikes me as the equivalent of Hill scoring an own goal for the progressive team. Does this mean that as Governor he'd work against fundamental tax reform and universal health care??
On the consultant issue itself: the casino fight has indeed made for strange bedfellows - but from a progressive's point of view as uncomfortable as the Grand Ronde's choice of consultants makes me, Warm Springs' choices are also troubling, though perhaps a bit more humorous: I'm still trying to grok the phrase "Warm Springs tribal spokesman Len Bergsetin."
May 10, '06
Of all the nerve, Jim hill is attracting some Republican support and/or dirty tricks. Shame on Jim Hill. We certainly can't support a Democrat that appeals to any Republicans. If they're willing to undermine Kulo, they might even try and vote for Jim in the general election. Bad Republicans, Bad!
May 10, '06
Of all the stretches, this is the sugar grand daddy. Give me a break, Kari. You are a pathetic apologist for one of the worst Democratic governors ever. If this is a Republican attack on Hill then I am Samuel Gompers.
These ads are nothing but an attempt to protect the interests of the Confederated Tribes of the Grande Ronde. If you're going to do hard-hitting stuff, you're not going to leave it to the minor leagues. After all, the majority of Tribal Council leaders ain't Republicans.
This is just ridiculous - perhaps you forgot to cap the Wite-Out in your office. On his bio, Mahoney lists Gordon Smith first among his clients - even ahead of Bob and Liddy Dole, Governor Pataki, and Senator Alfonse D'Amato. So what?
Stick to making websites. You're better suited for that. And quit sniffing the ether.
9:18 a.m.
May 10, '06
In response to the sjp sideline conversation in support of Petition 37 (not to be confused with Measure 37, which passed), here is another web site to refer to when reviewing ballot measures folks are gathering signatures for -- Our Oregon.
With regard to the Our Oregon review of Petition 37, the site states that most major environmental groups would oppose P37. So far as I know, the only environmental groups that have taken a formal position on 37 -- the Sierra Club and OSPIRG -- both endorse the Measure.
The attack ads that we are seeing this week are a poster-child for why we need a system of elections in Oregon that is not dominated by special interest money. Under petition 37, Loren Parks would be a small player in elections with no more political power than a doctor, lawyer, or successful small business owner. Other groups that are funding these attack ads would be required to disclose on the ad where their money is coming from.
May 10, '06
Ironically, the Governor's web banner on OregonLive.com ("Governor Ted Kulongoski created 100,000 new jobs") is sporadically appearing next to an advertisement touting the 18,000 jobs created by McDonalds!
Would you like fries with your Governor?
May 10, '06
Thank you Give Me A Break These ads are nothing but an attempt to protect the interests of the Confederated Tribes of the Grande Ronde. If you're going to do hard-hitting stuff, you're not going to leave it to the minor leagues. After all, the majority of Tribal Council leaders ain't Republicans.
Let's be real clear about this. Is Kari's complaint with any ads produced by out of state outfits? Or with tribal money being contributed to Democrats (how many Democrats have accepted tribal contributions?)? Or is this what it looks like on the face of it: Ted's website builder trying to make life difficult for a primary opponent?
Today's SJ has an editorial against those who run negative ads---and I suggest that doesn't mean just TV, radio and mailers. It also should include guilt by association, which it seems to me is what Kari tried to do here.
Let's be clear. My primary vote goes to the guy I saw stand in front of a roomful of people, speak, and then answered questions. Very low tech, but effective.
My general election vote will go to the person who best explains a vision for this state and a plan to carry it out.
11:08 a.m.
May 10, '06
I'll be crystal clear - as I think I have been already:
My complaint is WITH REPUBLICANS. I'm annoyed that Republicans are telling Democrats how to vote in a Democratic primary.
I also would like to see Jim Hill denounce these Republicans who are in our primary. That's all. It's not more complicated than this:
I don't like Republicans, and I don't think they have any business in our primary.
May 10, '06
Kari, I don't think Dan Lavey was telling me how to vote. I'd made up my mind a long time ago based on which candidates did the best job answering questions. I recall Dan Lavey 10 years ago when he was very publicly part of the debate over US Sen. candidates, and this is nothing like that.
I think you have made a very thin case.
And if your guy wins next week, all the people you have alienated are not going to spend all their spare time campaigning for Ted. Prepare for questions like "OK, the primary is over, even if we accept everything you say about casinos, why is that issue more important than school funding, tax reform, health care or public safety?"
Maybe it is because one of my political mentors was a candidate a couple decades ago who was a registered member of a tribe, but I don't make the connection between "this ad paid for by ..." and the Jim Hill campaign.
Did the Oregon GOP have a connection to the ads, or is it just that Gordon Smith and Dan Lavey have a connection to the ads (however thin) and therefore Kari makes the connection that Republicans are telling us how to vote?
In 1982, disgusted over the tone of the Gov. campaign, many people I knew just ignored it and got involved in other campaigns. Ask Ted about that sometime if you get a chance to talk to him. You've probably talked to him more than I have this year because he's been more of a TV candidate than a candidate who appears in public.
And how does all this win over my friend who says he won't vote for a Gov. candidate unless that candidate has a vision for the future and a plan to carry it out? My friend is interested in Westlund and so am I. Will the next step be to criticize the Westlund campaign in some way?
Next week, when the goal begins to be attracting voters who are not registered Democrats, "but there were these off reservation casino ads run..." won't impress people worried about state troopers or school funding, or health care.
Kari, just because you think that the ads are Republicans telling Democrats how to vote doesn't mean all people see it that way. And NEWS FLASH: there are people casting ballots in the Dem. primary who may never have seen the ads or this blog. How are the Republicans telling them how to vote?
Or is it that any minute discussing this is a minute not discussing Ted's record in office?
Not to mention that I haven't seen a direct answer to Brian Grisham's question "Kari just so I'm clear: you have no problem with the donations of the Grand Ronde tribes. Your problem is the out-of-state ad groups who produced the requested product and cashed the checks?"
May 10, '06
After the diverse discussion on this topic, I see a pattern that the right-wing involvement with the Grand Ronde folks is not very relevant to the real problems of the state.
It's the Oregon economy, fellow voters!
It's the unacceptable size of classrooms and the $2 Billion shortfall in education funding that really matter. The Willamette is the third most polluted in the nation. Why do we collectively allow the biggest corporations to pay only 5% of the taxes? Why is Kulongoski allowing all this to happen and not saying much about it until the last six months before the election?
We need Jim Hill to get Oregon moving in the right direction.
Thank you...any of you who read this, for considering a vote for a positive alternative to ho-hum. The promising light for Oregon's future is JIM HILL.
May 10, '06
Kari,
"I don't like Republicans"
Is this REALLY what you meant? This is the line that is driving us marginal D's into the I & marginal R columns. Words count, and I think you're better than this statement.
10:28 p.m.
May 10, '06
I sure do love how these conversations always turn into a discussion about me and my motives, instead of about the issue at hand. Like I'm the one running for governor, or something.
To the topic... LT you wrote "I don't think Dan Lavey was telling me how to vote."
I'm sure you're right. He wasn't telling YOU how to vote, just the rest.
And I never said that the Oregon GOP was involved. I said that Gordon Smith's political team - Dan Lavey, Mercury, and MMSC - had created the ads. They're Republicans. They're running ads attempting to influence a Democratic primary election. 'Nuff said.
May 11, '06
For the record, Jim Hill is a candidate in the Democratic primary for governor. If he wins his party's nomination he'll take on the Republicans for the November election. Those who want him to take on the Republicans now may just want him to lose his race for the nomination.
With regard to off reservation casinos, he's been very clear, he's against them. I agree, bad policy, the kind of thing dumb folks would do.
With regard to the indian's ad, The Slow Boat Liars for Bush, etc. - get public financing of campaigns and your heads out of your hinder parts - otherwise stop your bellyaching.
3:59 p.m.
May 11, '06
Charlie,
I'll take that as an insult! (just kidding of course)
I voted for Ted and for Ginny but without a lot of enthusiasm for either. I expect a Sten vs. someone runoff in November, which is ultimately all I'm hoping for at this point. Charlie, I'm sure we'll talk it over again at that point.
May 12, '06
Oregonian article:
http://www.oregonlive.com/editorials/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1147386311297040.xml&coll=7 In this governor's race, two givers are primary All voters can hear now is the thunder of political cash, Friday, May 12, 2006 but the next governor shouldn't live in anyone's wallet
T oday Loren Parks and the Grand Ronde tribes are shouting in your face.
Next year they could be whispering in your governor's ear.
It's up to you. You can tune out the nasty advertisements blaring across the state and tune in to the motives of the people paying for them. Or you can sit back and let the governor's races be decided by one weird, reclusive millionaire and a tribal group that cares only about protecting its casino profits.
Perhaps never before has an Oregon election for governor hinged so much on the money of just two entities. Political money is considered speech in this state, and now, five days before the election, about all anybody can hear in Oregon are the shrill voices of Parks and the Grand Ronde tribes.
Parks has dumped at least $631,000 into the campaign of Republican Kevin Mannix, probably the most any single person ever has given to one Oregon candidate. The Grand Ronde has heaved more than $400,000 into the two primaries for governor, and is rumored be to ready to spend millions to ensure that Oregon's next governor helps them smother any Portland-area competition to their Spirit Mountain Casino.
Most of what you will see and hear in the next few days about the candidates for governor will be paid for by Parks and the Grand Ronde. Does that matter? Mannix's campaign manager, Jack Kane, insists with a straight face that Parks' money and influence are "irrelevant to this race."
Should voters care if Kevin Mannix is a personal investment of Loren Parks? Of course. On policy issues, not all that much separates Republicans Mannix, Ron Saxton and Jason Atkinson. The real question for GOP voters is, which candidate has the experience, the personal qualities and, yes, the independence, to be Oregon's next governor.
So, it does matter that Mannix dragged a $350,000 campaign debt into this governor's race, even as he poses as the fiscally responsible Republican. It matters that, while Saxton has raised campaign funds from throughout the Republican mainstream, Mannix has turned again and again to his benefactor Parks.
Asked recently whether a single contributor who gave him more than $631,000 would "own" him, Gov. Ted Kulongoski hesitated a moment, then said, "Well, you would know that one day there will be a knock on the door."
May 12, '06
OK, the ads were created by Republicans. That's not proof that the Republicans have a strategic desire to have Jim Hill win this race. That's just proof that the Grande Ronde hired a Republican ad firm, and that Republicans are benefiting from that business.
What'd be more interesting is if the Republicans were paying for the ads to air, which is what the average observer might presume from the title of this post.
May 15, '06
If I vote for a progressive African American Democratic candidate for Governor of Oregon, I'm a Republican stooge?
Excuse me?
May 16, '06
Hey Porkie,
Did you really mean to say you don't like Republicans or was that simply a fit of pique? I mean after all, does that mean there is not one single Republican out there that you like?
Suppose for a moment that your mom was Republican? Would you hate her? Let's say your favorite uncle was a Republican? Would he be dead to you? Let's say some hot chick you wanted to have the relations with was a Republican? Would you say sorry sister? What about your friendly local barista? What if they were an R? Would you drink freeze dried Sanka?
The point is your statement is just plain ridiculous - spoken like a true partisan hack. This troubles me for two reasons: (1) Whether you like it or not, you are seen as a leader in the Oregon Progressive movement (not to mention an advisor to Kulongoski, if only for his ecommunications). Your statement makes it clear that there is no room for Republicans and Democrats to even talk because you don't like Republicans. So much for getting along. (2) You try to get young people to participate in politics through XPAC, BusProject and whatever other organizations you belong to. This means that you are incaulcating legions of young lefties with your own personal predjudices. Now, you aren't a cult leader and many come with venom all on their own, but you get my point.
I think you should explain yourself and your comment because you just called out half the country.