HD49: Fudge is Toast

Rob Brading won't have help from Libertarian candidate Brad Fudge in his bid to unseat Karen Minnis.  The Secretary of State's office dropped Fudge from the ballot because he's running for both mayor of Fairview and the District 49 seat. From the O:

Fudge said he believed he could manage both offices because they are part-time.

But the Secretary of State's office ruled that because the Fairview mayor is given $75 per month as a cell phone allowance, that makes the job a "lucrative office" under state law — and a candidate can run for only one such office at a time.

Fudge will decide next week whether he will mount a write-in campaign.

  • (Show?)

    A write-in campaign? Would that be something like a campaign?

    Fudge hasn't exactly captured the headlines in the current flap over internet filtering and pornography But that issue offers a Libertarian an ideal opportunity to distinguish his views from those being promoted by the major-party candidates. If he's not speaking up on that, what WOULD he speak up on?

    Next story, please.

  • (Show?)

    Wow. I'm waiting to hear again from Coyote, Adams, and other spinners how this all ties in to Bradbury's partisanship.

    Still trying to figure out how Bradbury's adherence to the letter of the law is actually a cynical ploy to use his elective office to advance the State Dem party agenda.

  • (Show?)

    I don't understand why the rule is that you can't run for two "lucrative" offices.... and that $75/year counts as "lucrative".

    Personally, I don't care if you're getting paid or not -- a mayor shouldn't also be allowed to be a state representative. After all, that would be an inherent conflict of interest going both ways.

    Looks like an obvious bit of election reform for the next session.

  • J. Smalls (unverified)

    Yeah, I'm with you Pat, when's "Shut yer Piehole," soy el coyote (whose blogging I actually like because I dislike it so much) gonna step up on this? If the ruling helps us, Bradbury's a hack, if it helps them they are MIA!

    Yap Yap!


  • Zak J. (unverified)

    Has it actually been established that Libertarians are more likely to vote for Republicans than for Democrats in the absence of a Libertarian candidate?

    The Libertarians I know tend to not believe in government intervention on issues like Death with Dignity, abortion/family planning rights, or mixing church and state any more than they believe in the Civil Rights Act, school lunch programs, or even public schools. Depending on their own take on the Constitution, they could break right or left.

    Before Bradbury gets pilloried, I'd like to see some data backing up the claim that Libertarians siphon votes from Republicans. I haven't seen it.

  • (Show?)

    Kari: yeah, calling $75/month lucrative does seem a little odd. Especially considering that the cell phone is probably intended for official use. Is that the extent of the salary for mayor? I fully agree with you, there is an inherent conflict of interest in holding two different government jobs, and it should be against the rules on that basis alone.

    Zak: Interesting point, and I share your skepticism on that point. On a purely anecdotal note though, I'd say New Hampshire "feels" like the most Libertarian state I've spent time it, and its congressional delegation is bright red. But I suspect all that proves is that NH is good at generating Libertarian-leaning Republicans to meet the demand of its electorate.

  • (Show?)

    I wouldn't mind hearing from the Secretary of State's office, but given that "lucrative office" is in itals, I assume this makes it a legal/technical term. Maybe any payment makes it lucrative?

  • (Show?)

    On Friday night, I chatted briefly with one of the SOS's staffers about the word "lucrative". It's a term found in the Oregon constitution. Apparently, our state's founders were reacting to some corruption that existed at that time - with people taking multiple positions.

    Seems to me that the legislature could simultaneously loosen the definition of the word "lucrative" -- while tightening the restrictions and giving 'em a more bright line by statute.

    Like I said, I don't think I care whether the Mayor of Fairiew makes $75/month or not -- the Mayor shouldn't also be the State Representative. Inherent conflict.

    Making the line a little brighter would avoid confusion ala Brad Fudge. Can we call it the "Fudge Rule"?

  • (Show?)


    Your point is well taken, but the context here has to include the recent ruling to leave Mary Starret the heck alone, too.

    Same backroom guys, trying to assist the Saxton effort.

    It's not me that's picking targets and setting agendas.


    I was talikng to a couple of Constitution Party True Believers on Friday evening, and they were just (channeling Kerry here) giddy about the raising of Mary's profile by folks who obviously had the opposite intent.

    It was also fun to note, that after I initially refused to comment on Bush and his crew, I finally responded that I think he's a Clueless/Punk/Bully/Fratboy.

    They agreed wholeheartedly.

    The Times they are a changin'

  • Wesley Charles (unverified)

    Like I said, I don't think I care whether the Mayor of Fairiew makes $75/month or not -- the Mayor shouldn't also be the State Representative. Inherent conflict.

    Kari: You're correct, of course. But a careful look at the constitutional provision shows two similar, but distinct issues.

    ARTICLE II, §10 says:

    "No person holding a lucrative office or appointment under the United States or under this state shall be eligible to a seat in the legislative assembly; nor shall any person hold more than one lucrative office at the same time, except as in this constitution expressly permitted * ."

    The first part has been interpreted to prevent a person from running for more than one "lucrative office" at the same time (e.g. Fudge and also Bruce Broussard)

    The second clause prohibits a person from holding more than one "lucrative office" at the same time. Candidates invariably run for one office while holding another. If elected, they must expressly resign the former lucrative office, and if they don't, the resignation is implied at the moment they occupy the second office under this constitutioanl provision.

    A good example of a small-town mayor running for the Legislature is Cornelius mayor Terry Rilling (R) who is running against Rep. Chuck Riley (D) in House 29. Assuming the Cornelius mayor is also a "lucrative office," if he won, Rilling would be forced to resign the mayor's position at the moment he becomes a legislator.

    • Wes
  • (Show?)
    <h2>Fudge really is toast. Marion County Circuit Court Judge Paul Libscomb ruled this afternoon against Brad Fudge's last ditch attempt to stay on the ballot. Libscomb gave great deference to the Secretary of State's Office to interpret election law and cited timeliness of the suit (filed yesterday by Washington County Attorney Lyndon Ruhnke). I guess $75/month is lucrative!</h2>
in the news 2006

connect with blueoregon