Jason Atkinson threatens lawsuit; tries to shift blame for Lobbyist Luau

State Senator Jason Atkinson (R-Medford) is probably the legislator most hurt by the Lobbyist Luau at the Grand Wailea. After all, he's widely rumored to be planning a 2008 campaign for Secretary of State -- a position responsible for enforcing campaign finance violations.

Maybe that's why Atkinson is threatening a lawsuit against beer and wine industry lobbyist Paul Romain. From the Medford Mail Tribune:

Sen. Jason Atkinson vows to file a defamation lawsuit against a lobbyist who he said failed to provide him with timely information about a 2002 conference in Maui so he could disclose it to state officials.

"I'm absolutely angry that my character has been called into question," said the Central Point Republican. ... "I cannot report numbers that I don't have," he said, maintaining his inability to file a report four years ago. ... "I will fight to no end," he said.

"Almost all the lobbyists were against me in my campaign for governor," he said, pointing out that his opponent, Ron Saxton, raised more money because of contributions from lobbyists. ... "The number one lesson for me is I will never trust a lobbyist," he said. "I will not have my integrity and reputation taken on by a special interest."

Questions: What does the Lobbyist Luau do to Jason Atkinson's political hopes? Will his statement to "never trust a lobbyist" hurt his political career - either in the legislature, or in running for higher office? Can the threat of a lawsuit successfully shift the blame? Will he actually file a lawsuit?

Discuss.

  • zilla (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Can you imagine saying to an IRS auditor, "I cannot report numbers that I don't have." Goes right along with I didnt get a W2 form so how can I be expected to report earnings? Uhhh hum.

  • (Show?)

    Can you imagine saying to an IRS auditor, "I cannot report numbers that I don't have." Goes right along with I didnt get a W2 form so how can I be expected to report earnings? Uhhh hum.

    No I can't. But if, say, I'm a legislator working for a lobbyist, as a paid employee...then I don't have to "report numbers"? It's not anyone's business?

    Adrianna Huffington has a piece this morning about the Foley (et al) scandal, where she makes the point...its not the sex issue as much as it's the trust issue.

    Similarly...it's not the paperwork, it's who you're hanging with --and taking money from-- that's the issue. Or should be. But it's a systemic problem...you don't put kids in a candy store, and expect them not to grab some candy. Kids gotta eat, and legislators gotta put food on the table. Are we really so shocked, shocked, that this is going on?

  • (Show?)

    Jason Atkinson: "The number one lesson for me is I will never trust a lobbyist," he said.

    Notice he didn't say: "I'll never take another dime from a lobbyist."

  • sasha (unverified)
    (Show?)

    How is it defamation to not supply him with numbers about how much the trip cost? I don't see how Jason can call that defamation.

    Seems to me whether Romain voluntarily gives him the numbers or not it is his responsibility to get them. If Romain wouldn't cough it up for some reason he could always estimate it on his disclosure forms.

    Did Romain disclose the contributions on his forms? It works both ways - as I understand it both sides have to report such gifts. Since I haven't read anything about Romains reports being wrong, I have to assume he did file the proper information.

    In any event, Atkinson looks like an idiot here. His ill-fated governor campaign made him look childish, only made worse by his over-the-top posturing here.

  • BlueNote (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I would like to offer a better (and probably more honest) defense strategy for all the legislators who did not report their Maui trips, etc. I offer the following proposed press release without any request for fees:

    "IN THE BLIZZARD OF SPECIAL INTEREST MONEY AND GIFTS I RECEIVE, HOW CAN I BE EXPECTED TO REMEMBER AND REPORT EACH INDIVIDUAL SNOWFLAKE?"

  • Jonathan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Perhaps it's because I'm a lawyer that I don't find it appalling to have to keep track of every expenditure and every minute (well, every six minutes) of time. But with that caveat, why shouldn't legislators be required to do something similar? Talk about a transparent process -- "schmoozing with beer lobbyist, 1.2 hours," "hanging out by the pool, .6 hours," etc. Now perhaps that runs afoul of Oregon's free speech rules, I'm not sure.

    As for defamation threats, my Bar Book shows that Mr. Atkinson is not a lawyer; his threatened lawsuit (and the oddity of such a claim, based upon what I've read) is indicative of that status.

  • Anon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Well, the suit probably wouldn't be for defamation. He could plausably claim some kind of professional negligence on Mr. Romain's part by not providing information which Romain knew/should-have-known needed to be provided, and which he knew/should-have-known Atkinson was going to rely on. And Atkinson can certainly claim he was injured due to Mr. Romain's actions. The fact that we are having this conversation pretty much proves injury.

    I'm not saying Sen. Atkinson would win of course, he almost certainly wouldn't, but then winning wouldn't be the point. The point is to shift the focus from the legislator's actions to the lobbyists actions. It's a PR move, intended to make Atkinson look like a fine, upstanding legislator, who still cares about honesty and integrity, blah, blah, blah......

    It's not a bad idea. If I worked for Atkinson I be seriously thinking about it.

  • Mike (unverified)
    (Show?)

    You know what I don't hear anyone saying? That they will give back those huge checks they got!

  • genop (unverified)
    (Show?)

    He's just trying to deflect responsibility - those damn lobbyists. This transparent ploy coupled with the threat of a frivolous lawsuit is taking the offensive in the mind of this politcal newbie. If he realizes his political aspirations, he'll learn to deny and feign ignorance like the experienced fat cats. The larger question is in what way does the public benefit from these special interest junkets? What is the down side in legislating an absolute ban on any monetary (or equivalent) consideration provided to elected officials by any registered lobbyist. Is it too much to expect those feeding at the trough to reign in their appetite?

  • James Caird (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Good point, Mike,

    By the way, aren't Republicans supposed to be the party of personal responsibility? What a crock!

    1. Atkinson, Scott, Nelson, Kitts, et al, place responsibility on everyone but themselves for their failure to adhere to simple, clearly stated rules.

    2. Foley blames alcohol and a mysterious "priest" for his predatory actions.

    3. Hastert and the Republican leaders involved in the cover-up blame each other for the mess they created.

    4. Ney blames 'alcohol" for his Abramoff problems.

    5. DeLay blames a "partisan" DA for his legal problems.

    6. Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, et al, blame media bias for the problems we see in Iraq.

    7. Rice, the national security chief when we were attacked on 9-11, blames Clinton for the attack that took place on her watch.

    ... the list goes on and on ...

    Truth is, these people have absolutely zero sense of personal responsiblity (although you've got to give them credit for being able to run a really effective con game).

    Thanks, Jason, for the graphic illustration of that fact.

  • (Show?)

    Sasha wrote... In any event, Atkinson looks like an idiot here. His ill-fated governor campaign made him look childish, only made worse by his over-the-top posturing here.

    Wow, even the right-wing trolls are turning against Atkinson.

  • eprophet (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari, if sasha weren't so vocal a defender of Saxton, I might also be willing to give credit for recognizing the obvious. But to me it appears to be "my enemy's enemy is my friend."

  • old friend (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I find it interesting that he suddenly doesn't trust lobbyists. this from the guy who went "trolling" (his words) every day at noon in the capitol in search of a lobbyist to buy him lunch. Shame on Jason.

  • sasha (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Gee that is the second time in as many days that Kari has called me a troll. Thank you for such highbrow contributions to the discourse here, Kari.

  • Ted Gleichman (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I especially enjoy the grammar (or lack thereof) in the Senator's comment, "I will fight to no end [sic]."

    As his credibility implodes, it is to be hoped that he is fighting to no end.

    Kudos to BlueNote for the ultimate truth-telling defense.

  • (Show?)

    his threatened lawsuit (and the oddity of such a claim, based upon what I've read) is indicative of that status.

    Amusing that he won't name his lawyer. Perhaps he doesn't actually have one? Perhaps this lawsuit is the legal equivalent of vaporware.

    Let's track this sucker. Should we start a betting pool on when the suit will be filed?

  • Harry (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Posted by: sasha | Oct 5, 2006 1:38:41 PM "Gee that is the second time in as many days that Kari has called me a troll. Thank you for such highbrow contributions to the discourse here, Kari."

    <hr/>

    Sasha,

    Just ignore Kari. He is just another Internet troll! LOL!!

    See Wikipedia: Troll (Internet) Internet terminology, a troll is often someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude, repetitive or offensive messages designed intentionally to annoy or antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion, including the personal attack of calling others trolls.

  • Victoria Taft (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jason has my vote for Secretary of State. You folks call into question this man's integrity when we've been victimized by Bill Bradbury for these years? C'mon, you're kidding, right? Go, Jason, go! You will get my and many, many Oregonians' votes. That's why this post is here: to attempt to begin the poisoning of your good name.

  • Victoria Taft (unverified)
    (Show?)

    One more thing bluesters: "no controlling legal authority" Johnny Chung bagman

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Why is it that some Republicans can't discuss a scandal without bringing up "oldies but goodies" from the past?

    Subpoenas have been issued by the Ethics Comm. for the Foley/page situation. If someone in House leadership knew about that for more than a week or so and didn't alert the leadership and pull them together to deal with the situation, filling a blog with a list of every scandal in American history won't change the uproar if someone supressed or mishandled information.

    I respect those like Frank Luntz and Richard Vigurie who are justifiably outraged at how that whole thing has been handled.

    And most Oregon politicians have enough sense to report all gifts and contributions. It is time to change the system. As someone said recently, maybe it should be changed so you can accept a gift mug with a picture of Maui on it, but not an all expense paid trip to go pick it up in Maui.

  • activist kaza (unverified)
    (Show?)

    What a total red herring! And I thought the Rs were always lecturing us about frivolous litigation? Whatever credibility Atkinson had (and I'm not sure he had much) has been completely eroded by this incident.

    On the other hand, two years is a lifetime in politics and I'm pretty sure the little luau incident won't be that high on the radar in 2008.

    It's great for highlighting the mass corruptive effect of big money in Oregon this year, however. If that bothers you as much as it does me, be sure to vote YES on measures 46 & 47...

  • Steiny (unverified)
    (Show?)
    <h2>What a loser! He couldn't fill Bill Bradbury's shoes if he had a cement truck!!!</h2>
in the news 2006

connect with blueoregon