Brace yourselves for the coming slap on the wrist!

As a very liberal / progressive Democrat, I urge the authors who post on this forum to stop using misc. reporting and disclosure violations as the basis for damning articles. I am old enough to have had 3 of my best friends indicted in Operation Greylord in Chicago in the 1980s. They were all good progressive Democrats, and 2 of 3 were eventually found innocent. But if you want to start a war talking about who is or is not the most ethical person in Oregon, you are not doing the Democratic Party any favors.

Stop the war NOW!

The sad fact is that this is a non-story. It's only being brought up now because it was a very close race and the Peralta camp, rightly or not, isn't ready to give up.

Had Peralta won, this would never come to light. Had he lost by 20%, this would be embarassing petty bickering at best. But since it was close, we have to investigate, litigate, and eviscerate.

We aren't doing anyone any good by pursuing this. Instead, we should be focusing on what POSITIVE things we can accomplish with 31 Reps, 18 Senators, and a Governor all on our side.

If we don't actually come through with positive progressive changes, we are doomed. In 2010, Bush hatred will NOT be an election factor in Oregon. The success (or failure) of Oregon progressives will be the only referendum on the ballot.

Starting off with childish investigations like this is not a good way to start.

I agree with the commenters above, but also have to add that not opening/retrieving the mail when reporting periods get real close is pretty common in the campaign world. Not opening the mail for 4-8 weeks isn't common. However, Rep. Nelson is correct that it is not uncommon for a lobbyist to cut a check on a certain date and not deliver that check to the candidate for a few weeks (sometimes 1-2 months). I've seen that happen a few times. That typically happens because a PAC-board will meet and approve an expenditure, the treasurer will cut the check and the lobbyist will deliver it in person. While I wouldn't say there isn't anything here, I'd have to say there has to be more there than first blush.

I'm outraged that, according to the News-Register article, both an activist and the paper held the story until after the election. How did they conclude that a candidate lying and committing a potentially criminal act wasn't information voters should have had? Kari is right - ethics matter. Voters should have been told, shame on those who kept this information from them.

There's a reason these reporting rules are there - and it sounds like this is exactly the circumstance you'd want to investigate: Nelson claimed she wasn't going to spend more than the minimum on the campaign and therefore avoided reporting - then actually did raise (and spend) a bunch of money. Democrats (and just plain citizens who haven't drunk the current-era Republican cool aid that laws and rules don't matter) SHOULD aggressively pursue this kind of thing. And, sorry, but if an "activist" and newspaper had official (even if not final) information on this before the election and didn't report it - shame on them. C&Es are now online and report filing dates have been added just so that reporting CAN be done before the final numbers come in.

oh, and by the way, I'd argue that this news means the Dems in the House should rightfully be at 33 now - since Sumner apparently at least misled his voters about his ability to serve and Nelson's campaign apparently illegally overspent to beat Sal.

If someone says they are not going to raise or spend more than $2000, they shouldn't say that unless they send back lobbyist checks amounting to more than that. She didn't have staff or volunteers who could open envelopes she couldn't get to in time? She didn't have a treasurer opening envelopes?

This stinks. If it were someone I knew personally it would still stink. It is as dishonest as Sumner not leveling with voters about his medical condition.

If Donna Nelson and Mac Sumner were Democrats, do you really believe the Republicans would be saying "I urge the authors who post on this forum to stop using misc. reporting and disclosure violations as the basis for damning articles". Or would they be calling Democrats congentially unethical or some such nonsense?

Democrats have been fined in the past and rightly so for such behavior. I believe in a single ethical standard--the rules should be clear, the rules should be followed, those who don't follow the rules deserve to be landed on like a ton of bricks. Period.

I have known people who slaved away at C & E reports long after the election was over because the reports need to be filed as long as there is an open whatever it is called--until the books are closed on "Friends of Joe Schmoe" or whatever the principal campaign committee is called.

Kari is right. Ethics matter. To say "their " people should follow the rules but "our" people don't need to has led to some whopper fines and embarrassment, so I don't see what good that attitude is.

On the matters, Kari already stated my opinion, so I'll just add a hat tip to him.

On Nelson's statement, she could validate it by publishing the bank records that show when the checks were deposited. Somehow, I doubt that will happen.

On the legislature exempting itself, that's something the legislature can and should change.

Years ago, the C&E rules required submitting copies of canceled checks, both written by and received by the campaign. This investigation would be much easier if that rule was still in force. The Dan Doyle situation may have come to light much sooner had that rule been in effect. The rules also require an accounting of contributions upon receipt. For any candidate to ignore mail of any kind during an election cycle, with attendant reporting periods, is an irresponsible dereliction of duty.

I'm not familiar enough to comment on Ms. Nelson, but the picture chosen for this post is unflattering as it could be.

A cross between Cruella and Mrs Cluas??!

Sal, what a classy response. Don't stop running - we need leaders with your attitude. A gracious near winner. Thanks

Sorry, to differ with Sal, but if Nelson broke campaign finance laws to get elected that means that she DIDN'T win "fair and square" - in fact she cheated. It's one thing to be a nice guy and quite another to allow yourself (and your constituents / supporters) to be taken advantage of. Classy is great, but if don't win because the other side cheated, you can't do the good things we'd want to elect you to do. We need winners, not gracious near winners.

Classy is great, but if don't win because the other side cheated, you can't do the good things we'd want to elect you to do. We need winners, not gracious near winners.// Posted by: Noblesse oblige | Dec 21, 2006 12:28:43 PM

Amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pat

I agree that having a stalking horse is good, but don't count on a Peralta-Nelson rematch in '08. It's much more likely the R's will force her out and have a stronger candidate without her "unique" characteristices, weaknesses and skeletons. Sal had his chance to beat her - fair and square and classy - and failed. Since this was a close race, it's fair to posit that - if he'd been willing to let the voters know that Nelson was a cheater - Sal would have won. I think he had an obligation to let the voters know something as important as campaign finance fraud - just as I think the D's in Congress have an obligation to expose and investigate the R's abuses in DC - for the good of the country and to support the rule of law.

I'd need to be convinced to support Sal in '08 BECAUSE he values his own image (or overweaning sense of self-righteousness) above the rule of law AND because he wasn't willing to do what was legitimate (and fair) to win. Having something more than a 1-vote margin to propel a progressive agenda in Salem is a lot more important to working Oregonians than one man's sense of self-importance and probity.

question: if you have good evidence that an elected official has possibly committed a crime, do you have an obligation to report it, as soon as possible and before an election?

i think so.

it wasn't ok for the oregonian to withhold info about bob packwood - and it wasn't ok for sal peralta to withhold info about donna nelson. that is, if he had the details we have now.

hiding material information from voters is not ok, and it's not playing 'fair'.

As the granddaughter of a prosecutor, I wonder about evidence.

We all got angry when bogus stories were told about the Clinton's ("Clinton let someone not a combat vet be buried at Arlington because the man was a big donor" lasted about a day before someone found the man's military combat record, for instance).

Do you know for sure that pushing stories without the evidence nailed down will result in more votes? Or, absent concrete evidence, might it seem like just another campaign attack which some people just tune out?

"Vote for Sal because Donna doesn't open her mail in a timely fashion" doesn't sound to me like the sort of appeal which would win over swing voters.

I think Sponge has it right.

Sal:

There are reasons why anonymous posts are allowed on blogs. Some of those reasons are very legitimate and that's why they are allowed. You'll just have to accept (or not) that some of us have legitimate reasons for posting anonymously. Either the substance of the posts and the criticism is valid or not - doesn't really matter whether the source is anonymous.

I'll grant you that some of my criticism is personal. Sorry, but it appears that you chose to position yourself in this campaign, and you continue to maintain in these posts, that you're "above it all" and therefore "better" than all those other folks out there in Oregon politics.

That, sir, opens you to exactly the criticism I'm leveling: that your chosen approach to politics handicapped you in this particular instance. So, I am sorry if you don't like the personal criticism, but you chose the path of being "different" and have repeatedly sent the message that you consider that "better". You may not be the most objective judge of that, and others are entitled to a different judgment.

I was taught years ago by a very wise elected official that one should take an important public position very seriously but must be careful not take yourself too seriously as the person who's (temporarily) filling that position. I respect your willingness to pursue elected office, but don't grant you immunity from criticism (even anonymous criticism) because you did so.

As to your comment about "...zero institutional suppport..." Didn't you kinda set that up yourself with your position on fundraising?

No, I don't live in your district, but I do live in Oregon, so the damage Donna Nelson does in the Legislature affects me just as much as you - so I've got sufficient standing to comment.

As to the Nelson fundraising issues, a few comments about why it was a) possible, and b) appropriate to expose this before the election.

1. Nelson's filings weren't the only record or "corroborating evidence" availabe before the election. The contributor's reports were out there, online and in a campaign that was "doing everything it could to win" would have been reviewed and carefully compared to Nelson's C&E's. If that had been done, the discrepancies could have been caught ealier. There's nothing "second hand" about the OFFICIAL information that was available before the election.

2. Campaign contributions by special interests were clearly an issue statewide this cycle, and one would think even more so in a race where one of the candidates has voluntarily limited his fundraising. It's hard to argue that campaign finance / reporting irregularities were not a legitimate issue PRE-ELECTION in this race

3. The newspaper didn't say they held the story because there wasn't sufficient pre-election information, but rather that they held it because no official complaint had been filed. They seem to be arguing that the story was the complaint as opposed to the potential illegal acts of the candidate - very odd news judgment. They apparently didn't even LOOK for the information that was available in the public record. All too common these days, but awful, lazy, negligent journalism.

4. Democrats have for too long let Republicans roll over us with unethical acts, illegal tactics, illegitimate slurs, etc. If our candidates aren't willing to take them on specifically on those issues when they do surface, we'll continue to lose more seats than we should. Look at the pattern of Republican PAC expenditures and the nature of the campaigns around the state this cycle and it's obvious that we're not in a FAIR fight to begin with, so if we "take the high road" we're not being noble, we're being patsies.

As to whether I'm qualified to pass judgment, history will tell, but I've been in Oregon politics for a long time. I'm betting that Nelson won't last the full term, she'll be replaced by someone who doesn't have any of her negatives, and our chance for this district will have been lost.

Hope I'm wrong and you're right.

Thanks, Pat. I think Sal acted in a way that he can look back on this 10 years from now and be proud of making the right decision. Those who say otherwise may never have been on the wrong side of a rumor or known anyone who was thus affected.

I don't believe "negative campaigns work" and as I recall the Portland City Club broadcast in early November, Lisa Grove made that point which seemed to come as somewhat of a surprise.

Yes, some candidates have won some elections running negative campaigns. But there are a couple of problems with the grand generality--definition of negative and other factors. It is hard to isolate if the negative campaign alone won or if perhaps one candidate was better known than the other one or had more volunteers. And about definition: if you say an opponent is rude, unprincipled, and possibly guilty of an election law violation, and I say an opponent's vote against HB 1234 was disgusting, are we both running negative campaigns?

Anyone who thinks negative campaigns work should tell us about the victory parties for Gov.elect Saxton and Cong. elect Mike Erickson. It is arguable that Rush Limbaugh's reaction to the positive stem cell issue Michael J. Fox ad elected Clair McCaskill.

And the granddaddy of them all --what Republicans and Saxby Chambliss did to Max Cleland could have unintended consequences. In six years a lot of people can change their minds, can move into a jurisdiction, can become old enough to vote. It will be very interesting to see incumbent Chambliss run for re-election. If everyone offended by that 2002 campaign contributes time or money to the Chambliss challenger, Chambliss could have a real fight on his hands.

Don't generalize about NAV+ other. In traditional poli sci textbooks they are portrayed as not caring about politics. But I was NAV for almost 6 years when I was fed up with both parties and am only now registered Dem. to vote in primaries. I believe that the fastest growing party is no party at all. And I know some people who were NAV for basically the same reason I was who have since registered Dem. Did they instantly become more interested in details when they left NAV to register with a party?

The smart money says Donna gets off, but the D.A. indicts her hat.

[offensive off-topic comment deleted. -editor.]