Merkley commits $250,000 to Senate race

Jeff Merkley has borrowed $250,000 against a house he owns in Washington DC and committed it to his campaign.

From the Oregonian:

Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Jeff Merkley has taken out a $250,000 loan on a house he owns in Washington, D.C., to give a boost to his campaign as Oregon's May 20 primary draws closer. ...

Merkley bought the house when was working as a national security analyst for the Pentagon in the 1980s. The house currently serves as the national headquarters for the Lutheran Volunteer Corps, a organization where Merkley's wife once worked.

In a statement to his supporters, Merkley wrote:

We are making this investment now because more Oregonians will participate in this primary election than ever before in state history, offering our campaign an incredible opportunity to communicate with Oregon voters. Now is the time to reach out to Oregonians before Gordon Smith seeks to distort my record and attack me after the primary. ...

This home has had a big impact on my life. I purchased it when I lived in Washington D.C., while serving as a national security analyst for the Pentagon. Most importantly, the home led to my meeting my wife Mary.

Mary came to D.C. through the Luther Volunteer Corps (LVC), where college graduates dedicate a year to serving the poor. Mary’s LVC house happened to be near my home and my roommate, who volunteered at the homeless shelter where Mary was working, invited her to dinner. As they say, the rest is history. We met twenty years ago this coming September.

Over the years, we’ve used our house in D.C. to support causes we believe in. It served as a home for the Jesuit Volunteer Corps (a program very similar to LVC), then as a group home for mentally-ill homeless, and in the last several years as the national headquarters for the Lutheran Volunteer Corps.

Discuss.

  • Chris (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I did not know that Merkley was a "national security analyst for the Pentagon in the 1980s"?

    Scary!

    Don't we have enough of these kind of people in D.C.?

  • (Show?)

    This must be what Kevin meant whe he said Steve was unfit for office because he didn't own a house!

    Luckily for Steve, HIS fundraising is on an upturn, unlike Merkley's, so he can campaign the old-fashioned way instead of pulling a mini-Mitt Romney.

  • Jack Sullivan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Yes, he was. And after he left, he blew the whistle on the B-2 Stealth Bomber program -- writing an op-ed in the New York Times about how horribly wasteful that Pentagon project was.

    That's exactly the kind of person we need in Washington. A Senator that whistleblowers - in the Pentagon and elsewhere - can turn to for help and to reach the public.

  • Jack Sullivan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    My "yes he was" answer was in response to Chris's question...

  • Peter Bray (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Good money after bad.

  • (Show?)

    Luckily for Steve, HIS fundraising is on an upturn, unlike Merkley's, so he can campaign the old-fashioned way instead of pulling a mini-Mitt Romney.

    It may be on the upturn, but Steve still trails Jeff by something like $400-500k. Let's not send the wrong impression, SV.

  • (Show?)

    isn't that also the wrong impression, jeff? You can't respond money that's already gone. If I recall right, he was at 475, Steve at 195. The big question is whether Merkley's total reflects his tv buy.

  • Taylor M (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Definitely a risky move when you're polling behind Candy Neville. But more important- owning a home and renting it to the JVC and LVC(!)- that's an incredibly generous and classy thing to do. No amount of positive press they'll get for this could amount to the good they've done. The Merkleys are kinda like Oregon's version of the (John & Elizabeth) Edwardses- husband's an OK guy, wife absolutely rocks.

  • Fair and Balanced (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This certainly speaks to Jeff's commitment to the race. From some of the commente here, you'd think volunteering for public service was in the self interest of the candidates. But the candidates I know - successful or not - are on the whole sincere about wanting to do the right thing.

    That's what pains me so much about the tendency to tear people down, both on the blogs and in the MSM. Yes, we have plenty of examples of meretricious and greedy behavior from certain quarters (e.g. Halliburton), but it's really dumb to make the assumption that politicians are in it for the money. For the vast, vast majority it's a sacrifice. Jeff's big risk for his own campaign is an example.

    Merkley is a strong, honorable progressive willing to put his own rather meager nest egg on the line in order to take on the steep odds against unseating a truly rich, powerful incumbent. Let's honor that commitment, just as we should honor Steve Novick's giving up a year of his life in the same quest.

    They're good people, people. We need more of them. Let's quit raising the bar so high that only cynical powermongers will have any appetite for the game.

  • Fair and Balanced (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This certainly speaks to Jeff's commitment to the race. From some of the commente here, you'd think volunteering for public service was in the self interest of the candidates. But the candidates I know - successful or not - are on the whole sincere about wanting to do the right thing.

    That's what pains me so much about the tendency to tear people down, both on the blogs and in the MSM. Yes, we have plenty of examples of meretricious and greedy behavior from certain quarters (e.g. Halliburton), but it's really dumb to make the assumption that politicians are in it for the money. For the vast, vast majority it's a sacrifice. Jeff's big risk for his own campaign is an example.

    Merkley is a strong, honorable progressive willing to put his own rather meager nest egg on the line in order to take on the steep odds against unseating a truly rich, powerful incumbent. Let's honor that commitment, just as we should honor Steve Novick's giving up a year of his life in the same quest.

    They're good people, people. We need more of them. Let's quit raising the bar so high that only cynical powermongers will have any appetite for the game.

  • JohnH (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Why does Merkley need to borrow money? I thought that Chuck Schumer was bankrolling his campaign. Did Jeff say something wrong?

    If Schumer pulled the plug on him, I might actually consider voting for him.

  • (Show?)

    I agree with "Fair and Balanced". It seems that today is "beat up on Jeff Merkley Day". I didn't see it on my calendar, but reading here (and other places) it sure feels like it. How about we accept that different people support different candidates for different reasons. How about we honor that reality and stop the harsh criticism of good people.

    I for one would never have the courage to take the risks candidates take - personally or financially. So unless we're willing to put ourselves on the line in that way, how about we consider not being so critical.

    How about we spend our time working for our candidates in a more productive way!

  • (Show?)

    The story here is: Merkley is 100% committed to winning in style.

    Having cornered the market on progressive endorsements while Novick was running TV ads, Merkley now turns his sights to cornering the market on name ID.

    Question my objectivity if you like but it seems pretty obvious that Merkley isn't the... uh... how did Novick characterize it... "timid" campaigner that his detractors have made him out to be. And so it is no surprise that there is much weeping a gnashing of teeth by his political opponent's supporters. What did anyone expect them to say? Seriously!

  • (Show?)

    I did a double-take when I read it, but then it made perfect sense.

    Why hold back some of your chips if you know your state needs an all-in? It's a bad poker analogy, sure, but I really like how Jeff is maxing himself out to show his commitment to the race.

  • (Show?)

    Merkley's hasn't got a monopoly on progressive endorsements.

    Novick's backed by John Kitzhaber, Les AuCoin, Communications Workers of America, Liz Kaufman, Jeff Cogen, Maria Rojo de Steffey, Chuck Sheketoff, Erik Sten, Bob Stacey, Bev Stein, Lynn Peterson, Nik Blosser and on and on...

  • trishka (unverified)
    (Show?)

    i didn't have the same "oh wonderful" reactions that others did. not because i want to beat up on merkley, but because i do have every reason to believe that his is a good kind decent man.

    i hate to see him put himself & his family in any sort of financial jeopardy over this senate race, largely because it IS such a crap shoot.

    i hope he gets his money back, and doesn't end up regretting taking the equity out of a falling real estate market...

  • Jack Sullivan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Why does Merkley need to borrow money? I thought that Chuck Schumer was bankrolling his campaign.

    That was never true.

    The DSCC has reported spending something like $80,000 on behalf of the Merkley campaign - mostly during the announcement tour.

    By law, the max they can donate and spend on behalf of a campaign is something like $250,000. Obviously, they'll help with fundraising and non-financial resources, but to say "bankrolling" isn't true, never was, and never will be.

  • Daniel Spiro (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I see no reason to beat up on Merkley. Novick is a great man and should be your next Senator. That's not a slight at Merkley at all.

    The simple fact is that I've never met anyone in my 47 years of life who I'd rather have in the Senate than Steve Novick. That's really all that I can say on the subject.

  • (Show?)

    "The DSCC has reported spending something like $80,000 on behalf of the Merkley campaign - mostly during the announcement tour."

    $93,000--and I haven't looked to see whether any more has come. I don't see how it's not true to say they're bankrolling Merkley...since it means "to supply money."

    Don't forget the staff help and the imported spokesman (fat lot of good he's done, though)!

  • (Show?)

    "Question my objectivity if you like but it seems pretty obvious that Merkley isn't the... uh... how did Novick characterize it... "timid" campaigner that his detractors have made him out to be. And so it is no surprise that there is much weeping a gnashing of teeth by his political opponent's supporters."

    Not your objectivity, just your sanity and political acumen.

    I don't see any Novick supporters gnashing their teeth. I think we're amused--aren't DONATIONS supposed to cover the cost of a campaign? It's just one more sign that Merkley is struggling mightily to make any kind of impression. You can't piss on my leg and tell me this is GOOD news, Kevin. Don't be ridiculous. There's less than a month until ballot counting, and after 10 months he's just getting around to increasing his name ID? By stepping into a crowded airspace soon to be deluged with Obama and Clinton ads? And anyway, I thought the two ads he's ALREADY been running were supposed to do that?

    I actually smell a direct mail sleaze attack coming as a result of this, but we'll see...

  • (Show?)

    The simple fact is that I've never met anyone in my 47 years of life who I'd rather have in the Senate than Steve Novick. That's really all that I can say on the subject.

    Not only can I respect that, Daniel, but I actually identify with it.

    I've never met anyone in my 44 years (as of today - yep, born 400 years after Shakespeare) of life who I'd rather have in the Senate than Jeff Merkley. In fact nobody before Jeff Merkley has inspired me to leave the comfort of my NAV affiliation since 1990 to vote for them in a party primary. Getting to vote for Obama is icing on the cake. But make no mistake about it, Merkley is the cake that convinced me to become a Democrat for the first time ever.

  • (Show?)

    "I've never met anyone in my 44 years (as of today - yep, born 400 years after Shakespeare) of life who I'd rather have in the Senate than Jeff Merkley."

    Happy birthday. This year try to get out some more. :)

  • JohnH (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jack Sullivan: Wouldn't you say that the DSCC is Merkley's largest single contributor? That makes me very uncomfortable, particularly with Schumer running the DSCC.

    In most races in Oregon, a handful of contributors typically account for more than half of a candidate's fundraising. I would like to know who those handful are for Merkley and for Novick. Neither OpenSecrets, FollowtheMoney, nor the Secretary of State have the answer. Isn't this something that voters should be entitled to know BEFORE they vote?

  • verasoie (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Perhaps I'm the only one who sees this as a sign of confidence on Jeff's part that he will win the primary, which will guarantee that the loan is repaid.

    Moreover, this will assure that he has money to use to defend/define himself once he does win the primary, as you can bet that Smith has ads set to run on May 21, when Jeff is officially his opponent and there will be a peak in coverage and interest in the race.

    I see this as a sign of confidence, as no one would lend their campaign this type of money if they really thought it might not be repaid.

    And I'm with you Kevin, I've been a NAV since the age of 18, but now at 31 have registered Dem to vote for Merkley, with Obama being the icing on the cake.

  • Alt R.E. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Perhaps I'm the only one who sees this as a sign of confidence on Jeff's part that he will win the primary, which will guarantee that the loan is repaid.

    No no no. That's not the way I see it. Here's the way I see it: (1) Jeff wins and can pay back the mortgage, or (2) Jeff loses and has no need for a house there, subsequently selling it.

  • verasoie (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Alt R.E.,

    That's a fair thought, but I still see it as a sign of confidence on Jeff's part. In your scenario, he still would lose 250K of his own money, and I don't believe he'd gamble with that.

    Nope, he sees this as a good bet because he genuinely believes that he will beat Novick, even handily. As do I.

  • (Show?)

    Here's what I think: after the KATU poll was released, the fundraising went right into the dumper, and the cash on hand (a) included a fair amount of general election money, and (b) included the bulk of the money he had to spend on TV. His burn rate may also have gone up if he is doing more fundraising (or attempted fundraising).

  • Alt R.E. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    That's a fair thought, but I still see it as a sign of confidence on Jeff's part. In your scenario, he still would lose 250K of his own money, and I don't believe he'd gamble with that.

    Nope, he sees this as a good bet because he genuinely believes that he will beat Novick, even handily. As do I.

    Fair enough. I honor your thought; in fact, it's downright plausible. However, I also sense desperation. This is one example. Certainly there are more examples to come up with...

    I tire of traditional politics, I tire of traditional practices. The opposite of tradition is change. Tradition has proven that it doesn't agree with my self-interest.

    So why should anyone who considers this to be credible, offer any time or resources to its demise??

  • (Show?)

    Stephanie:

    Yea, my quick look at the '07 numbers wasn't too good - quite a bit of two $2300 donations from the same person. I need to see if they have the detailed '08 numbers up yet.

  • (Show?)

    I just noticed the URL for that Merkley commercial:

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=vDR2SsexxxA

    Timing is everything! Back in the day of the internet bubble, an URL with that much Ssexxx in it could easily have been sold for enough money that Merkley wouldn't have had to mortgage his house!

    %^>

  • (Show?)

    Nope, he sees this as a good bet because he genuinely believes that he will beat Novick, even handily. As do I.

    That's what I see too. He's building momentum through the Primary and on into the General.

    Strategically it makes no sense for a candidate to do the LEAST necessary to secure a narrow win. Barely eeking out a win in a Primary is NOT a smart strategy for going into a hotly contested General Election. Which is why the pessimistic interpretations of his motives for taking out this loan don't pass muster.

  • (Show?)

    "Barely eeking out a win in a Primary is NOT a smart strategy for going into a hotly contested General Election."

    It's an infinitely better 'strategy' than not winning the primary, which is clearly what he fears by taking out more money. Anyway, "winning" isn't a strategy in the first place, it's an achievement. Taking out a loan to try whatever you can to get your message to catch on somewhere, anywhere--THAT'S a strategy.

    There's no evidence whatsoever Merkley is building momentum. He's behind in the polls, his fundraising is down, and he's had a horrible media week. More ads in a crowded airspace? Good luck with all THAT.

  • Galen (unverified)
    (Show?)

    There is really a simple explanation for this.

    Merkley's fundraising has been tepid all year. But after the publication of the KATU poll, and after Matt Canter refused to release their own internal poll in an incredibly awkward moment on TV, which probably meant it showed basically the same thing as KATU's, raising money REALLY became difficult for the Speaker.

    This loan does two things. The most obvious is that it provides the campaign with a big chunk of change. But the much more important objective is to show prospective donors that he is willing to do whatever it takes to win. He'll mention in every fundraising pitch that he's so confident of his victory and wants it so bad that he took out a loan on his own house. He's willing to pull the trigger when everything is on the line. Will they believe him? Or will they just feel bad for him?

    Let's face it: this was the only move he could make. This is all he has left. They already went negative on their opponent. They already brought in new staff. They have collected as many endorsements as they could. They already redesigned their website.

    There is no way to view this other than the last-ditch effort of a flagging campaign.

  • Jack Sullivan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Neither OpenSecrets, FollowtheMoney, nor the Secretary of State have the answer.

    JohnH, you're looking in the wrong places. FollowtheMoney and the Secretary of State cover state money, not federal. OpenSecrets covers federal, but they are usually several weeks or even months behind the actual release of the data.

    Go to FEC.gov for all federal campaign reporting. The first quarter, which ended March 31, and was reported on April 15, is already up there.

  • (Show?)

    "Go to FEC.gov for all federal campaign reporting. The first quarter, which ended March 31, and was reported on April 15, is already up there."

    Only summaries so far for expenditures--waiting on the itemized list...

  • Runtmg (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This is bad news, really bad news. A decent politician has the ability to raise these funds. If Merkley was this powerful insider, why is he having to take out a 250,000 dollar loan?

    If he wins this thing, it will be an upset at this point, in my opinion.

  • Carol (unverified)
    (Show?)

    As someone who remains uncommitted to either candidate, it would be helpful if some objective voices could lay out the positive attributes of each one, and then realistically tell us if either one can defeat Gordon Smith. My goal is to defeat Smith.

    I read the Voter's Pamphlet last night and it didn't help.

    The junior high arguing that goes on here lends nothing to the substance of the debate. The Oregonian article speaks for itself; i.e., Merkley needs money and what he and his wife have been doing with their Washington, DC home is quite remarkable.

    Let me add: I am rarely uncommitted. My impressions are that Novick is very personable, has a amazing mind, and has accomplished some important things for the country and for Oregon. Merkley seemed less clear, at least in the WW interview, and more inclined to triangulate. I know he had a great legislative session. Were all the compromises good for Oregon? I just need to know a lot more about him.

  • James Frye (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Yup, bad news when a candidate has to take a loan out to finance his campaign....during the PRIMARY. And look at how well that worked out for Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton too....

  • (Show?)

    "what he and his wife have been doing with their Washington, DC home is quite remarkable."

    Why, are the tenants not paying rent, or something? Renting out a house you don't need seems like a sound fiscal decision, not so much a glorious expression of progressive values.

    (Obviously, if he IS giving cut rate rent, good on him!)

  • E.PDXer (unverified)
    (Show?)

    what he and his wife have been doing with their Washington, DC home is quite remarkable.

    Not if they're treating renters like they do back home.

  • Jason Skelton (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Merkley realizes he is in a legit fight, so he is pulling all the stops. That is commitment and to be respected.

    Why do people hate on Merkley? He is a great guy and a great legislator. For Novick, I enjoy listening to him speak; but other than holding court at City Club meetings he has not really committed himself to anything in the last 10 years or so. In fact, his campaign is the most risk-free of all. What else was he doing with his time? The city club meets only on Fridays.

  • (Show?)
    (Obviously, if he IS giving cut rate rent, good on him!)

    That would also be good for a tax deduction, perhaps a hefty one, if LVS are allowed to use the house for free or below market rate. This would be an "in-kind donation."

    I don't "hate on" Merkley. But I oppose his candidacy for a number of strong reasons I have already cited in this venue repeatedly.

  • (Show?)

    It just occurred to me to wonder... is it possible that the DSCC has asked for its money back? That might help explain this sudden need for a large lump sum of cash. That's $93,000 at least, right there.

  • (Show?)

    Carol - you wanted to know more about Jeff Merkley. The Eugene Register Guard just wrote an endorsement of him that I found very "on balance". It supports Jeff, but doesn't take anything away from Steve Novick. You can find it at jeffmerkley.com, and probably on the Register Guard website as well, but in the archives as it's a week old by now.

  • harrydemarest (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This blog is full of personal attacks and speculations by which Novick's friends are attacking Merkley.

    Novick, like his supporters, has a habit of rude name calling behavior against decent people like Obama and Clinton and Bono, to name some public examples. And anyone who knows Steve knows some private examples as well.

    It is fun to talk shit about people, but if someone is to work effectively in a group of diverse individuals, such as the US Senate, the state legislature, even the Corvallis city council, courtesy is important.

    I prefer to support candidates who have learned this lesson, and tht's why I'm supporting Merkley

    But of course, if Novick wins the primary I'll support him.

  • (Show?)

    Carol, I would urge you to take a look at today's endorsement of Novick by the Medford Mail-Tribune, as well as the video clip of his closing statement in the KGW debate, which beautifully summarizes what Steve is about as a candidate. I'm sorry I can't post links but I'm on my Blackberry right now. There are also some terrific issues videos on Steve's website.

    <hr/>
in the news

connect with blueoregon