HD 49: John Nelsen's magical mystery money
Kari Chisholm
A few days ago, Carla Axtman told you about some financial reporting irregularities over at the campaign of John Nelsen, the Republican running to replace Karen Minnis in HD 49.
In particular, there was a goofy problem where the Nelsen campaign reported a $248,800 expense. Turned out it was a data entry error; it was supposed to be $2488.
OK, fine.
But what's not OK is failing to report contributions in a timely manner. Under Oregon's new ORESTAR system, contributions (and all other transactions) are reported on a rolling basis -- with each required to be reported within 30 days (and then, closer to the election, within 7 days.)
It seems that Nelsen failed to report over $80,000 from 37 separate contributions made over the last five weeks or so.
While explaining away the quarter million dollar data-entry error, John Nelsen tried to wave his hands and make the much more serious failure-to-report error go away. From Nelsen's press release, posted at Oregon Catalyst:
We have all of the information on record and it will be reported publicly in the next day or so—somehow the copies of checks just never made it from the copy machine to the fax machine.
Damn. That's priceless.
And it's a great excuse when you're trying to hide eighty grand in donations. Here's just a sampling of Nelsen's mystery money:
- $5500 from tobacco companies Reynolds American and Philip Morris.
- $1250 from pharmaceutical companies Pfizer and Eli Lilly.
- $6000 from Anheuser-Busch.
- $10,000 from the Oregon Restaurant PAC.
- $5000 from Associated Oregon Industries.
Check out the full spreadsheet here.
Gee, it sure is convenient to hide those contributions until Tuesday -- when it's too late to bring them to the attention of the voters.
But Nelsen's going to pay a heavy price for his financial shenanigans. I talked to the Elections Division, and they explained the penalty matrix to me. It's complex, but the main thing is that if you report a contribution late (either 30 days late or 7 days late, depending), then you get fined 0.5% of the contribution for every single day it's late.
Based on that math, my estimate of Nelsen's campaign finance fines is $6983.
And that's before we talk about the $121,000+ that he's got in "accounts payable". I sure hope his vendors and consultants aren't expecting to actually get paid.
Despite the fact that Nelsen is the school board chair in Reynolds, he claims that the district's massive financial problems aren't his fault.
Maybe his campaign wasn't deliberately trying to hide these donations. As I've said here before, we shouldn't ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence.
But that's just it. Either John Nelsen deliberately hid these donations, or he's just plain incompetent at managing money.
Either way, voters in HD 49 should vote for Nick Kahl. Go help Nick Kahl today or make a donation via ActBlue.
 |
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
8:31 a.m.
Oct 29, '08
His checks didn't make it from the copy machine to the fax machine...? Huh?
He might as well be saying "the dog ate my homework", for crissake.
The Nelsen campaign originally tried to blame problems with Orestar for the issues they had that I covered. Now they've moved on to blaming office equipment. This is just rank incompetence on their part.
Oct 29, '08
John Nelsen is a master at telling you what you want to hear. He claims to be different things to different groups depending on what he thinks will play best. Some say, well he's politician, what do you expect? But Nick Kahl doesn't play those games. Nick tells you his stance and his statements are consistent, even if he knows you won't agree with him. He listens to people and then tells them he respects their opinions, even if they differ from his own and then he promises to work for ALL East County residents. He doesn't pretend to be your friend or hold your views just to get your vote---he has integrity. That's one of the many reasons I'm voting for Nick Kahl.
As for Nelsen, like Kari said above, either he's hiding money or he's running an incompetent campaign---either way, East County deserves better. And we'll get it with Nick Kahl.
Oct 29, '08
I really wish that the newspapers would pick up this story. As was said before, Either he (Nelsen)is trying to hide the fact that he is being backed by big tobacco, and pharmaceutical companies, or he and his campaign are incompetent. Either way, he is not what the people of East county need.
Oct 29, '08
I've been trying to interest WW in the story. The response I received was that 1)WW has limited resources and is very busy and 2)they find the Nelsen campaign's explanation "plausible". Of course, this is the paper that endorsed Nelsen because they feel he'll be a more "independent" thinker than Nick---like I told WW in a return email, I've never known Republicans endorsed by Oregon Family Council, Oregon Right To Life, and Taxpayers Association of Oregon to be especially independent thinkers, but whatever. I still think WW wanted to endorse a few token Rs to appear "balanced" and figured choosig an R in Minnis' old district was a safe bet...or maybe, like some people, they bought what Nelsen is selling...after all, he convinced them he's independent in his thinking. I'm still hoping someone will dig into this and appreciate Carla and Kari's diligence on the issue.
Oct 30, '08
The problem with the reporting violation matrix is that the maximum total penalty is $10K, no matter how many violations in an election.
<h2>In this case, it may have exceeded $10K. On the Measure 61 (Steve Doell, Treasurer) complaint this month it would be closer to $20K. Some PACs may determine the maximum is worth paying if it wins the election for them. (i.e. outspending an opponent who's unable to respond in kind)</h2>