OR-GOV: Bradbury's allegation against Kitzhaber

Kari Chisholm FacebookTwitterWebsite

Near the end of last night's gubernatorial debate on the environment, Bill Bradbury threw a hard punch at John Kitzhaber. Bradbury noted that Kitzhaber had accepted a $10,000 contribution from Frank Foti, the CEO of Cascade General. From David Steves at the Register-Guard:

Bradbury noted that Kitzhaber had received a $10,000 campaign contribution from the head of a Portland ship-repair company that had in recent years been fined by the Environmental Protection Agency for violating clean air and water standards and for its emissions of heavy metals into the Willamette River.

Naturally, Kitzhaber shot back. From Jeff Mapes at the Oregonian:

Kitzhaber called Foti an "upstanding Oregonian" and said that "if you are somehow implying that a campaign contribution to me means that I am in somebody's pocket, I am insulted, incensed and extraordinarily disappointed in you."

(You can watch the video at OEC. Bradbury makes his charge at 1:30.)

As I said in my previous post, most of the debate between the two Democrats was excellent. It was inspiring, educational, and meaningful. It's clear that we've got two candidates who are deeply committed to and knowledgeable about a range of environmental issues.

I've worked for both Bill Bradbury and John Kitzhaber. Both are friends (though I've been personally closer to Bill over the years), and I have good friends in high places on both campaigns. I've thus far refrained from engaging in any negativity. But I have to say: Bradbury's attack on John Kitzhaber's integrity was completely unfounded and strategically dumb.

Yes, Bradbury's attack was just plain dumb. It's kind of an obvious rule in politics: don't attack your opponent for something that you're vulnerable on too. You see, in 2002, Bill Bradbury accepted $1500 in contributions from Frank Foti for his U.S. Senate race. And as Jeff Mapes noted, that's after his company had been fined by environmental regulators.

Over the years, Frank Foti has been a reliable donor to Democrats. Since 2000, he's donated $57,650 in federal races - all but $3300 to Democrats. His top five federal candidates have been David Wu, Darlene Hooley, Earl Blumenauer, Brian Baird, and [Peter DeFazio](http://www.defazioforcongress.org) - along with that $1500 to Bill Bradbury.

Remember: when a donor makes a contribution to a candidate, it's the donor that is endorsing the candidate, not the other way around. To suggest that John Kitzhaber is somehow responsible for whatever went wrong at Foti's business is to suggest that every candidate is responsible for all the activities of all of their donors. Is that really a standard that the Bradbury campaign wants to live by? Shall we start vetting the activities of all of their donors?

If Frank Foti is such an "egregious polluter", why did Bradbury take his money in 2002? And what does Bradbury have to say to all these members of Congress?

But what's really disturbing is that Bill Bradbury went beyond questioning the propriety of the donor -- he also attacked Kitzhaber's integrity:

"Why would you take $10,000 from such an egregious polluter when as governor you are responsible for enforcing violations?"

You don't have to read that twice to understand the allegation. Bradbury's saying that by taking Foti's donation, Kitzhaber will be unable or unwilling to enforce the law. In short, that he's on the take.

Frankly, if the Bradbury campaign is going to allege that John Kitzhaber can be bought, they're going to have to do more than simply assert it. They're going to need to connect a few more dots - show us a case where John Kitzhaber radically changed his position after taking a contribution. (As Gordon Smith did, for example.) I don't think such an instance exists - and I doubt Bradbury does either.

In over 30 years in public life, no one has ever seriously suggested that John Kitzhaber was corrupt. He's always been a guy that you can count on to tell you exactly what he thinks; regardless of his audience. The notion that he's corrupt is utterly absurd.

I think a little benefit-of-the-doubt is in order here.

I don't think Bill Bradbury actually intended to dramatically and deliberately accuse John Kitzhaber, his old friend, of being corrupt. It looked to me like Bill was reading his question from something his staff provided. This sort of dark allegation just seems out of place with the usual happy-warrior attitude that usually defines Bill Bradbury.

I'm hoping that Bill tells us once again that he misspoke and we can all move on from this episode. Hopefully sooner rather than later.

  • (Show?)

    I said it above, but I'll make it explicit, as usual: Full disclosure - my firm built John Kitzhaber's campaign website. I speak only for myself.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Time to decide:

    Is this to be a campaign about issues?

    Or should all of us taken aback by Bill's charge against John start hitting ORESTAR and checking out all of Bradbury's $10,000 contributions?

    Snide remarks about Kitzhaber won't hide the fact that Bill has to decide what direction he goes from here.

  • (Show?)

    Another Bradbury blind spot.

    I've met Foti and despite the "East of the Mississippi" mannerisms, both personally and by his record, he strikes me as a progressive.

    Hoping that Bill doesn't have a little black box in his brain where he stores successful but suspect businessmen.

    <hr/>

    Of course the only true solution is campaign finance refrom, but since we do not now nor (apparently) will we ever live on that planet....................

  • anon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    If a Republican had accepted that contribution you guys would convict him of environmental terrorism and hang him from the yard arm.

  • (Show?)

    As I watched and listened to this particular back and forth, it didn't come across to me in the way you're describing, Kari.

    I didn't hear this as Bradbury accusing Kitzhaber of being corrupt or necessarily as an attack on his integrity. Certainly by the tone and tenor of Kitzhaber's reaction, HE saw it that way..but it felt to me like Kitz's push back was one part indignant and two parts defensive.

    I certainly didn't see or hear Bradbury in any way saying that anyone who took contributions from Foti is responsible for the enviro issues at Foti's company. What I thought Bradbury was driving at was the association with a company whose money is acquired at the expense of the environment. It's tainted cash, in other words.

    All this said--it was silly for Bradbury to do this without making sure he hadn't accepted money from this guy, too. It shows poor vetting, IMO. And honestly, its careless.

    Bradbury was definitely trying to land a punch. No doubt about it. He's the underdog and this is straight from the underdog's playbook: dent up the front-runner and force him to go on defense.

    Bradbury did that to some degree, judging by Kitzhaber's reaction. But because of Bradbury's own association with Foti, I'm afraid it's short-lived.

  • Boats (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Democrats never take responsibility for their own actions, (Charles Rangel, Monica & John Conyers, Rep. Jefferson, Bill Clinton, ad nauseam), why would anyone think them responsible for the varied sins of their patrons?

  • (Show?)

    The 97 fine was the only one I found prior to Bradbury's campaign, for $3600. Since December 2002 they have racked up repeated fines, and in the most recent instance were cited as reckless because they continued to violate the same permits in the same way as for violations in 03-04.

    Had Kitzhaber asked the question of Bradbury in 2002, he could not have reasonably called Cascade an "egregious polliter." The company has paid repeated fines of much higher magnitude than $3600, in the time since Bradbury's campaign.

    As for Kitzhaber's somewhat outsized indignance, I always return to something Erik Sten said: "Any politician who tells you that campaign contributions don't have an effect on the way you decide things, is lying to you."

    Also, since these fines come from DEQ and not DOJ, I assume Bradbury is correct that the ultimate enforcement comes from the governor and not the AG...but I'll happily be corrected on that.

    I think it was a fair question, and one cannot say that Bradbury took money from an egregious polluter--but it's accurate about Kitz.

  • Anon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    TorridJoe nails it. The Bradbury campaign was well aware of the $1,500 that Foti has given to him in 2002 and to many other individuals as well.

    $10,000 is not $1,500.

    Cascade General has dramatically increased it's emissions and it's fines in the past 3 years.

    Take a look at EPA Report on them: http://www.epa-echo.gov/cgi-bin/get1cReport.cgi?tool=echo&IDNumber=110000487535

    I think the real story here is Kitzhaber's anger to a rather innocuous question. And as Mapes reported in the Oregonian that the mic was still live on the livestream Kitzhaber can be heard saying "The gloves will come off now buddy". Kitzhaber handled this really badly.

  • (Show?)

    Carla, I do think there are two separate charges here: 1) That the money is tainted. 2) That Kitzhaber is corrupt.

    On the former, I guess every candidate has to decide for himself or herself what the threshold is. I would not, for example, take money from a tobacco executive. (There is no "safe" way to consume a cigarette, in my view.)

    But on the latter, I don't know how you can read Bradbury's query any other way:

    "Why would you take $10,000 from such an egregious polluter when as governor you are responsible for enforcing violations?"

    The logic in Bradbury's statement is clear: That by accepting a contribution, Kitzhaber would be unable or unwilling to enforce a violation.

    That's an allegation of corruption.

  • Brassy Babe (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Don't see what your problem is, Kari. Clearly he just didn't have enough coffee. Good an excuse as what you put up.

  • Anon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Let's put it another way. If a candidate for Attorney General accepted $10,000 from a individual currently under investigation by one of the departments in the agency would that be okay?

  • (Show?)

    this was my 4th Kitz-BB debate; despite some jabs at Kitz previously, this is the first time Bradbury's gone down this road so directly. and it was the first time i've seen Kitz so emotional -- it carried on to his reading of his closing remarks and is not likely to disappear.

    probably what spurred the anger was not the accusation so much as it coming from his friend. it's one thing for Bradbury to talk about Kitz's "big" contributions; that's just run-of-the-mill big guy vs. little guy shit, just like BB calling himself the "only" progressive. this went over the top, accusing Kitz of (at the least) being vulnerable to being bought-off. if Alley had made the charge, Kitz would have just brushed him off. but Kitz & BB have a long history, not just as allies but as friends. this may be politics, but friendship should still matter. is Bradbury so desperate to win that he's willing to trash a friendship for it?

    and if he is, that sure doesn't speak well for his character, as a person or leader. i'm with Kari: let's have a retraction & get this thing back on the high ground Oregon needs from its leaders.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I had audiotaped that part of the debate and was glad I did.

    I listened to it more than one.

    My impression fits with Kari's

    But on the latter, I don't know how you can read Bradbury's query any other way:

    "Why would you take $10,000 from such an egregious polluter when as governor you are responsible for enforcing violations?" The logic in Bradbury's statement is clear: That by accepting a contribution, Kitzhaber would be unable or unwilling to enforce a violation.

    That's an allegation of corruption.

    ORESTAR was a creation of Sec. of State Bradbury. If he wants us to start looking at C & Es for $10,000 and vote according to which of those we agree with, I think that is a blunder.

    But if he wants to go that route, he can explain why he took an out of state contribution from a member of the management of a company called Chicago Sweeteners. They are an environmentally pure company because.....?

    Or maybe he should backtrack from this charge and start talking issues?

    Pat says, "I've met Foti and despite the "East of the Mississippi" mannerisms, both personally and by his record, he strikes me as a progressive."

    Once upon a time a friend of mine was running in a primary which turned out to be pretty nasty.

    His opponent launched a similarly nasty effort which was basically guilt by association. HOW DARE anyone support my friend---the attacker was deserving of support from every good and true Oregonian.

    The election ended in a recount.

    The attacker won the recount but lost the general election.

    I have been neutral, but if this continues to be "Vote for Bill because John took a contribution he should be ashamed of and Bill's contributions are environmentally pure, I promise you that within a week I will

    a) start checking ORESTAR and publish here every $10,000 or above contribution given to Bradbury because I believe in a single standard

    b) seriously consider sending Kitzhaber a check and getting a bumper sticker.

    I got to that point in a 2008 primary, the candidate whose bumper sticker I got won the nomination and the general election, and the bumper sticker is getting old but is still on my car. It has been a great conversation piece ---how I happened to get the bumper sticker in the first place.

    But I would rather hear where Bill stands on kicker reform, transportation, health care, specifics of education funding and Bank of Oregon (who else supports his ideas, logistics of how they would get done).

    If he continues in attack mode, I will be forced to the conclusion that he doesn't want to provide details and decided that an attack would be better strategy.

    Not with me, it won't.

    I told both men last Sept. that I would vote based on who provided us the most intelligent discussion of issues.

    Memo to the Bradbury campaign: attacking someone's contributions in a live debate does not qualify as intelligent discussion.

  • (Show?)

    Kari:

    Fair enough. But then Kitzhaber's reaction was as if Bradbury hit a major raw nerve.

    I'm also seeing the context that TJ brought up about the difference between Bradbury's donation and Kitz's. Seems a valid point to me.

    I agree with you that each candidate has a threshold for what $ is "tainted". But so do the voters, IMO.

    I wish this exchange was actually enlightening on who is really the better candidate, tho. I don't think Kitz is corrupt and I don't think Bradbury thinks Kitz is corrupt.

    I actually thought that Kitz's answers on land-use were superlative and that Bradbury's positions on LNG and Boardman were better. This last part on donations didn't inform my decision very well, unfortunately.

  • JonB (unverified)
    (Show?)

    And if we had Voter-Owned Elections for the whole state, we wouldn't be having this discussion. We could stick to the issues.

    (ok, perhaps we would be having the discussion since it would be a voluntary system, but if everyone was using it, we wouldn't be having this discussion.)

  • (Show?)

    "TorridJoe nails it. The Bradbury campaign was well aware of the $1,500 that Foti has given to him in 2002 and to many other individuals as well.

    $10,000 is not $1,500. "

    To clarify, I don't think there's any difference between the amounts, other than that one is bigger. Perhaps if we're talking about the difference between $25 from Joe Blow and $10,000 from Joe CEO, maybe. But those are both high-dollar donations from a business-oriented source if not actually a corporate donation.

    My point of contention is that Bradbury couldn't fairly be accused of what he accused Kitz of doing: taking contributions from an egregious polluter.

    Kari, put a lunch bag on your face and breathe slowly. It's in no way an "allegation of corruption;" it's an allegation of conflict of interest, or at best an allegation of SUSCEPTIBILITY to corruption. It could also have been an attack on the sheer optics, at the price of Kitz' credibility as an enviro enforcer. Although I think recalling Sam Adams is pretty absurd, despite not believing the charges against him warranting such a step I would find the attempt more reasonable if the perception of wrongdoing had done significant damage to Sam's credibility. If there was any, it was short term and limited IMO.

    But my point there is to say that it's valid for Bradbury to assert that the optics on such a conflict could fairly call his credibility into question. For Kitz (and Kari) to escalate it to an attack of corruption, has kind of a "doth protest too much" ring. And if ta is right that Bill had been hinting at it previously, don't be so sure it wasn't a planned contingency for Kitz if Bradbury ever came right out and said it.

  • (Show?)

    That's credibility as an administrator, I mean. On a personal level there's a pretty reasonable argument that you can't necessarily trust what Sam says about himself. I saw no evidence it carried over into his professional dealings.

  • Jake Leander (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I believe Kitz is more immune to campaign contribution influence than most politicians. And certainly it is "dumb" to complain about your opponent taking money from someone who also gave your campaign money. But questioning a candidate's contribution sources is not only legitimate, it is key to understanding the driving force of US politics. The truth is that elected officials behave in ways that are largely supportive of the interests of their major contributors. Cause and effect may be open to question. Correlation is well demonstrated.

  • (Show?)

    It boils down to a question of judgement, valued friendship and campaign strategy on the part of both campaigns. Clearly the sock in the nose rattled Kitzhaber who wasn't expecting the punch. I can only imagine the discussions inside Bradbury's campaign staff before the decision was made to to throw the punch. "Look what I found Bill, this is big, really really big. We can nail Kitzhaber with this contribution from Foti," stated the excited staffer assigned to do opposition research on all things Kitzhaber. Oh the glee, the rubbing of palms, the political calculations, the advantages, the disadvantages..gains, loses...but how about the character of the man who ultimately made the final decision to throw the punch.

    To say I am dissappointed is an understatement.

  • (Show?)

    "I wish this exchange was actually enlightening on who is really the better candidate, tho. I don't think Kitz is corrupt and I don't think Bradbury thinks Kitz is corrupt. "

    That's an excellent point. If one might fault Bradbury, it's for raising an issue that really doesn't go anywhere, even as it might be a fair point by itself. There's nothing about it that sways my perception of either man's potential as goobernor.

  • (Show?)

    Kari, I think your point is less clear-cut than you allege--though I don't think it can be resolved in this situation. Neither of these statements is true: 1) campaign donors have zero influence in a politician's thinking, or 2) once a donation is given, a donor has paid for a vote. The truth lies in the middle ground. We get into trouble when we try to force the discussion into a binary set of choices.

    I'd agree that the question was unwise, but for two different reasons. First, the charge came at a bad time. After a completely cordial, facts-based debate about a serious issue, this charge sounded very off-key. Whatever benefit Bradbury hoped to gain was lost thanks to the timing. (Communication is a complex thing.) But secondly, I think you have to ask how much influence a donor can have over policy. Here's where Bradbury's charge really went wide. All the violations cited by Bradbury about Cascade General were EPA violations--not state violations. Bradbury said that "state and local authorities" were investigating, so maybe I don't understand the way these laws are enforced. But the governor can't change federal law, so how is this relevant?

    Am I missing something?

  • (Show?)

    Jeff, there have been a bunch of state DEQ violations and fines assessed against Cascade.

  • Chris Edmonds (unverified)
    (Show?)

    It's kind of an obvious rule in politics: don't attack your opponent for something that you're vulnerable on too.

    Folks on the right have been doing this for years. In many ways, it's actually an effective strategy. That said, I think there's a distinction between the two contributions, as many have already posted.

  • Joshua Welch (unverified)
    (Show?)

    As I said before I have no dog in this fight yet, however it seems quite clear that Bradbury is getting unfair treatment. Objectivity seems to have fallen to the wayside.

  • John Silvertooth (unverified)
    (Show?)

    OK Let me explain politics for the over educated.

    This isn't an original story but it makes the point:

    The girl is working on her math theory homework and asks Dad for help- Dad what is the difference between "actuality" and "potentiality?"

    The dad puzzles like Aristotle and says OK this is strange but I want you to go to your mother and your brother and ask them both is they would sleep with Brad Pitt for $1 Million. The girl says wierd but tried it.

    She asks mom- would you sleep with Brad Pitt for $1 Million? Mom blushes- don't tell your dad but Brad Pitt- $1 million- sure I'd sleep with Brad Pitt for $1 million.

    Girl is in shock. Goes to brother: would you sleep with Brad Pitt for $1 Million? Brother blushes- well it's exactly my thing but Brad Pitt- $1 million- sure I'd sleep with Brad Pitt for $1 million.

    Girl still in shock goes to dad: They both said they would do it! Dad says now what does that teach you about "actuality" and "potentiality?"

    Girl says I get it! Potentially we're sitting on $2 million dollars- But Actually we live with two whores!

    Math lesson concluded we move forward with a description of an old Gahan Wilson cartoon: A happy Rabbit is in a coin op vending machine with the front end eating and the posterior end over the dispensing device pooping out pellets- The vending machines is labeled RAISINS 10 CENTS- the cartoon itself is labeled MARKETING.

    Maury Chautner always used to say an issue is anything that gets you votes.

    All the rest is timing.

  • John Silvertooth (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Oh the brother is supposed to say 'it's NOT exactly my thing..." ha ha- thanks to the pruf reeding deepartmnt.

  • (Show?)

    TESTING. Trying to determine if TypePad ate my previous comment. Feel free to erase this one.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I agree with these statements:

    Carla "I wish this exchange was actually enlightening on who is really the better candidate, tho. I don't think Kitz is corrupt and I don't think Bradbury thinks Kitz is corrupt.

    I actually thought that Kitz's answers on land-use were superlative and that Bradbury's positions on LNG and Boardman were better. This last part on donations didn't inform my decision very well, unfortunately."

    Gee--one candidate did well on one question, another on another question. What a concept!

    The whole comment of Posted by: paulie | Mar 31, 2010 12:37:17 PM---

    (how many Bradbury staffers are looking at this and saying "Yep! That's exactly the debate we wanted to have"?)

    And the comment Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Mar 31, 2010 12:50:59 PM

    This whole debate proves Bradbury would be a good Gov. because...........?

    Chris, the definition of an effective strategy is who wins the election, and what it costs them.

    People looking for an intelligent debate and turned off by what Bradbury said and the way he said it (about a friend, after all---some of us have seen friendships destroyed by primary battles, others which took a long time to repair after a primary) are not likely to vote for Bradbury even if he were to uncover evidence that the donation was quid pro quo. Which I doubt (as much as I doubt there was a quid pro quo between Bradbury and that executive from Chicago Sweeteners who gave Bradbury $10,000).

    Bill takes the risk of people who have followed Kitzhaber (incl. those who are not currently activists) over the years saying "Bradbury thinks that cantankerous Kitzhaber can be bought for $10,000 ???"

    TA is right, "is Bradbury so desperate to win that he's willing to trash a friendship for it?

    and if he is, that sure doesn't speak well for his character, as a person or leader."

    Don't kid yourself. There are people who see attacking a friend (esp. in a live debate after serious discussion of issues) as a character flaw. People have changed their votes over less.

    Many people have a limited amount of time to contribute to political activism. And if the Schrader campaign or the St. Treasurer campaign, or a legislative or local campaign looks more interesting, no one is required to devote X number of hours to the Gov. nominee.

    Matter of fact, some of us old timers remember when exactly that sort of thing happened. Really exciting congressional campaign (ended up losing by something like 7 votes per precinct) and a Gov. campaign which seemed to do one stupid thing after another. Quietly (known to other activists, more than any coverage in the press or polls) people started dropping off volunteering for the Gov. campaign and turning their attention to the congressional campaign. Gov. candidate lost.

    A long time ago, an Oregon politician said the difference between a gamble and a long shot is that you know the odds are long in a longshot--but you know what the odds are. A gamble is where you don't know the odds.

    Methinks the Bradbury campaign made a gamble--that comments like Paulie's would be a minority opinion.

    "...excited staffer assigned to do opposition research on all things Kitzhaber. Oh the glee, the rubbing of palms, the political calculations, the advantages, the disadvantages..gains, loses...but how about the character of the man who ultimately made the final decision to throw the punch."

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Just read an interesting item on Jeff Mapes blog.

    "Oregon joins states in opposing private petition signatures By Jeff Mapes, The Oregonian March 31, 2010, 10:36AM The state of Oregon has joined 17 states in a legal brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that signatures on initiative and referendum petitions should remain a public record."

    Wonder what the former Sec. of State thinks of that.

    Joshua---if tomorrow the Bradbury campaign is still more interested in the contribution to Kitzhaber than it is in issues, I'd say they were guilty of gross misjudgement and not "getting unfair treatment".

    One does not have to go back too far to find a primary candidate who carried on about an issue like this for too long (a minute spent on an attack is a minute not spent discussing actual issues) and lost.

  • Mr. Read (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I suspect both candidates and their campaigners are wishing today, for different reasons, they could erase the whole episode.

    Take this exchange out of the record, and I think we'd be talking about Alley Alley's introduction, which made a convoluted case for mechanical engineers being more valuable than polar bears, and polar bears more valuable than cougars. I think...?

    At the very least, since Alley portrayed this enlightening episode as a conversation between himself and his teenage daughter, it's left me very very reluctant to put Alley in position to influence education policy in Oregon.

    Also disturbing were Alley's comment that he thinks about "cost" first -- in dollars. Yes, Mr. Alley, old growth fir trees make wonderfully green building products. But could you get out your calculator and tell us what is the cost of cutting down an old growth forest?

    And while Alley is doing cost-benefit analysis regarding polar bears and cougars, perhaps he should tell us what is the cost of an extinct species?

    Alley's grating attempts to push us to calculate how much CO2 humans emit, compared to cows or cars, would have some relevance -- if Mr. Alley proposed a plan to reduce humans. As it is, he's not even interested in reducing cars.

    And he submits "market forces" and technology will solve our environmental problems. Market forces had something to do with the crash of Mr. Alley's stock in Pixelworks. Because all market forces tell us is folks want to make a profit. History shows us profits have come before preserving the environment over and over again.

    Regardless of the outcome of the Democratic primary, I'll still be voting for the Democrat in the fall. Alley or Dudley would be a disaster.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Thank you, Mr. Read, for your rational comment.

  • (Show?)

    Carla wrote:

    Fair enough. But then Kitzhaber's reaction was as if Bradbury hit a major raw nerve.

    Ya think? If it had been me, you'd have to restrain me from decking the guy.

    Seriously, alleging that your opponent - someone you've described as a friend and a mentor - is corrupt... yeah, that's going to hit a raw nerve.

  • (Show?)

    I don't think Kitz is corrupt and I don't think Bradbury thinks Kitz is corrupt.

    And that's exactly my point. I don't think Bradbury thinks Kitzhaber is corrupt. But that's what he said -- and that's why he should retract it. Promptly.

  • (Show?)

    Chris Edmonds: Folks on the right have been doing this for years. In many ways, [attacking your opponent for something that you're vulnerable on too, is] actually an effective strategy.

    Folks on the right do have a penchant for doing this (or worse, trying to make a legitimate attack on them go away by lying about their opponent). But I disagree that it is an effective strategy. Even with the overwhelmingly GOP biased media, they haven't been doing too well lately.

  • (Show?)

    Jeff is right, as usual, on the reality of campaign contributions. Regardless of what Erik Sten may claim (and why someone would cite Sten on money and politics is beyond me), in most cases, campaign contributors give money to politicians that already agree with them. Academics have looked long and hard for evidence of influence via campaign contributions and in almost all cases, have come up dry (most work focuses on the US Congress with some in state legislatures).

    The one set of solid findings out there is that members who receive more donations from a particular interest group / PAC / etc. are more active in markup and committee hearings than those who received lower levels of funding.

    The reality is that campaign donations are not attempts to buy votes, they are attempts to buy a hearing. That's what most lobbyists want--a chance to make their case. Given the vast uncertainty regarding the impact of most public policies, that's all most lobbyists need.

  • Manufactured Outrage (unverified)
    (Show?)

    All of this manufactured outrage by the Kitzhaber camp is truly nauseous. It's called a CAMPAIGN people. Bill just had the temerity to actual question him.

    This manufactured outrage is designed to do three things:

    1) Divert attention to the fact a major polluter who has massively ramped up his discharge in the last 5 years is a major contributor of Kitzhaber and Kitzhaber called this guy an "Outstanding Oregonian".

    2) It is also designed to excuse Kitzhaber's way over the top reaction and his threatening of Bradbury when he thought the mic was off.

    3) Kitzhaber effectively compared the teachers of Oregon to this dirty polluter

    Now we have Kari threatening to deck Bill Bradbury. Kitzhaber threatening him. Good old boy network indeed. How DARE Bradbury question the good ol boy network.

    Spare me the outrage fellas. The fake "I have the vapors!" John Kitzhaber could have simply said "You know, I didn't know that Bill, let me get back to you."

    Instead he blew his top for no reason and brings into serious question his temperant for the campaign this fall.

  • (Show?)

    And that's exactly my point. I don't think Bradbury thinks Kitzhaber is corrupt. But that's what he said -- and that's why he should retract it. Promptly.

    No. As Alworth alluded, it's much more subtle than that and the truth lies somewhere in the middle--not at the poles of this conversation.

    On one of these threads, someone made the analogy that it would be like an Attorney General candidate taking money from a donor who is headed to court on something directly dealing with a branch of the AG's office. It doesn't necessarily mean that the candidate would oversee the case any differently. But it doesn't look good and the public doesn't generally like it.

    I suppose it's kind of like recusing yourself from a vote on a board or a commission in which you have an indirect financial stake. A non-corrupt person (like Kitzhaber) wouldn't determine his vote one way or the other based on the cash or the cost. But he would still recuse himself because it wouldn't appear above board otherwise. He's avoiding even the APPEARANCE of impropriety.

    This seems very similar to me.

    Again..this doesn't really inform my decision on which candidate to choose. I wish they'd talk more about land-use and green energy, frankly.

  • (Show?)

    Now we have Kari threatening to deck Bill Bradbury.

    I did nothing of the sort. I merely said that I'd be pretty damn angry if someone accused me of something similar.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    MO---the purpose of a campaign is to attack the opponent? That sounds like a great way (NOT!) to build support in the general election and have one's proposed solutions adopted into law!

    I have been involved in politics for decades, and known John and Bill since at least the mid-1980s.

    I am not a partisan in this race. However, had I been a Bradbury partisan from the beginning I would have called or sent an email within hours of the debate asking WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?
    Did you really believe such a stunt would work? Do you know how often such attacks backfire? You have now opened the door to anyone going on ORESTAR and looking up every Bradbury $10,000 donation, researching the giver, and then asking questions about the reasons behind the donation!

    An old friend has a saying which looks like it might apply here, "When they act like that, you know they know they are losing".

    I remember the 2002 Bradbury campaign. Was that the best run campaign in modern memory? Or were there stumbles?

    At very least, I consider this a stumble. By doing this Bradbury is not answering how many legislators support his tax expenditure ideas or Bank of Oregon.

    Exactly how does this episode convince the folks who are not paying close attention that Bradbury has all the answers?

    Or could it be that the upcoming budget problems are so troublesome that if Gov. Bradbury's Bank of Oregon and Tax Expenditure proposals zipped through the legislature by Feb. 2011 like a hot knife through butter that there would still be other budget problems?

    Does anyone know what the revenue forecasts will be in 2011?

    Kitzhaber took money from someone who contributed to Bradbury in 2002, but we should all jump on Kitzhaber and say Bradbury should win the primary?

    Anyone who thinks that is a winning strategy, I'd love to know what winning campaigns you worked on. I doubt very much this attack on Kitzhaber wins Bill the primary or the general election.

  • Manufactured Outrage (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Ummmm Kari -

    You said 5 comments up:

    "Ya think? If it had been me, you'd have to restrain me from decking the guy."

    Okay you did say you would deck him, you said you have to be restrained from decking him. Sorry.

  • Mr. Read (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "...if Bradbury hit a major raw nerve..."

    If Bradbury hit a raw nerve, he went through some pretty thin skin to get there.

    If Kitzhaber had kept his cool, he'd have won the day.

    But he reacted like a doctor being second-guessed by a nurse in front of his patient. Nurses only make that mistake once. They fear reprisal, and want to keep their jobs. Unfortunately, Kitzhaber's "the gloves are off" remark showed me a side of John Kitzhaber I'd rather not see.

    I don't agree with Kari's thesis that Bradbury's question was completely unfounded. Money buys access. And fear of money spent against your campaign hedges policy positions. That may account for Kitzhaber being in no hurry to close the Boardman coal plant, and wanting to have his cake and eat it too on LNG.

    In short, Kitzhaber will take Foti's phone calls down the road -- because of the contribution. And -- in the same vein of ducking active public support of M66 and M67 -- it appears Kitzhaber would like to reduce the amount of money spent against him in the fall if he becomes the nominee.

    I also think that money, and the access it secures, has to be factored into the discussion for gubernatorial candidates because the governor has the power to appoint folks to boards and commissions.

    One part of Kitzhaber's record that has been questioned in the past -- but I haven't seen it discussed anywhere in this campaign -- was his appointments to the Public Utility Commission that replaced consumer-advocate commissioners with commissioners more receptive to corporations, at a time when how to deal with Enron's crimes was at stake.

    Similar concerns have been raised about Kitzhaber's appointments to the Lottery Commission (by Steve Novick here). So, no, I don't think it's completely unfounded for Bradbury to raise the question of money in politics.

    That said, I do agree with Kari above that Bradbury putting forward a hardball question does seem "out of place with the usual happy-warrior attitude that usually defines Bill Bradbury." As with Kitzhaber, I saw a side of Bradbury I'd rather not see. It was not in keeping with the tone of his campaign or his character. And not vetted properly.

    I would say again, I suspect last night's episode is weighing heavily on both candidates and their campaign staffs. I'd rather see Democrats talking about how likeable, well-spoken, and completely misguided Allen Alley is.

  • (Show?)

    Out of curiousity... has Bill Bradbury ever raised concerns about the evils of money in politics prior to running against a better-funded opponent? I mention it because as Secretary of State he chose not to enforce Measure 47 which enacted some of the strictest campaign finance limits in the country whereas the SOS defended Measure 9 in 1994 which did the same when Kitzhaber was Governor.

    We could never get Bradbury on record as supporting contribution limits of any kind when we were drafting measure 47. Phil Keisling, his predecessor, and Kate Brown, his successor both support contribution limits.

  • Walpurgis (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "The logic in Bradbury's statement is clear: That by accepting a contribution, Kitzhaber would be unable or unwilling to enforce a violation. That's an allegation of corruption."

    That's one way to read it, sure.

    Here's another way: If Kitz takes the money, and then Mr. Foti undergoes a FAIR and IMPARTIAL process which exonerates him, it's going to look like a bribe to the general public AND to actual bad polluters.

    I know attorneys who have had to give up clients because they had an oblique conflict of interest. And you know what... it's NOT because they didn't think they would be biased. It's because you just don't want to GIVE THAT IMPRESSION. That's just prudent.

    And two other things with regards to the politics...

    First, I think that's a fair question given the fact that every large endorsement Kitzhaber's gotten has been accompanied by a press release explaining how closely he's going to work with such-and-such association. Are we to assume that if Mr. Foti had "Association" after his name, he'd have yielded a similar press release?

    I don't think that's an allegation of being corrupt... just that so far there's been a pattern of Kitzhaber very publicly matching his endorsements/contributions to the supporters' aims and objectives. So I think it's fair to ask whether this is a break in that pattern.

    Secondly, let's not pretend that there wasn't an inside baseball game going on after the OEA endorsement where the Kitzhaber camp was stoking a story about how it would give Bradbury the perception of being in the pocket of the big education unions.

    And incidentally, Bradbury's comment wasn't posed as an accusation: it was posed as a "why" QUESTION. A question that seasoned readers will note that Kitzhaber never answered. Good pivot!

  • Walpurgis (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "...chose not to enforce Measure 47"

    Because he instead chose to uphold the Oregon Constitution, as provided by his Oath of Office.

    He was Secretary of State - not a judge.

  • (Show?)

    To the best of my knowledge, no court has ever held any part of measure 47 unconstitutional so what part of the Oregon Constitution grants the SOS the authority to assume the judicial function that you agree he assumed in his role as SOS?

    But again, has Secretary Bradbury ever taken a position in favor of limiting money in politics prior to this campaign? I honestly don't know the answer to that.

  • (Show?)

    If Bradbury hit a raw nerve, he went through some pretty thin skin to get there.

    I'm gonna have my Grandma stitch this one up as a doily and hang it on the wall......

  • (Show?)

    If either the Secretary of State or Attorney General were enforcing Measure 47 (2006), which no court has held to be unconstitutional, then Mr. Bradbury would not even have been able to raise the issue of the $10,000 contribution to the Kitzhaber campaign. Measure 47 limits each individual, including Mr. Foti, to a $500 contribution to any campaign for Governor during the primary phase (and another $500 for the general election phase). It also bans all corporate contributions, so Mr. Foti could not contribute more via his corporation.

    Here is an interesting twist: Mr. Bradbury, as Secretary of State, was expressly assigned in Measure 47 the responsibility for enforcing its provisions (as was the Attorney General). Measure 47 took effect in December 2006. Bradbury refused to enforce any of its limits for the remaining 2-year duration of his term (2007-08). Thus, after refusing to enforce voter-enacted limits on political contributions, he now apparently believes that such contributions have an inherently corrupting influence. Then why did he refuse to enforce Measure 47?

    And a question for Mr. Kitzhaber: Should Measure 47's limits be enforced, unless and until it is found unconstitutional by the courts? You could distinguish yourself from Mr. Bradbury by answering "yes" to that question.

  • Jesse O (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Words are dangerous things, especially how you are trying to bend them.

    Bradbury noted correctly that Foti gave a bunch of money. And Foti's company is a major polluter.

    Now, either you think that is a problem, in the way it gives Foti access to Kitzhaber and makes a more sympathetic government response more likely (which is only human, as we give that to those we consider our friends and those who we believe share our values). Or you think that Kitzhaber will act impartially, and is somehow inhuman.

    Me, I think the former. Now, hopefully Kitzhaber will insulate himself, and refuse to treat calls from donors differently than calls from others, or somehow delegate review of cases like Foti's company to others.

    But that won't work, because, as we all well know, anyone who gives $10,000 can get access. That's politics.

    The only saving grace is that now Kitzhaber, who will be Governor, has to bend over backward to look like he's not giving Foti favors. It's good that it's been raised, even though Bradbury should have noted his own contribution received back in the day (though his Senate role would have been much more removed from reviewing polluters than Governor).

    To call it an allegation of corruption is irresponsible hyberbole.

  • (Show?)

    If Kitzhaber had kept his cool, he'd have won the day.

    But he reacted like a doctor being second-guessed by a nurse in front of his patient. Nurses only make that mistake once. They fear reprisal, and want to keep their jobs. Unfortunately, Kitzhaber's "the gloves are off" remark showed me a side of John Kitzhaber I'd rather not see.

    Yup. This one nails it.

  • Joshua Welch (unverified)
    (Show?)

    LT:

    I'm not accusing anyone of intentionally being harder on Bradbury. What I am saying is that I have followed BO for a while and it looks to me as though there has been thorough critical analysis of Bradbury (which is welcomed) but a glaring lack of criticism of Kitzhaber. Maybe I'm wrong, but it sure looks that way to me and apparently I'm not the only one that thinks so.

    I do think that who gives you money qualifies as an "actual issue"

  • Chris Edmonds (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Steve:

    I certainly wasn't advocating the use of this tactic. It isn't in the best interests of the electorate. But it has proven successful for some in the past, as John Kerry learned in 2004. Let's hope that both of these campaigns remain focused on the issues that matter to Oregonians.

  • Manufactured Outrage (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kitzhaber has a notorious temper and short fuse and we saw it on display on Tuesday night in response to a perfectly legitimate question.

    Kitzhaber, and his mouthpieces like Kari and Steve Novick, have one strategy in this primary. Make as little noise as possible and draw as few distinctions as possible between him and Bradbury. If he does that, he wins.

    His question to Bradbury was completely condescending to both Bradbury and the audience who came to hear real, substantive policy discussion. Not a buddy, buddy chum fest.

    Bradbury had the temerity to ask a tough question. Just because they are friends should have no bearing on whether he would ask that question. Answer this Kari and co: if this was a Republican who had taken this money from a notorious polluter would you be as equally outraged? Would you be calling for him to apologize? I don't think so. It's a campaign. Tough questions are asked and answered.

    A question that Kitzhaber, in all the bluster in the past 24 hours, has still failed to answer. Why would he take $10,000 (which is 5 times more than any contribution Frank Foti has ever given) from a notorious polluter and when confronted with that fact call him an "Outstanding Oregonian" per what Jeff Mapes wrote?

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Joshua, am I being critical of Bradbury when I ask why he takes money from a sweetener company exec. from Chicago?

  • (Show?)

    M.O. what is your association to the Bradbury campaign?

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Just now I was on the SJ website looking for that article I read in print about how local school districts reacted to Gov. Kulongoski saying school districts shouldn't spend the money they got recently, they should put it in reserves.

    A large school district said they understood the importance of reserves, a smaller district said they would likely have to dip into reserves just to maintain a full school year (could that have anything to do with the cost of bus fuel in a rural district?).

    Before I found that article, I found this: http://www.statesmanjournal.com/article/20100331/UPDATE/100331020

    Apparently Bradbury will not be at the Gov. debate scheduled at Salem's historic Mission Mill Museum.

    MO--maybe you or your friends at the Bradbury campaign can explain that. Is it a scheduling problem? Was there miscommunication and he always was scheduled to be somewhere else?

    Too bad Salem residents won't be able to ask him to his face why it was wrong for Kitzhaber to accept money from a contributor to Bradbury for US Senate.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    One more thing--a diff. point of view on all this.

    Priceless comment on http://www.naturaloregon.org/2010/03/31/the-best-and-worst-of-the-debate/

    And yeah, I though Bill’s question for Kitz was a little backhanded, but he’s in a position where he needs to be making distinctions wherever he can if he hopes to get the nomination. Kind of reminds me of the 2008 Senate primary debate at the Eugene City Club, when Novick asked Sen. Merkley, “when you made that statement on the radio, did your pants catch fire?”

    For those who have forgotten, the map of those primary results.

    http://www.oregonlive.com/special/index.ssf/2008/05/senate.html

  • Grant Schott (unverified)
    (Show?)

    There are very few politicans who have successfully won legislative seats and statewide office, and who have run for both the US House and Senate (as in the case of Bill Bradbury) who can make these allegations with a straight face.

    As I recall, Bill raised as much as Lynn Snodgrass in a hard fought and close 2000 SOS race. I think we are all thrilled that he did that and ended Snodgrass's political career. I was a proud donor to Bill's campaign.

    It is too bad that Oregon is one of the few states with no campaign fundraising limits, but I am also glad that we only had to endure one cycle ('96) of the ridiculosuly low $100 legislative and $500 statewide limits that did not include public financing. Real smart, Common Cause- the money was simply spent in the form of Independent Expenditures.

    Candidates need to raise money to run their campaigns, and, unless we come up with public financing, this is how the game is played.

  • (Show?)

    Mr. Manufactured Outrage --

    You seem to be confusing my hypothetical with an actual threat.

    I said, "If it had been me, you'd have to restrain me from decking the guy."

    I did not threaten Bill Bradbury. Good lord. Talk about manufactured outrage.

  • Kurt Hagadakis (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Bottom line, I agree with Erik Sten and Carla.

    So, here's one of the reasons that some people refuse to believe that party faithful can be progressives. In this thread there has been a perfect correlation- how often do you see that- between the writer's loyalty to the Democratic Party of America, and their tendency to use criminal assault as a metaphor for discussing the exchange.

    Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Mar 31, 2010 2:46:49 PM Ya think? If it had been me, you'd have to restrain me from decking the guy. ... Posted by: paulie | Mar 31, 2010 12:37:17 PM

    Oh the glee, the rubbing of palms, the political calculations, the advantages, the disadvantages..gains, loses...but how about the character of the man who ultimately made the final decision to throw the punch. ... Kari Chisholm

    Near the end of last night's gubernatorial debate on the environment, Bill Bradbury threw a hard punch at John Kitzhaber. ... Posted by: Carla Axtman | Mar 31, 2010 11:31:46 AM

    Bradbury was definitely trying to land a punch. No doubt about it. ...

    To imagine a language is to imagine a form of life. The form of life your language pictures doesn't correspond well to the one experienced by true progressives.

  • (Show?)

    The reality is that campaign donations are not attempts to buy votes, they are attempts to buy a hearing. That's what most lobbyists want--a chance to make their case. Given the vast uncertainty regarding the impact of most public policies, that's all most lobbyists need.

    Paul, I think all of that is true. However, I would argue that one of the biggest issue is not the buying of votes, but the culture of fear that is created when a legislator or statewide officeholder steps too far out of line with deep pocket donors.

    Bob Jenson, Greg Smith, Greg MacPherson, and Vic Backlund are a few recent examples of people who are now cautionary tales in Oregon politics of what happens when you get crosswise with major funders.

    Also, I'm not sure how an academic could easily measure legislative outcomes as a result of undue influence.

    For example, how does one know that some particular piece of legislation never saw the light of day because some powerful group that never had to take a public position leaned on a committee chair?

    Also, how would an academic measure the influence of a group that may not contribute to a particular legislator directly, but whose financial influence is so pervasive that such individual contributions are irrelevant because they effectively "control the landscape"?

  • (Show?)

    Also, Paul, I'm guessing that Sten is quote-worthy on the issue of money in politics as one of the main champions of Portland's public financing system. As a public officeholder, he consistently supported efforts to limit campaign contributions and is as well-versed as anyone on the issue of campaign finance reform.

  • (Show?)

    Sal

    Quote worthy is a Ronald Reagan-esque quality. I'd prefer knowledgeable.

  • (Show?)

    Sorry Sal, the caffeine hasn't kicked in yet! My response was too glib. As to the rest of your response, you're right, it's a hard thing to measure. If you're interested in the best academic work, look up Rick Hall at Michigan. They get at some of what you are interested in by attending hearings, watching participation rates, tracking bills, etc.

    But yes, measuring influence that takes place behind closed doors, is not reflected in any actual behavior, or keeps legislation from being proposed in the first place is virtually impossible to track.

    The point remains, the common notion that money buys votes is not accurate.

  • (Show?)

    Paul - Worrying about being snarky with me is like worrying that a butcher will be offended by the sight of red meat. But thanks though. I'll stand by my comment about Erik Sten. He took the time to become very knowledgeable about campaign finance regulation when he and Blackmer were working on Portland's system.

  • Walpurgis (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Dan Meek said: "Measure 47 took effect in December 2006. Bradbury refused to enforce any of its limits for the remaining 2-year duration of his term (2007-08). ... Then why did he refuse to enforce Measure 47?"

    Dan Meek: You are knowingly shoveling BS.

    In 2006, on BlueOregon, you clarified WHY Measure 46 needed to pass alongside Measure 47 for it to take effect.

    You said: "The Oregon Supreme Court in 1997 ruled that the Oregon Constitution does not allow any limits on political contributions or expenditures, period."

    Measure 46 failed. So you KNOW that it would have been unconstitutional for Bradbury to try to enforce Measure 47. And yet you're holding his feet to the fire here for refusing to do something you KNEW was unconstitutional?

    Intellectual honesty fail.

  • John Silvertooth (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'm dreaming of a white Christmas some where over the rainbow where blue birds fly...

  • (Show?)

    I sure cannot find that quote you attribute to me anywhere on BlueOregon. I welcome a judicial review of Measure 47 to determine whether it is constitutional. The problem with Mr. Bradbury's actions is that he refused to enforce Measure 47, even without any court determining any part of it to be unconstitutional.

    Here is what I also said in 2006, as reported in the Portland Mercury (http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/2006/11/12-week/):

    "I disagree that the substantive provisions of Measure 47 can be disregarded. The [Secretary of State's] letter assumes that all of the limits on political contributions are unconstitutional, without any judicial determination of that conclusion. The reasoning in the letter appears to be circular, and assumes the existence of a court decision on Measure 47 that does not exist,” said Meek.

    "The letter appears to seek to preclude any court determination of the validity of the limits," noted Meek. "We believe that the 1997 Oregon Supreme Court decision (on Measure 9 of 1994) is not immune from revisiting."

    The "free speech" clause of the Oregon Constitution was in 1857 copied from the Constitution of Indiana, and Indiana which has very low and strict limitations on political contributions by corporations and unions. Also, 27 other states have "free speech" clauses in their constitutions that are virtually identical to Oregon's. Each of them declares that every person has the right "to speak, write, or print freely on any subject." Some of them use the word "publish" instead of "print," but they are otherwise the same as Oregon's. Of these 28 states, all but one (New Mexico) have limits on political contributions, and no state supreme court has ruled that their constitutions preclude such limits.

    In addition, the following provisions in Measure 47 do not constitute limits on political contributions and should be implemented immediately:

    a. Every campaign advertisement funded by "independent expenditures" must prominently disclose the top 5 contributors to the "independent" campaign, the businesses they are engaged in, and the amounts contributed by each of them.

    b. Every candidate who spends more than $5,000 of personal money on a campaign for public office must disclose in every subsequent campaign ad the amount of personal money being spent on the campaign.

    c. Every contributor of $500+ per year must obtain a "handle" from the Secretary of State, so that her future contributions can be more accurately recorded.

    d. The Secretary of State must "make available on the Internet in an interactive database format all contribution and expenditure reports" within 5 business days of getting the data.

    e. No employer can "provide or promise any benefit or impose or threaten any detriment due to the fact that an employee or contractor did or did not make [political] contributions or expenditures." Any employee subjected to this "shall have a civil cause of action against the violator and shall, upon proof of violation, recover a civil penalty of not less than $50,000 per incident of violation."

    f. Campaign contributions not used in the campaign shall revert to the State Treasury to help pay for the Voters' Pamphlet. Such funds cannot be amassed in "war chests" and then used in a subsequent election or to support or oppose some other candidate later.

    And even New Mexico adopted campaign contribution limits in 2009. Also, my legal research since 2006 shows that Measure 47 is so different from Measure 9 of 1994 that the 1997 Oregon Supreme Court opinion does not rightfully apply to Measure 47. I will send the briefs to anyone who requests them via [email protected] And, as I predicted in 2006 (above), the Court's 1997 decision is not inviolate. I filed an extensive amicus brief in the recent case involving Oregon's $50 limit on gifts from lobbyists to public officials or candidates. In its decision in that case, the Oregon Supreme Court on December 31, 2009, expressly repudiated an important part of its 1997 decision on political campaign limits.

    "Because that premise--restricting campaign contributions restricts the ability to communicate political messages--is in question here, two other clarifying comments are necessary. First, the court’s statement in <u>Vannatta I</u> [1997] that campaign contributions were constitutionally protected forms of expression regardless of the "ultimate use to which the contribution is put" was unnecessary to the court’s holding. On further reflection, we conclude that that observation was too broad and must be withdrawn.

    It is not the privilege of the Secretary of State to refuse to enforce a law, duly enacted by the voters, unless and until at least one court (if not the highest court in the state) rules it to be unconstitutional. No court has done so with regard to Measure 47. That is a difference between Mr. Bradbury and his predecessor, Phil Keisling. Mr. Keisling enforced Measure 9 (1994), until the Oregon Supreme Court ruled parts of it to be unconstitutional. Mr. Keisling defended the voter-enacted measure in court, which Mr. Bradbury also refused to do. Measure 47 now deserves judicial review, which Mr. Bradbury sought to preclude, as noted in the long quotation above.

  • (Show?)

    Also, re Paul G's comments, large campaign contributors do not need to "buy votes" of legislators. Instead, they largely select who wins. In races for the Oregon Legislature, the winner is the candidate who spends the most money on the race, well over 90% of the time. If the big donors can select the person who will win the race, they do not subsequently need to "buy votes" on particular issues. The (s)elected person is already in tune with the interests of those who put up the big bucks.

  • (Show?)

    Dan, the 2006 comment cited above can be found here. I was able to find it using our backend search tool (not sure why Google can't find it.)

  • Kurt Hagadakis (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Posted by: anon | Mar 31, 2010 11:28:12 AM

    If a Republican had accepted that contribution you guys would convict him of environmental terrorism and hang him from the yard arm.

    Who is "you guys"? Do we that are much further left than BO simply not exist or do right and middle both "just ignore it"? Hard to tell "you guys" apart, for us. Most humans look alike. We've been talking about the industry in question being the real white powder menace, AND decrying all monetary influence. For us Brad made a mere scratch. Should have said, "yes, I am saying you're morally suspect". And to Kari, "are you really going to assault me, as I stand on braces, for believing that?" Yeah, those TEA partiers are pretty rude and violent.

    Intellectual honesty fail.

    Memo to devotees of herd-speak: using "fail" in a post gives you a "fail" for bona fide discussion. See "on crack". Purely linguistic note.

    Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Apr 1, 2010 10:58:53 PM

    Dan, the 2006 comment cited above can be found here. I was able to find it using our backend search tool (not sure why Google can't find it.)

    Typepad has been expiring the page and manipulating the google cache for about 2 years, now. If you google something soon after it's posted, it will be cached longer, but if it simply expires, they all go away in a few weeks. Currently, according to Google, "Zarathustra" posted a grand total of 3 times to Blue Oregon.

    Suits me. I can remember people's quotes to within about 3 weeks of the remark, and your archives are still there, so it effectively means that I can quote people easier than they can quote me. Tried to mention this when they changed it. The "meta" tags in the header could control all that behavior.

    backend search tool

    Not to be confused with "pulling it out of your ass".

  • Walpurgis (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Memo to devotees of herd-speak: using "fail" in a post gives you a "fail" for bona fide discussion."

    Same on you for "herd-speak."

  • (Show?)

    Kari, can you make your back-end tool available to users so we can find old stuff that Google has lost?

    If the Measure 46 constitutional amendment had also passed, there would be no uncertainty about the validity of the limits in Measure 47. Since it did not, it is the responsibility of executive branch officeholders to enforce the law that voters have enacted, until and unless the courts find it to be invalid. No court has done that for Measure 47. So Mr. Bradbury should have enforced Measure 47's limits during his final 2 years in office.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "responsibility of executive branch officeholders to enforce the law that voters have enacted, until and unless the courts find it to be invalid"

    Does that also apply to the legislature?

    I still think it was stupid/cowardly for the mid-1990s legislature to put Measure 50 out to the ballot instead of first having a court challenge to Measure 47.

    Or are you saying that is only true about a ballot measure you were involved with?

  • Kurt Hagadakis (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Posted by: Walpurgis | Apr 2, 2010 3:33:24 PM

    "Memo to devotees of herd-speak: using "fail" in a post gives you a "fail" for bona fide discussion."

    Same on you for "herd-speak."

    I don't get it. "Fail" is dittohead. Have you ever come across "herd-speak" before? The point is that if your rhetoric is dittohead that disqualifies it from being your own considerations, and hence, not a bona fide debate.

    Anyone that bothers to post on here has ideas. I bristle at the thought of vacuous language obscuring them, rather than the person taking a few extra moments to paint it with their own brush strokes.

  • (Show?)

    LT, it does not apply to the Legislature. In Oregon, the Legislature consists of both the legislative assembly and the people using the initiative and referendum processes. The Legislature makes the law and can change it whenever it wants, subject to constitutional limitations.

    The Legislature having established the law, it is the duty of the executive branch to carry out the laws, unless and until a court of appropriate jurisdiction rules the law unconstitutional. The Legislature does not enforce the laws.

    This applies equally to all ballot measures, yes.

    BTW, the Measure 47 you refer to is not the campaign finance reform Measure 47 (2006). Oregon only allows statewide measures to be numbered 1-99 and then starts over. The Measure 47 you refer to was Measure 47 (1996).

  • waIIy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Since [Measure 46 failed], it is the responsibility of executive branch officeholders to enforce the law that voters have enacted, until and unless the courts find it to be invalid."

    But Dan, you said yourself that the Supreme Court ruled on that issue already: "period". If not, then pray tell WHY did you bother gathering signatures on Measure 46?

    "Have you ever come across "herd-speak" before?"

    Are you kidding? Yes! I know that saying, "I've heard that plenty of times in Portland, usually from in between a beret and a black turtleneck." won't really hold water... so here are some links:

    [It ocurrs to me that perhaps BO has a filter that doesn't allow huge lists of URLs to be posted. A person could just google "herd speak" and find that the phrase has been being used in the relevant context quite widely.]

    <h2>Originality fail.</h2>

connect with blueoregon