Ethics Bomb

So when Speaker Merkley says "We're putting an end to that" it's just a lot of feel-good, inconsequential rhetoric-based fluff that does nothing of the sort.

That's a strategy for beating Smith and no business as usual? Very disappointing.

A bit of expansion on the quotation of me in the article:

Instead of giving a "gift," the lobbyist can give absolutely unlimited contributions to the campaign committee of the legislator, even if he or she never runs for office again. The legislator can use that money for the usual purposes of a gift: a vacation in Hawaii, tickets to sporting events, trips to hunting lodges, etc., as long as those outings are accompanied by one or more lobbyists or other potential campaign contributors. It is legal to spend campaign money on attempts to raise more campaign money. It also legal to spend it on trips to meet with lobbyists to discuss legislation. All of these loopholes apply to all elected officials.

ORS 260.005(7) allows political campaign funds to be expended "for any reason." This includes spending campaign funds in order to meet with lobbyists or potential contributors of additional campaign funds, no matter where (such as Hawaii or at a Blazer game). If that is not broad enough, ORS 260.407 then allows the candidate or committee to spend money that is "in excess of any amount necessary to defray campaign expenditures." Such money can be:

1. "used to defray any expenses incurred in connection with the recipient's duties as a holder of public office" (such as an apartment in Salem, restaurant meals during the session, etc.);

2. "transferred to any national, state or local political committee of any political party"; or

3. contributed to any nonprofit corporation.

What the nonprofit corporation does with the money is unregulated, except that is has to be spent for the nonprofit purpose. Among those purposes is supporting or opposing ballot measures and placing paid advertising about public issues.

Merkley knew exactly how to craft this bill to rub snake-oil in the public eye. Now he is running for Smith's job, while Smith is a retard Merkley's sleight of hand politics is even worse.

Now that the rules are clarified I just want to point out that the daveforpdx committee is still accepting contributions.... I've never been to Hawaii

If the second half of my comment had made it into the article on the new state ethics law, there would have been no surprise regarding the one concern I raised about the legislation. One provision of the new gift limits appears to be overly broad, but I also said that in such major overhaul of Oregon’s ethics law it should not be unexpected that tweaks may be needed.

In general the fact that lobbyists are trying to overturn the stronger gift restrictions is a good clue that those provisions aren’t toothless. As the article also indicates, SB 10 improves the timeliness of reporting lobbying spending starting in 2008 as well as development of Internet access to the public. Another key provision of the bill is a new funding approach for the ethics commission that helps insulate its budget from political machinations. (Full disclosure, the group I head up, Democracy Reform Oregon, formerly Money in Politics Research Action Project, has been working on the funding mechanism and lobbying disclosure improvements since the 2003 legislative session.)

The obvious next steps are campaign finance reform and tighter rules to ensure that campaign contributions are used for campaign expenses. It would have been helpful, however, if the discussion about use of campaign funds had been more informative.

First, SB 10 bans the use of campaign dollars to pay for ethics fines and legal fees related to ethics charges. This is the use of campaign funds issue most closely connected to the ethics focus of that legislation.

One next step is to limit pass through contributions between political committees. The most legally defensible place for those rules, however, is in a broader campaign contribution limits proposal where they prevent attempts to get around the limits. Just as past contribution limits proposals have not included ethics reforms, not including campaign finance limits in an ethics bill shouldn’t be surprising. In a perfect world, campaign finance reform would have come first. But that isn’t the world we live in. A major reason for my organization’s interest in SB 10’s tighter gift limits related to how it would move the debate on campaign finance reform. But let’s be real, these are two topics best suited to separate pieces of legislation. Keep up the drumbeat for campaign finance reform, but it isn’t helpful to that discussion to say that topic should have also been addressed in SB 10.

Also needed are tighter rules on campaign funds being used for expenses related to holding office.

But let’s have another “let’s be real” moment… Oregon pays legislators less than what I’ve paid staff in my small non-profit. When I’ve sent staff, however, to do work that requires an overnight stay, we reimburse them - and if we didn’t, I’d expect a demand for higher pay. It also shouldn’t be any surprise that legislators from districts beyond commuting distance from Salem rent apartments during the legislative session and all too often those costs aren’t adequately covered by per diem payments.

All we do is discourage people of modest means from running for legislative office by not revising reimbursement policies to reflect a “rural fairness” differential or providing adequate pay. Until those steps are taken, nobody should be surprised that campaign funds supplement legislator expenses.

There are already restrictions on use of campaign funds for personal use that address lavish family vacations or home renovations that bear no relationship to campaigning. Another useful background fact is that the Elections Division for a while now has notified legislators that if they use campaign funds for travel expenses but then accept reimbursement, they must repay their campaigns. In other words, this form of double dipping has already been addressed. I believe this was the basis for Senator Ginny Burdick repaying her campaign for those car insurance payments.

Thinking about different “now they might” scenarios about campaign funds being used for trips or entertainment with tenuous ties to either official business or campaigning is worthwhile. But it will be interesting to see the extent to which campaign funds are really used to replace entertainment or wining and dining previously paid for by lobbyists whose activities are now restricted by SB 10. After all the press and electoral opponents scrutinize campaign spending reports. And how will donors respond if they realize their dollars are now paying for such activities. Indeed, I don’t think it is any coincidence that the legislator whose election night celebration reportedly included a trip to a strip club no longer has an office in Salem. Continued coverage of questionable use of campaign funds, I believe, led to this legislator being eased out of taking another run for re-election as well as the action noted earlier to address double dipping payments for travel expenses.

Nevertheless, shifts in campaign spending may occur. So during recent rulemaking I requested that the Elections Division put into place additional campaign spending reporting requirements to help identify those expenditures beginning in 2008. That request has been honored and it should provide helpful information on which to base additional reform steps.

Of course there is more that needs to be done after SB 10, but let’s be clear about steps regarding use of campaign funds that have been taken as well as actions underway to facilitate more reforms.

But let’s have another “let’s be real” moment… All we do is discourage people of modest means from running for legislative office by not revising reimbursement policies to reflect a “rural fairness” differential or providing adequate pay.

I'm all for raising salaries, but let's have another "let's be real moment." The scandal isn't in legitimate expenses related to serving. It's the wholesale selling of our legislature to lobbyists as a fundamental and absolutely bedrock principal of the way we run our state government. I care less that someone went to a strip club --oh the horror-- then that a Rick Metzger is on the payroll of the "beverage" industry in Hawaii...and we nod, with solemnity, that that's OK, he has to make a living SOMEHOW.

The issue isn't "reporting." The issue is who owns our government. And it feels less like "we the people" all the time.

Frank is right. Always the blame game from the legislature's. The pandering and desire for personal more is disgusting. And the thinly disguise hiding corporation control is nauseating. Most of these bums want full time, big salary jobs, hence meeting every year.