From today's Oregon Catalyst post.
Posts
Comments
| July 11: A revolution led by the liberal general and politician, José Santos Zelaya, takes over state power in Nicaragua (1893), former U.S. President William Howard Taft is sworn in as 10th Chief Justice of SCOTUS, becoming the only person to ever be both President and Chief Justice (1921), Franklin D. Roosevelt announces that he will run for a fourth term as President of the U.S. (1944); b: Carl Schmitt (1888) |  |
... used by Barack Obama when he trained ACORN community organizers: 'Rules for Radicals' by the late socialist Saul Alinsky
Posts
Comments
38 comments:
OT: Gordon Smith voted with the Democrats just a shoirt while ago on S.J.Res. 9 the joint resolution to revise United States policy on Iraq.
So now Smith is officially on record for "cutting and running". Thoughts?
There are so many union hacks, officers and ex-officials in the Oregon legislature. It's supposed to be a secret.
I'm glad the Communists of Oregon have been exposed-VICKI BERGER please move to China or Cuba, THEY need you, we do NOT.
Dearest Anon Troll,
My thoughts on Gordon Smith.
He's going to win and go back to represent Oregon well this next election cycle.
Most of us at NW Republican support his decision to remove a blank check from the President.
There is also a wide berth of difference between Gordon Smith's conscience driven policy choice and the "Cut and Run" beliefs of Blumenauer and Murma.
Hey Morons,
Do the same thing next time only with Oregon Industry, or Loggers Association, or the Farm Bureau, etc...
AnonMoron,
Hey Moron, have you ever seen comparisons on giving? Guess who the largest political contributor in Oregon is?
Unions... More specifically Public Employee Unions (PEUs).
Oh and just what intrusive legislation has the Farm Bureau or Loggers Association passed?
Meanwhile the legislature is passing a massive takeover of health insurance and jeapordizing smaller school districts... why? To funnel more dollars to the OEA.
Hey Moron? Wow that was three strikes in one short comment. Oh and it was merely minutes after your ill-informed and moronic comment.
Sorry to spank you so quickly and severly.
Yip Yip
What did Chuck Riley raise as funds.
According to Oregon Follow the Money Riley raised a total $238,000. A strong portion of this supposedly is in kind so his cash is below this.
So Mr. Moron, your telling me that there are other politicians that pulled 25% of a 200K budget from one source. There is a great deal of difference between Chuck Riley's CandE's and just about every other candidate who ran. Now these Union investments seem to be paying out.
They said it. The House the OEA built. Bought and paid for.
Since nearly 2/3rds of the Republican caucus in the house voted yes on increasing the corporate kicker (the $270 million described in Ross Day's hit piece), one wonders how long it will take Freedom Works to circulate a similar mailer in Republican districts?
Or is it time to file a complaint with the IRS to investigate their C4 status in Oregon?
Anon4:03 - Are you also prepared to criticize Larry George for transferring $451,000 as treasurer of the Oregon Family Farm Association to George Consulting -- his own marketing firm (both OFFA and George Consulting are headquartered at his home in Newberg).
The guy is a wholly-owned subsidiary -- politically and professionally of the gang that broght us FreedomWorks, Oregonians in Action, and the financiers of OFFA.
Hey Moron, have you ever seen comparisons on giving? Guess who the largest political contributor in Oregon is?
In 2006, it was the insurance lobby, followed by the Republican Governor's Association, followed by the OEA, followed by Oregon Right to Life, followed by the timber industry.
The biggest individual donor was Richie Rich, who financed the slate of Ross Day's crappy initiatives that were roundly spanked by Oregon voters.
During the last campaign, Republican candidates received nearly $2 million more than Democratic candidates in House legislative races, and your gubernatorial candidate outspent Kulongoski by nearly 2-1.
You can piss and moan about plenty of things: Unions buying the elections for Democrats is not one of them. Your side had much more money to work with in 2006, but the voters in this state just didn't buy what you've got to sell.
Jefferson
Don't worry the Club for Growth is there to take care of the Republicans who raised taxes.
As for your statistics. A little self selective and out of context.
Drop off ballot measures and only focus on candidates (insurance was fighting a ballot measure single handedly). Who is the largest donors to candidates. Hmmmm, OEA, SEIU, and AFLCIO.
And house seats were highly fought over. If you drop the Minnis-Brading race and include the Senate seats in play I'd be curious to see how your stat turns out.
Hey look at me...Numbers are fun.
Who is the largest donors to candidates.
The largest donor to candidates in 2006 was the Republican Governor's association.
By himself, Loren Parks gave more to candidates than the SEIU.
And, as I mentioned earlier, the business lobby, which outcontributes labor by 5-1 in Oregon helped GOP candidates in the House outspend Democrats by nearly $2 million in 2006.
The issue was not that labor purchased an election for Democrats -- your candidates had much more money to spend in 2006.
The issue is that the voters are no longer buying what your candidates are selling.
And house seats were highly fought over. If you drop the Minnis-Brading race and include the Senate seats in play I'd be curious to see how your stat turns out.
GOP candidates outspent their Democratic opponents in every targeted house race in 2006.
Again your focusing on your own selective math. This thread is about house races not governor races.
Who is the largest donor to house races across the board?
Labor unions as individual single check donors.
And by business groups, do you mean individual business people cutting checks? If by that it isn't so much a lobby is it.
As for Republican house races spending more money. Big deal, how many donors did Republicans receive from? Traditionally more than democrats. How many Republicans take loans for their campaign? Usually way less than democrats.
Look at CandE's which cannot conveniently be found online anymore. You can play the finance card all you want but you don't see $10,000 and $25,000 in a direct check to a house race on the Republican side. You see bundles of checks as the candidate goes out and fundraises.
Chuck Riley was bought by the OEA. Face it. The only candidate who recieved similar funds this round was Ted Kulongoski.
You can play the finance card all you want but you don't see $10,000 and $25,000 in a direct check to a house race on the Republican side.
Really?
From Wayne Scott's C&E's:
Miller 20000.00
Oregon Beverage PAC 20000.00
Oregon Health Care Association 20000.00
Associated Oregon Industries PAC 15000.00
Oregon Health Care Association 15000.00
Oregon Local Grocery Committee 15000.00
Agpac 10000.00
Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. 10000.00
Avista Corp. 10000.00
Doctors for Healthy Communities - DOCPAC 10000.00
Natural Gas Political Action Committee 10000.00
Oregon Beverage PAC 10000.00
Oregon Concrete & Aggregate Producers Assn., Inc. 10000.00
Oregon Forest Industries Council 10000.00
Pacificorp - Pacific Power 10000.00
Pfizer, Inc. (New York) 10000.00
From Karen Minnis' C&E's:
Republican State Leadership Committee 75000.00
OR Nurses PAC 25000.00
Christian Copyright Licensing Inter. 20000.00
Berger-Bruning 19980.00
OR Bankers PAC 15000.00
OR Health Care Assoc. PAC 15000.00
OR Nurseries PAC 15000.00
OR Trial Lawyers Association PAC 15000.00
Oregonians for Affordable Housing 15000.00
Swanson Group, Inc. 15000.00
Hampton Lumber Sales Company 12500.00
Low Imcome Dental PAC 12500.00
OR Medical Association PAC 12500.00
AGC Committee for Action 10000.00
Associated Oregon Industries PAC 10000.00
Credit Union Legislative Action Fund 10000.00
EHC Management, LLC 10000.00
Knight 10000.00
OR Auto Dealers Assoc PAC 10000.00
OR Auto Dealers Assoc PAC (OADA) 10000.00
OR Beverage PAC 10000.00
OR Concrete & Aggregate Producers PAC 10000.00
OR Forest Industries 10000.00
OR Forest Industries Council PAC 10000.00
OR Health Care Assoc. PAC 10000.00
OR Victory PAC 10000.00
Pamplin Corporation, RB 10000.00
Pape Group, The 10000.00
Right to Life Oregon PAC 10000.00
Scheidler 10000.00
Seneca Jones Timber Co 10000.00
Wade 10000.00
And Dalto:
OR Victory PAC 25000.00
First Class Education for Oregon 20000.00
Low Income Dental PAC 12500.00
Doctors for Healthy Communities PAC 10000.00
OR Forest Industries Council PAC 10000.00
OR LOGGERS-PAC 10000.00
OR Victory PAC 10000.00
And Alan Brown:
Associated Oregon Industries PAC 30000.00
OR Forest Industries Council PAC 20000.00
OR Forest Industries Council PAC 15000.00
AOLPAC Associated Oregon Loggers, Inc. 10000.00
OR Concrete & Aggregate Producers Assn. P 10000.00
OR Loggers PAC 10000.00
OR Victory PAC 10000.00
And Ev Curry:
Oregon Victory Political Action Committee 25000.00
Oregon Victory Political Action Committee 20000.00
Friends of Wayne Scott Committee 15000.00
Oregon Victory Political Action Committee 15000.00
Speakers PAC 15000.00
Majority 2006 12000.00
Associated Oregon Industries 10000.00
Majority 2006 10000.00
Oregon Beverage PAC 10000.00
Oregon Forest Industries Council PAC 10000.00
Orloggers-PAC 10000.00
etc...
Just curious... if the OEA "bought" Chuck Riley for $50,000, was big timber also trying to "buy" Alan Brown for the $95,000 they gave him?
For the record, I think we need campaign finance reforms that will limit the ability of corporations and labor unions to influence public policy in Salem.
It's a problem for me that the OEA drives education policy in the Democratic caucus every bit as much as it's a problem for me that big industry dominates the debate in their primary areas of concern.
The trouble is, the way most people on the right talk about campaign finance, it's as though they believe that unions are the only problem -- even though multinational corporations donate 5x more in state legislative races and 10x more in federal races than unions.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.....
I can't believe that anon got ahold of you that hard. What did you spend an hour doing research to rebut him?
This is good.
And no, Alan Brown was not bought by lumber. He is a part of lumber. Its his constinuency. Duh....
If Riley was a firefighter or a teacher this type of union donation would be understandable. A long list of individual union member donations would accompany it as well. Chuck Riley's finances show him to be weak being he won the seat after Galagos supported a tax increase.
Its fun to keep bringing up his union bias. It will be even more fun to see him beat over the head with it next time around.
Thats what the post is about. You already knew it but just want to prove how smart you are because your job is politics and ours isn't. So big deal, you'v got access to research and friends who work at the SOS office.
It still doesn't change the fact taht Unions are the largest direct check cutters in the state of Oregon across the board. Even if you can isolate more money raised by incumbents our races don't even come close in the in kind category offered by Bus Projects and others on a democratic payroll perpetually in campaign mode (as your response proves).
We also work harder at fundraising. No unions no easy infusion of cash early after the primary. Our donors also have a face and a name. Unions on the other hand don't. They just come from the union.
I can't believe that anon got ahold of you that hard. What did you spend an hour doing research to rebut him?
Good point. Why bother using facts to debate an issue when it's so much easier to make shit up?
And, of course, anyone who takes a couple of minutes to actually get the facts before making a statement must be paid to do it, right?
Unions in Oregon don't give any more than large professional organizations in this state, and when you look at soft money bundling, they give much less than corporations to individual candidates.
That may not fit well with your narrative, Dare!PDX, but at least it's grounded in fact.
The only reason why Chuck Riley won that seat is because there was a weak republican candidate, and if he was on his own he would still lose. OEA needs D's in Salem and it is clear the will spend whatever it takes to get them in there.
Chuck is a duck on the pond, a half way talented candidate could easily unseat this boob. No matter how many times you come out to the district to help him Jefferson.
Chuck is a duck on the pond, a half way talented candidate could easily unseat this boob.
Rilling was a sitting mayor with a background in law enforcement, and he got spanked. Hard. How much stronger of a candidate do you really think you're going to find in HD29?
You folks are going to have to get used to the fact that you've lost thr Oregon House for the forseeable future.
The one advantage your candidates had -- money -- is gone now that the Dems control everything in Salem. Even Wal-Mart is donating to futurepac these days.
Oh, and for the hopelessly braindead among you, my last name is not Smith.
You are not "making shit up" but not exactly being straight forward either.
Your actually doing something much worse. Your using cherry picked data to support your own partisan argument rather than a fair presentation of the data. (And by the way that data isn't exactly easy to find anymore on the SOS website.)
Your using facts to lie or misinform. Way more dasterdly than those who just point out a fact. That Democrats receive large direct investment from unions. Hence the flyer that says "The House that OEA Built".
As for your last name. I don't care. But when you lead with the name Jefferson and have a blog called New Progressive you kinda run into a real coincidence there.
My guess is you are Jeff Smith and you're catching flack for engaging on this blog. Hey maybe your Jesse Cornett or Joe Bassler?
You should retool your blogger ID if you want to stay anonymous. No one will fault you for it. Anyways we will know you by your stellar access to SOS data.
Dare, you can't expect anything else from a D, like Kerry using Economic data in the 2004 campaign from 2000 to early 2001. Or the D's cherry picking the Iraq Survey group. If they didn't cherry pick, they wouldn't have much else to stand on.
I couldn't give a crap if you are actually Smith, either way it's still fun to poke holes into your logic and thoughts.
There was an obivous reason to that loss in the House race, however, I will redirect you to my orignal comment, "Chuck is a duck on the pond, a half way talented candidate could easily unseat this boob".
Tumor,
Get off your ass and prove it.
Your actually doing something much worse. Your using cherry picked data to support your own partisan argument rather than a fair presentation of the data.
A comment was made that "unions are the largest political contributor in Oregon".
That claim is demonstrably false.
People then pivoted to say, "no-no, what we really meant is that unions are "the largest donors to candidates".
Again, the claim is demonstrably false.
Then people pivoted to say, "no-no, what we really mean is that unions "bought the House election", that Republican house candidates "did not receive direct contributions in the $10,000 - $25,000 range", and that unions are the biggest source of direct contributions to candidates.
3 more demonstrably false claims.
You're only real problem with what I'm doing is that I'm using factual data to demonstrate that the claims people are making -- your basic narrative about the evil unions -- is wrong. As in factually untrue.
Now, you can say that big timber or the realtors, or the restaurant association, or the tobacco companies that overwhelmingly support Republican candidates, and that allowed GOP candidates for the House to spend $2 million more than their democratic opponents are making crappy investments.
You can say that your candidates suck.
Hell, you can even say that it sucks that the OEA drives education policy for the Democratic caucus.
I'd agree with you on all of it.
But if you are going to make up a fictional narrative about unions buying an election, and I stumble across it, I'll call you on it. And I'll use factual data to justify my point.
The labor union is saying that they in particular bought the house. Its the union saying it not NW Republican.
Look at the post. OEA is bragging about using dues politically to change Oregon's house make up.
The house that OEA built. A legislature influenced by the spending of union dues. Thats the bi-line I read from the flyer that spawned this post.
Maybe Dare, OEA will pay me not to run, afterall, I just got my arm chair just right and found the ass groove.
The labor union is saying that they in particular bought the house. Its the union saying it not NW Republican.
The note says "From the desk of Wayne Scott". Are you saying that Wayne Scott is a member of the OEA?
"That claim is demonstrably false."
Your a big fan of the smarty card aren't you? A few dozen easy words and you choose the largest one possible.
My claim is "demostrably" true. Chuck Riley got a bunch of money. Like 20% of his total fund raising from one source. More as a percentage from one source than just about any other race I've ever looked other than a ballot measure.
But regardless Jefferson, you seem to be clueless to what has gone on in the thread so far so let me do a recap.
This is the argument breakdown from the thread.
My post: Chuck Riley pulled a boatload of cash from one donor.
Your comment - Nuh-uh, Republicans are even worse.
The other commentors - 'Regardless unions donate alot of cash and overall donate more across all of Oregon's system than any single source.'
Your comment - 'Nuh-uh, the largest donor for Governor was ___, the largest donor for x- house race and y- other race was so and so.' (though your arguing circles to avoid the fact that unions donate alot of cash and more than any single trade group directly overall)
The other commentors - 'Get real, unions are large individual donors who break from the pack of other donors.'
Your comment - 'Info, data, information, and lopsided finger pointing to individual races.'( Which still fails mention the total SEIU, OEA, AFLCIO, etc donations across the state though its obvious you have that data.)
This of course being done to say 'Republicans aren't as smart as you because we don't take blogging as seriously as you do.'
Then big word, big word, condenscending tone, and more big words.
Reality - If I took a few hours reading over the data we both would have valid points critiqueing both sides fundraising habits.
Big deal.
Regardless there is one definitive qualifier of my criticism of OEA and SEIU. This being what you as a paid democratic employee of some sort were seeking to avoid by engaging us on this blog.
100% of the public employees dues originate as part of a paycheck provided for by the taxpayers. It is taxpayer's funds being spent for political purpose by a special interest group.
These same special interest groups fighting any form of fiscal restraint and have proven that they are willing to bankrupt all of Oregon rather than give an inch. For instance their unwillingess to concede an unrealistically rich retirement program and would rather shut schools down rather than allow school choice.
Two notes
One - evil is your word not mine.
Two - I never said they bought an election. I said they bought Chuck Riley's seat which happened to have an already pro-union Riley in it.
Again I stand by my claim. Looks like that investment paid off as Riley is delivering as promised.
Now your likely response: Insult my lack of spell check, personally attack me, then try to deny once again that public employees actually are a major player in Oregon politics (which of course proves your probably an employee of theirs).
So what say you Steve?
Jefferson,
Quick question.
Would Chuck Riley would have won his last two elections without OEA's direct support both in man power and cash?
Dare!pdx -
It's small-minded of you to think that I'm being paid to bring a little factual data into this conversation.
I'm not an employee or consultant for any Democratic or progressive organization.
That aside, I need to address a couple of other inaccuarcies in your most recent post:
1) I've never denied that unions are a major funding partner for Democratic candidates. All I've said is that they are not the biggest contributors to candidates, and that it's untrue to suggest that any union "bought the election" for Democrats given that your gubernatorial candidate and house candidates had millions more to spend than their democratic opponents in 2006.
2) It's simply false to say that it's unusual for a candidate to receive 20 percent of his funding from a single source.
As I mentioned earlier, Alan Brown got $95,000 from big timber in the last election -- roughly 20-25% of his total funding. Ron Saxton received approximatly a quarter of his funding from the Republican Governor's association.
There are other examples from 2006 in Oregon, but I'm not going to find them for you.
3) I'm not sure about 2004, but it seems pretty clear that Riley would have won his race without the donations from the OEA given that he won by nearly 10%.
4) I've agreed that it's a problem that the OEA drives education policy for the Democratic caucus -- twice. What I disagree with is the unwillingness to see it as a problem that the GOP caucus is owned in much the same fashion by the Realtors/Homebuilders or big timber, or any of the other funding partners that give as much or more than unions to candidates.
You are being paid to be in proximaty to that data or know someone who is. No one else, other than Jim Karlock, would research that data and he should be paid.
Stop pretending having data like that is something normal people would just have lying around. Not even journalists who cover those beats could produce that data as quickly as you did. I tried and couldn't find anything nearly as succint as that from CandE's on the SOS page. (That type of data used to exist on the SOS but not anymore.
If your not a political consultant you probably work for Bill Bradbury.
Answer to 1) - OEA is the biggest donor to Chuck Riley. They are the largest single donor to many idividual democratic candidates campaigns. They also donate exclusively to democrats unlike trade associations. You attempt to dispute this by bringing up Karen Minnis's CandE's. Not exactly a truthful examination of the entire state's political system.
Answer 2) - Alan Brown's donations came from direct individuals as well as a diverse group of trade groups. Your adding data to get the result you want. Its far different than Chuck Riley getting 25% of his money from OEA (as opposed to 25% from teachers giving bundled checks by OEA). Ron Saxton got that boost from the national party given what polls were showing in the last months of the campaign (Kulongoski's campaign got snubbed by your national party for similar money or so I read in the Oregonian). Again, not exactly representative. Cherry picked data.
Answer 3) - Riley in 2004 wasn't a sure bet as he wasn't the incumbent he was coming back for a rematch and the R had supported a tax increase. I haven't looked at the returns for his district but from what I know it's anything but a safe seat, he's anything but a compelling politician.
Answer 4) - Your showing how corrupt the relationships in the Democratic party are by assuming that it buys influence. It shows how your party really operates.
Republicans aren't owned by home builders, realators and developers. We actually believe in free markets and a limited government. We believe that if a regulation isn't accomplishing results it should be dismantled. We believe if a program doesn't produce results it should be ended.
I have more trust in home builders than I do LUBA. I have more faith in timber harvesters and farmers than I do Robert Liberty. I believe that school choice is the right thing in a free country and reducing choices for families is a travesty. No money required for me to feel that way.
Am I corrupted by their money?
Democrats on the other hand have no problem subsidizing the shit out of Homer Williams and a host of other "home builders" with funds normally destined for educations.
I see Democrats owned by a confederation of special interests that would bankrupt the state rather than give up power (Hey remember PERS). There is no ideology to the way the budget is divided up. You all just spend and then ask for more.
There is no drive to reform where waste takes place by your governor. There is only an interest in Democratic patronage as far as I can see. Wasn't that how Ted defined himself in the election - what he had spent money on. No accomplishment that didn't start with spending cash.
This is Neil Goldscmidt's Oregon. This is the Oregon of OHSU denying the poor medical care and avoiding malpractice liablity, Multnomah County cutting services while blowing money to fight a lawsuit for the ACLU, and Portland subsidizing millionaire's condos on the backs of public schools. This is the tip of the iceberg and you criticize my party because they take jobs in the private sector and care that businesses succeed.
You really are a piece of work.
Republicans aren't owned by home builders, realators and developers.
You can believe that if you'd like, but there's a reason why money flowed into Wayne Scott's and Karen Minnis' hands, just as surely as there is a reason why Minnis fought any and all attempts to limit usury by payday lenders for as long as she could; why Wayne Krieger in the last session killed the payday loans bill without a hearing; why GOP leadership refused hearings on SDC's for schools, police, fire stations; refused hearings on health care costs associated with tobacco; blocked efforts to reduce the costs of prescription drugs, etc.
The GOP establishment in Oregon is less corrupt than the GOP establishment in DC (see Tom DeLay, Duke Cunningham, Bush/Cheney, et al for details), but they played lickspittle for the pharmaceutical industry, big tobacco, big timber, the restaurant association, and a host of their other funding partners when they held the keys to the castle in Salem.
That's a big part of the reason why voters threw them out on their collective asses in Oregon and America in 2006.
As I've said elsewhere, if the debate isn't about God, Gays, and Guns, it starts becoming about cronyism and corruption, and how economic policy under the GOP has been tilted to benefit multi-national corporations and the wealthiest among us at the expense of small businesses and workers in this country.
Take the fear-mongering and the socially divisive issues off of the table and your party loses with the electorate on health care, education, and every other aspect of economic populism.
As for this business about me working for Bradbury, or me being a paid political operative... that says more about your imagination and paranoia than it does about my career choice.
All I've done is taken publicly available data and put it into a highly searchable format for personal and public use.
Is it true that you can count on 1 hand the number of people who can retrieve campaign finance information as easily as I can? Probably. It's also true that I share my information with any journalists and bloggers who ask for it.
But I'm not paid to do it by anyone. I'm no more a political operative than you are.
Alan Brown's donations came from direct individuals as well as a diverse group of trade groups.
Again, this is simply false. The $95,000 he raised from the timber pac's referenced above does not include soft money bundling by timber company executives, nor direct contributions from timber companies who are members of the trade associations who fund those pacs.
There's another word for it when people make up "facts" to suit their argument. Lying.
Jeff, your words
"the Timber Pacs"
Note the plural. More than one. As opposed to the point of this post - from one source. Your fabricating facts by your own admission.
Again with the selective data. Lawyer all you want it doesn't alter reality.
Just like your employment status. The more I think about it the more I'm sure you work for the Bus Project which is a partisan D institution faking nonpartisan status. Your technicality lawyering might hold up over beers with a few novices but get real. The money held by trade PACs for statewide, local, and ballot measure issues is no where near as consolidated in as few extremely partisan hands as union money.
This is after all what your thesis is isn't it: Republican fund raising is exactly the same only worse than democratic fund raising. Where I disagree completely and the two parties fund raise from completely different motivation basis.
There is a large swath of special interest access money. They want to have face time so they host fundraisers, buy plates for the right dinner, and try to recipricate for legislative pet causes. Overall though the major donors are motivated by very specific causes. Usually repubicans are for limited government and unions are for larger pay checks. You call ours greed while ironically basking in a spotlight calling union lobbying selflessness.
Also. These Timber PACs give to both sides of the isle. Unions don't. Your attempting to draw paralels when they are completely different leagues.
As for the Timber Pacs. Name the pacs as your mister data and we see how your philosophy of Brown being "bought" is the same as Riley.
I'll comment to the rest latter as I'm still at work and need to finish up. As much fun as this is I need to focus on the trade specific data I have at hand.
Note the plural. More than one. As opposed to the point of this post - from one source. Your fabricating facts by your own admission.
I've already posted the name of each pac and the amount that each contributed for pac's that made at least 1 contribution of $10,000 or more to the handful of candidates I bothered to look at, and have consistently referred to pac's (plural), trade associations (plural), and used the word "industry" to describe the nature of the contributions.
Either you have trouble grasping the plain meaning of the written word, or you are grasping at straws.
The point of your post is that the OEA bought an election.
My point is that Republican candidates had a great deal more money to work with in 2006, and that many of the things presented as "fact" by you and others in this discussion are demonstrably false.
These Timber PACs give to both sides of the isle. Unions don't.
Again, what you are saying is simply wrong. As on easy example, the OEA gave to Gene Whisnant, Scott Bruun, and other GOP legislators in 2006.
In fact, they gave more to 1 GOP candidate than 26 of the Democrats on the list that Wayne Scott's office sent you.
Also, if it's true that big timber gives so generously to both sides of the aisle, then you should have no trouble naming a few Democrats who got money from the Association of Oregon Loggers or OFICPAC, right?
Maybe you can call Wayne's press guy and ask him to help you with it.
We seem to be going round and round here. I argue wih your points. Then you focus on only one selective thing that doesn't forward your argument it just circles it around.
Alan Brown raised a crapload more than Riley did. The logging donations are a lower percentage of his overall amount raised. It also showed that he was probably more persistant, harder working, and therefore less reliant on one donor. This seperates him from Riley. This also seperates sperates Kate Brown and Jeff Merkley from Riley as well.
Big deal. You've still failed to answer the following arguments.
Public employees use funds derived from the tax payers to wage political campaigns. This creates ethical issues with their involvement in the budget process (its supposed to be collective bargaining not collective threatening). Furthermore, individual pulbic employees don't have choice in how their money is spent and cannot opt out. They also are the single most consistent donors for democrats statewide.
To answer one part of your most recent post. You must have looked through alot of information to find the two R's OEA gave to. This doesn't prove anything. The unions are still fiercely partisan, to try and imply otherwise again proves you're making circular selective arguments.
You can't ignore all the facts and then say your argument is factually superior.
Last thing... You also fail to admit that you have some paid reason to respond to this blog. The circular arguments you are making are not that of a normal person. You are an operative on some level. If not gainfully employed you are seeking employment in the longterm or are a volunteer because you can afford to.
You're being dishonest and trying to call others liers. You are grasping at straws and I don't even know why you are arguing other than just to be engaged in a conversation on the subject.
At first I thought you were defending unions. No big deal there, unions engender real love from many of their members. They of cousre draw real scorn by parents and reformers alike who run into their selfish interests.
But then you just start making wacky circular arguments pulling CandE data which you'd find on both sides. Your just not making grown-up sense. If you want to spend hours researching to prove a point which can just as easily be disproven go for it.
You'll never disprove that unions hold a huge amount of influence which is unique in Oregon's legislative process. Trade associations give to their champions who aren't owned but actually believe in their cause. Contrast this with unions which threaten and protest in mass when someone thinks for themselves. Unions which harass petitioners, steal signs, and pay groups of people to be political active directly.
When you can produce examples of the loggers setting up actual campaigns to harass democratic efforts you'll have somehting. Beyond an occassional rally they are a world apart. Timber also spent its wad on only a few candidates. Contrast that with the totals spent by unions as a whole.
How's this for logic.
If Alan Brown had attack pieces mailed to every voter in his district (Silverton/Clackamas County) about money and support from big timber - would that subtract or add votes?
If Chuck Riley had an attack piece mailed to every voter in Beaverton/Hillsboro mentioning that 25% of his campaign was financed by OEA - would that subtract or add votes?
If Alan Brown put in his voter pamplet statement that he was for more logging - would that add or subtract on election day?
If Chuck Rilery put in his voter pamplet he was for raising taxes, removing the kicker, and giving every penny to teacher pay checks - would that add or subtract on election day?
Being Riley ran as a fiscal conservative and Brown ran as a pro business logging lover I think you know how this would play out.
The Freedom Works postcard is effective and will hurt Riley. That's the real reason Jefferson the Kid won't let it go.
Post a Comment