A WEEKLY ELECTION WATCH: PEOPLE IN POLITICS As the dark season approaches, candidates decide whether or not to get medieval on each other with negative ad campaigns. BY BOB YOUNG byoung@wweek.com

Prediction of the Week: Based on calls his friends have received, Bill Sizemore expects The Oregonian to run another damaging report on him in the next week. According to Sizemore, the paper has been asking questions about personal matters "totally unrelated to politics."

The autumnal equinox has passed. We've entered the dark season, when it's time to "drive up your opponent's negatives," as they say in politics. There's nothing wrong with rough play--after all, conflict is the soul of drama--but should candidates use anonymous attacks? Consider the one against Beaverton state Rep. Ryan Deckert by his opponent, Republican Henri Schauffler. Schauffler mailed a pamphlet blasting Deckert for supporting the biggest state budget in history last year. But nowhere does the slick four-page bomb indicate that the piece is affiliated with Schauffler. When pressed, Schauffler admitted to the sneak attack. He suggested it was justified because he thinks Deckert is responsible for phone calls asking Beaverton voters how they feel about being represented by a devotee of Rev. Sun Myung Moon. (Schauffler belongs to Moon's Unification Church; Deckert denies any role in the calls.) "It's perfectly legal and utterly cowardly," says Secretary of State Phil Keisling of Schauffler's attack. Before the airwaves are awash in ominous Friday the 13th music and grainy photos of candidates, Keisling wants to preempt the anonymous attack ads. So the state's top elections officer is challenging candidates to "stand by their ads" and pledge to play by two simple rules: First, make sure the candidate's name is on any ads or campaign literature he or she produces. Second, use the candidate's own voice in any negative radio ads, and in a TV ad, make sure the candidate looks directly into the camera and personally delivers any criticism of rival candidates. Keisling thinks the challenge will be most valuable in the close congressional contest between Molly Bordonaro and David Wu, in which lots of money and ads--including third-party ads by special-interest groups--are expected to come into play. "It's most interesting to see how those two respond," Keisling says. "It's not a call to take off negative ads--that's fine--but stand by [them]. Don't let a proxy do your dirty work." Both candidates have publicly expressed support for Keisling's proposal; it's expected that third-party ads will sling the mud in this race. One candidate staying positive is Sen. Ron Wyden, who started running a TV ad that's funny, self-deprecating and the essence of outdoorsy Oregon--the best we've seen since Peter DeFazio was tooling around in his old Dodge Dart. The ad shows two ordinary guys--"Harry" and "Don"--in a boat fishing and talking politics. When Harry praises Wyden, Don accuses him of sounding like a Wyden commercial and scaring away the fish. Two guys you don't want in the same boat: Metro candidates John Jackley and Bill Atherton. In a campaign letter Jackley calls Atherton a "multimillion dollar redeveloper" who wants to "gut Oregon's land-use planning system." Atherton counters that Jackley is a "bomb thrower" who relies on "untruths, half-truths and deceit." Atherton has even prepared "A Window on John Jackley, What to Believe?"--a comparison chart in which he prints Jackley's statements, his own version of "The Truth" and a comment. For instance, Jackley says he supports "suburban values." Atherton then notes that Jackley has said he likes to shoot guns and drink tequila, which Atherton says does not reflect suburban values. Atherton is so concerned about Jackley that he wouldn't even reveal his view on the south-north light rail because he says Jackley has "routinely mischaracterized my positions."     originally published September 23 , 1998