QUEST: Oregon delegate Andrew Simon with a lanyard from telecom giant Qwest, which also paid for an $8,000 breakfast. IMAGE: Mark Manger |
DENVER—Maybe the change we’re all supposed to believe in is that lobbyists are OK, provided they’re Democrats who represent progressive causes.
On Monday morning, on the much-anticipated opening day of the 2008 Democratic National Convention here in Colorado’s Mile High City, the Oregon delegation held its first official meeting—in a windowless banquet room at the Hyatt Regency Tech Center. They were 13 miles from the site of the actual convention, days away from experiencing Sen. Barack Obama’s scheduled acceptance of the Democratic presidential nomination Thursday. But they were all already excited.
Shortly after 7 am, the state’s 59 delegates, its congressional delegation, and other assorted dignitaries put down their silverware to applaud. They clapped not for Oregon Democratic Party chairwoman Meredith Wood Smith or the Obama-backing Rep. Earl Blumenauer (the Portland Democrat whose fiery words included calling 5th Congressional District Republican nominee Mike Erickson “a weasel”).
They clapped for longtime Portland lobbyist Len Bergstein, the stocky, ever-smiling powerbroker who has worked the halls of Oregon’s command centers since 1974.
In 2007, Oregon Democrats passed a sweeping new ethics law designed to reduce the influence of lobbyists (see “Ethics Bomb,” WW, Dec. 19, 2007). And in the current presidential race, Sen. Barack Obama has made a refusal to accept lobbyist money a central theme of his campaign. Lobbyists are considered so toxic onetime Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney angrily denied that his campaign employed any.
But this week in Denver, where Democrats are descending on the Pepsi Center like yellow jackets on an open bottle of soda at a late-August picnic, the issue is not so simple.
Bergstein’s clients not only paid $8,000 for breakfast, DPO Chairwoman Smith says they also bought enough carbon offsets to negate the fossil fuels consumed by the Oregon delegation’s travel to and from Denver.
Bergstein noted that a number of his clients—who include alternative energy developers First Wind, Ocean Power Technology and Sun Edison—are precisely the kind of green companies that Oregon both wants to attract and needs to meet the ambitious goals passed by the 2007 Legislature.
He also represents some old-line Portland manufacturers, including barge builder Zidell Marine and Gunderson, the railcar maker. He says his clients of all types are anxious to help shape a “cap-and-trade” system for regulating carbon emissions that will be a primary focus of the 2009 Legislature.
So how better to present his clients to the influential Democrats assembled in Denver than to buy breakfast?
Oregon Democratic Party Executive Director Trent Lutz says the party worked carefully with the state Ethics Commission to make sure sponsorships of the type Bergstein’s clients provided did not violate new ethics laws.
Previously, Lutz says, sponsors for events such as DPO breakfasts would pay the expenses directly. But now that new ethics legislation places strict limits on the type and amount of meals and entertainment lobbyists can give public officials, sponsors give money directly to the DPO, and the officials in the delegation—who include Supt. of Public Instruction Susan Castillo, Bureau of Labor and Industries Commissioner Brad Avakian, Sen. Ben Westlund (D-Tumalo) and Reps. Sara Gesler (D-Corvallis) and Larry Galizio (D-Tigard)—pay the cost of their meals directly to the DPO.
Although Lutz says most members of the Oregon delegation covered the travel and lodging costs themselves, the party solicited $65,000 to $70,000 in sponsorships for meals and parties.
“The care and feeding of the delegation is expensive,” he says.
Lutz says he understands why it might seem contradictory that Dems proclaim their desire to reduce the influence of lobbyists and corporations at the same time they are soliciting a big chunk of cash from lobbyists and corporations.
“I think there’s always going to be that paradox,” Lutz says. “What we’ve tried to do is solicit support from groups who are supportive of our message and to be absolutely transparent.”.
Oregon’s youngest delegate, Andrew Simon, 20, agrees with Lutz.
“The convention is expensive, and the money has to come from somewhere,” says Simon, who will be a junior this fall at Bard College in New York.
Simon says corporations have an important viewpoint and one that Democrats want to hear.
“Maybe I’m just young and optimistic,” he says, “but I don’t think we’re going to give favors to companies just because they sponsor events.”
FACT: Oregon public officials may accept only $50 in meals from a lobbyist annually but can accept unlimited contributions from that same lobbyist.
Full disclosure: Nigel Jaquiss accepted a breakfast burrito and coffee at the Aug. 25 breakfast.
I think naive is the word Simon is looking for.
Instead of giving a "gift," the lobbyist can give absolutely unlimited contributions to the campaign committee of the officeholder and/or her political party, even if he or she never runs for office again. The party or officeholder can use that money for just about anything: 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.
Srcew us as long as they have that supply of cash that they can use for whatever they wish!