Meddling by upstate PACs. Again.

"Peter, you've been around a long time--surely, you see through this shell game they're playing."

Evan Ridley, Political Director, GOP PAC

The Political Director for The Leadership Fund reveals a bipartisan environment of upstate interference in local campaigns.  

Hypocrisy, collusion, presumption, and interference.

Evan Ridley, Political Director

I received a series of emails from Evan Ridley, the Political Director of the PAC that has the job of electing Republicans to the State Senate. Democrats have a similar PAC. The emails accuse the Jeff Golden campaign of hypocrisy. He said Golden is cynically getting the value of support from the Oregon Education Association PAC In the form of their third party advertising, while making the claim that his campaign doesn't get direct support from PACs.

I offered him the chance to do a Guest Post, and to make his case in his own words. See below.

Tomorrow I will report the response by the Golden campaign, which I will summarize here simply as being that they are adamant any ads by upstate lobbies were not solicited. Indeed, they are unwelcome, unnecessary, and not part of the campaign strategy. Worse, they are counterproductive and dangerous. More on this tomorrow.

Ridley paints a picture of cynical power politics, characterized by 1. collusion and hypocrisy and 2. presumptuous interference.

Collusion and hypocrisy. The PAC leader was wising me up to the real world. His accusations are quick to assume wink-wink collusion as a matter of course. He says that surely--obviously--Golden is feigning ignorance and innocence, and I should not fall for the "typical political playbook." Sure, a candidate might be "technically correct," he wrote, but in the real world there is close coordination  that the candidate lies about.

Candidate proxy. The accusations embed a second presumption, that of course the PAC reflects the candidates. The PACs have the money, the PACs have an agenda, and the candidate is the beneficiary of their power and leadership. The PAC is the candidate's mouthpiece, or perhaps simultaneously the candidate is the PAC's mouthpiece and agent.  PACs and candidates are in on it together, he writes, in accusing Golden. There may be a posturing of independence, but it is fake. He writes that surely, I must realize If the PAC is saying it, it must be welcomed by the candidate and it reflects what he wants. Observe the obvious.

He is the expert. 

The PAC leader intended an accusation, not a confession, but what he writes creates an ugly picture of upstate lobbies in relation to candidates. In wising me up to how the system works, and pointing a finger at Golden, he inadvertently implicates and insults all candidates, Jessica Gomez, too. Jessica Gomez is the candidate he is purporting to help.

Both Golden and Gomez say they speak for themselves, and when they say they are independent they really are independent. Surely this is naive and misinformed? He should know. He runs a PAC, one that gives major support to Gomez.

I assume that Ridley attempted to criticize Golden and help Gomez, but I consider this yet another backfire in the long history of backfires from the interference of upstate lobbies in this Senate District. They hurt the ones they try to help.

I consider his message as damaging to Jessica Gomez as it is to Jeff Golden. It insults them both, because it undermines their assertions of independence and ability to speak for themselves and represent themselves.

They deserve better..

Guest Post: Evan Ridley

Evan Ridley,  GOP Senate PAC

I saw your blog post on campaign contributions to both Jessica Gomez and Jeff Golden you published yesterday and I wanted to draw your attention to some information you may not have had at the time of writing.

You note that Jeff Golden hasn’t accepted any money from other Senators or PACs, and it is true that he made a public commitment to only spend money raised locally. However, a new 11th hour PAC was formed late last month called Southern Oregon Priorities PAC, and its ORESTAR description claims it exists to “Support Candidates that Stand Up for Southern Oregon.” Dig a little deeper and you’ll see the PAC is led by a registered lobbyist of the Oregon Education Association, which gives hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democrat candidates each cycle. So far, Southern Oregon Priorities has accepted a $75,000 contribution from the Senate Democrat Leadership Fund - and I know that you are already aware of where most of the SDLF contributions come from, including Democrat Senators and PACs that overwhelmingly support Democrat candidates.

Within one day of receiving that big fat check, Southern Oregon Priorities spent nearly $50,000 of it on media buys - on behalf of Jeff Golden.

This is a common tactics Democrats use: create a shell PAC that allows a candidate to reap the benefit of PAC money without having to go back on their word that they won’t accept PAC money directly to their campaign. You’re right that Jessica Gomez has broad support from Republicans in the Senate as well as PACs that represent a diverse range of issues. But isn’t it right to let the public know that Jeff Golden is secretly relying on PAC money to help him win despite his promises to the contrary?

I appreciate your consideration in looking at the whole picture of the Golden-Gomez race. I know we’ll both be keeping an eye on how Southern Oregon Priorities raises and spends money - and if they truly represent the priorities of all Southern Oregonians.

A couple more points I'd like to make here since you've dedicated a lot of posts to Golden's narrative on PAC contributions. 

1.  This would make a nice symbol for the Golden campaign had he actually meant it, but are voters really going to be okay with Jeff having his cake and eating it too?  With all due respect to Cathy, talking about the effects of electioneering activities instead of addressing Golden's support from big union allies is not only a part of the typical political playbook voters reject, but is disrespectful to your readers, and frankly, his supporters. 

2.  What is being conveniently left out of Cathy's narrative is that TV is only one half of the buy made on behalf of the Golden campaign, digital is the other half. Does the Golden campaign believe digital is hocus-pocus too? If not, is this tactic a more acceptable use of "dark money" simply because it's more effective? 

Not accepting PAC money has been a cornerstone of Mr. Golden’s campaign, so I think it's important for voters to understand why his actions have not matched his words. It is completely disingenuous for a candidate to claim to not take PAC money when they know it's coming to benefit them in another form, and that is exactly the kind of tactics We are of course not speaking on Jessica’s behalf. There is a substantial distinction between attempting to point out the contradictions in Golden’s positions and special interests making a $50k media buy on Golden’s behalf.    

The problem with Golden’s position is that he is trying to have it both ways. Peter, you’ve been around a long time—surely, you see through this shell game they’re playing. 

We are of course not speaking on Jessica’s behalf. There is a substantial distinction between attempting to point out the contradictions in Golden’s positions and special interests making a $50k media buy on Golden’s behalf.    

The problem with Golden’s position is that he is trying to have it both ways. Peter, you’ve been around a long time—surely, you see through this shell game they’re playing. 

Accepting Golden’s insincere attempts at ignorance is allowing him to get away with it. Of course this is a tactic. Golden gets to profess political purity and claim he doesn’t accept special interest money. Meanwhile, without a word of opposition, a PAC run by Senate Democratic leadership, public employee unions, and the Trial Lawyers, dump BIG money into his race on his behalf.

Golden may be technically correct in that the law does not allow coordination between a candidate and a PAC in an independent expenditure campaign. But, the law also requires the parties to be truly independent. He admits he’s discussed campaign strategy at great length with the very groups buying the ads on his behalf. If Golden doesn’t immediately and forcefully denounce the Senate Democrats and the special interest going up on the air on his behalf, and quite publicly ask them to stop and get out of the race, he may be violating Oregon's Campaign Finance coordination laws.