Dirty Money

Question (0.00 / 0)

Where can I get the data on who's giving to whom? Neither Novick or Merkley seem to have filed electronically, and the info isn't on OpenSecrets, either. Are you basing this diary on knowledge of Merkley's donors?

---

by: James X. @ Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 01:53:44 AM CST

strange (0.00 / 0)

I keep looking, and thinking it's me. I know they're available, somehow; people I know have them. Short of asking them, who has the link?

---

by: torridjoe @ Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 02:55:19 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Found it! (0.00 / 0)

Merkley: Individuals, PACs
Novick: Individuals, no PACs.

But I'm going to bed, so you go comb through it.

---

by: James X. @ Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 03:31:46 AM CST

[ Parent ]

One more link (0.00 / 0)

This page tells you who else donors are giving to.

For example, you can find out if out-of-state donors giving the $2300 maximum to Merkley are shoveling money to all of Schumer's picks or are more likely just a friend of Merkley's or someone who donates to people they hear good things about on Daily Kos.

The first person who matches the $2300 from out-of-state criteria, "ATTER, ELIZABETH J" of Los Angeles, appears to be a friend of Merkley, as she has no record of political donations before. (Look carefully, though, because the FEC lists her right along Elizabeth Atterbury of Pennsylvania who likes MoveOn, Kucinich and Edwards.)

Kirk Fleming, the first $2300 out-of-stater listed for Novick, also appears to be a novice donor.

---

by: James X. @ Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 03:47:33 AM CST

[ Parent ]

How do you tell if someone give the max after a kos post vs DSCC email? (0.00 / 0)

I mean these judgments that you are making about people are fraught with massive amounts of subjectivity.

Check out my Oregon politics blog at Forward Oregon

---

by: bdunn @ Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 11:48:36 AM CST

[ Parent ]

you can't really (4.00 / 1)

you can just look at the pattern of their donations--are they one time or sporadic, and for different amounts to different candidates? do they donate through PCAs? are their donatinos or are the maxing out to all of the dscc/dccc favorites? etc

---

by: petrichor @ Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 12:30:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Petrichor has it. (0.00 / 0)

The woman donating to Kucinich, MoveOn, Edwards, Dean's DNC, etc. is probably not a "Friend of Chuck," for example. She's probably one of those people on the Internets.

---

by: James X. @ Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 14:08:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

take the gnome out and you don't know (0.00 / 0)

Check out my Oregon politics blog at Forward Oregon

---

by: bdunn @ Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 20:50:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Reid's PAC too (0.00 / 0)

For stabbing Wyden in the back and ignoring his hold on Lyle Laverty's nomination.  Let's see what he does with Senator Dodd's hold on the FISA bill.

The Senate Democratic "Leadership" (hell, the House "Leadership" too) is acting pretty pathetic right now. 

Hello?  McFly!  You've got the Majority! Frakking use it.

---

by: maloney @ Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 03:22:14 AM CST

I disagree here (0.00 / 0)

I don't think we should test Democratic donors' positions on nominees or such to determine whether we accept their contributions. For one, it would make fundraising extremely tedious and contributing extremely invasive, and for two, it just strikes me as a sort of insulting purity test that isn't going to help Oregon get anywhere in the Senate.

---

by: James X. @ Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 14:14:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Now that you've promoted this to the front page, (0.00 / 0)

I expect you to actually find some of this dirty money for me, TJ.

---

by: James X. @ Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 04:06:13 AM CST

Evidence (0.00 / 0)

James, I deliberately wrote this to make sure it applied to either potential candidate. I don't know if any money from the DSCC has actually changed hands with anyone. But both Merkley and Novick signaled that they considered Gonzales a bad AG. I assume that both believe that torture is wrong and that waterboarding -- a practice that was been found to be torture by US military courts a number of times in the 20th century -- is still torture. I assume that they both believe the president is bound by the laws passed by Congress. Mukasey hasn't stated that he agrees with any of those views, and this is an opportunity for either candidate to let Schumer (and Oregon voters) know that they disagree with Schumer's vote.

---

by: darrelplant @ Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 12:47:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

but you didn't (0.00 / 0)

you included the for a while, which only requires Merkley to make a stand where as Novick by your definition gets away without having to make any real sacrifice.

Check out my Oregon politics blog at Forward Oregon

---

by: bdunn @ Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 20:54:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Donations (0.00 / 0)

I don't have any evidence that the DSCC has no intention of aiding Novick before the primary. That would seem seem rather stupid given the current polling numbers showing him and Merkley roughly equal against Smith.

---

by: darrelplant @ Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 02:03:17 AM CST

[ Parent ]

This is non responsive (0.00 / 0)

Novick claims that the DSCC is supporting Merkley.

The second sentence isn't topical.

Check out my Oregon politics blog at Forward Oregon

---

by: bdunn @ Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 12:53:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Six months (0.00 / 0)

You have a calendar, do you not?

There are six months before the primary. Whatever the DSCC is doing currently, they may do something different over the course of the next six months. You don't know what they're going to do, I don't know what they're going to do, I doubt they know what they're going to do.

Currently one poll shows either Merkley or Novick doing roughly the same against Smith (i.e. beating him by 5-10 points). If Novick happened to gain more traction than Merkley before the primary, there's no reason to think the DSCC would cut their own throats and ignore him.

Unless, of course, they're idiots.

---

by: darrelplant @ Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 15:27:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

the DSCC *is* supporting Merkley (0.00 / 0)

They are sending out fundraising appeals on his behalf (along with others), and his campaign has acknowledged being offered DSCC staff "assistance," although ISTR that they said they turned down at least some of it.

---

by: Portlandia @ Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 18:41:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

ISTR? (0.00 / 0)

what is that?

---

by: petrichor @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 10:27:11 AM CST

[ Parent ]

ISTR (0.00 / 0)

is internet shorthand/txt speech for "I seem to recall/remember."

---

by: maloney @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 18:51:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Is Novick going to say No to DSCC money if he wins the nomination? (0.00 / 0)

I don't think so. Until Novick says he won't why should Merkley tie one hand behind his back? If Novick does come out against DSCC money, if he gets the nomination you can kiss Oregon goodbye.  Even TJ acknowledges that Novick needs bank from the DSCC to hang in the general with Smith.

Keep your eyes on the prize people: unseating Gordon Smith in 2008.

PS. Schumer while voting the wrong way, while in no way the preferred, vote had almost no effect because DiFi voted yea. So even if Schumer voted no Mukasey still would have passed 10-9 with a favorable recommendation.

Check out my Oregon politics blog at Forward Oregon

---

by: bdunn @ Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 11:45:27 AM CST

Is Novick going to say No to DSCC money if he wins the nomination? (3.00 / 3)

Don't be silly. The DSCC should support  Oregon's Democratic nominee not determine  the nominee.

---

by: E.B. Thom @ Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 12:35:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

exactly (0.00 / 0)

it's the Primary Election involvement that's generated so much ire towards the DSCC.

The ire towards Schumer in particular has a lot to do with his justification (and capitulation) on Mukasey.  If Bush wants to do a recess appointment, then let him.  But don't confirm anyone who won't take a strong stance against torture.

The Democrats are acting submissive when they have the majority and are facing an unpopular president.  What exactly are they waiting for?

---

by: maloney @ Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 15:21:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Hes not talking about the primary (0.00 / 0)

hes calling any money from the DSCC dirty as a result of Schumers vote.

Check out my Oregon politics blog at Forward Oregon

---

by: bdunn @ Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 16:17:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

A temporary stand on "principles" isn't based on principles (0.00 / 0)

You can't just call money from the DSCC dirty until the primary is over, and then change your mind because it suits you.  Wanting to give Novick every advantage is understandable if you're a Novick supporter.

But don't try and disguise a politically expedient move in principles.

---

by: Haze @ Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 17:35:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Primary (0.00 / 0)

Who said anything about a primary? I said "for a while". The primary isn't for six months. I think a message could be sent to Schumer by then.

---

by: darrelplant @ Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 02:04:53 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Unless the DSCC as a group are all registred Oregon voter... (4.00 / 1)

..they won't.

But don't let your fact-less bullshit stop you from posting the inflammatory crap you always post. Wouldn't want to break your streak now would we?

cheers,

Mitch Gore

---

by: lestatdelc @ Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 18:38:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Last line (0.00 / 0)

I sort of thought that was covered by the "At least not for a while" line at the end of my post. As in, let Schumer know they're not happy about the way the AG nomination went (assuming they're not) for now, and then later after a "while" has gone by acknowledge that they need the money in the general election to beat Gordon Smith.

Is that really so hard to comprehend?

---

by: darrelplant @ Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 12:41:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Thats silly (0.00 / 0)

Youre ok with them taking money later?  So you want to tell Schumer I care about the Mukasey nomination but not enough to take a stand for more than 37 seconds? So principled is your stand it inspires me *snark*.

Check out my Oregon politics blog at Forward Oregon

---

by: bdunn @ Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 13:41:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Great qualifying remark... (0.00 / 0)

For a little while?  That completely undercuts your so-called principled "stand", and provides a healthy dose of hypocrisy. 

How long would this so called stand last?  My guess is that you are incorrect bdunn. 

The proposed length of their principled "stand wouldn't last 37 seconds.  Rather, I think it would last for 196 days, or the day after the primary in May.

---

by: Haze @ Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 15:18:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

But what dirty money? (0.00 / 0)

I mean, is this a principled stand against a non-issue? My cursory search didn't really find anything, but I surely could have missed something.

---

by: James X. @ Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 17:11:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Refuse v Return (0.00 / 0)

You can't refuse to take money you have already taken, James. To "refuse" something is to "not accept" it. It doesn't mean giving anything back that you've already taken. The word for that is "return". That's just simple English.

I didn't claim that either Merkley or Novick had taken any money from the DSCC. I said that they might not take calls from Sen. Schumer even if they'd been promised money.

Do you folks actually read things before you make up your minds and comment?

---

by: darrelplant @ Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 02:10:05 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Money (0.00 / 0)

I guess you didn't notice that I didn't actually tell anyone not to take the money, did you? I said not to take calls from Schumer even if he'd promised money. I didn't say to refuse money now or or later. I said not to take Schumer's calls.

---

by: darrelplant @ Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 02:14:05 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I said it (0.00 / 0)

because that's what I thought you were saying, too. Once you stop taking the calls, my guess is the money stops coming as well, so I made the connection.

---

by: torridjoe @ Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 02:20:31 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Dirty (0.00 / 0)

That's fine, I titled the piece "Dirty Money". There is a potential connection, and I think that the taint is definitely there (in my opinion), but Schumer doesn't probably carry the checks himself. There's a staff to do that.

---

by: darrelplant @ Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 10:32:29 AM CST

[ Parent ]

So if Novick gets the nomination (0.00 / 0)

Which I am fine with since I have been supporting Novick, Steve should reject DSCC money because Schumer voted like a dipshit on the Mukasey nomination?

Trying to understand the "logic" of what this post is about.

cheers,

Mitch Gore

---

by: lestatdelc @ Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 18:41:15 PM CST

him speak pretty some day (0.00 / 1)

Which I am fine with since I have been supporting Novick, Steve should reject DSCC money because Schumer voted like a dipshit on the Mukasey nomination?

Trying to understand the "logic" of what this post is about.

Trying to understand the "English" of what this post is about. Has lestatdelc been getting elocution lessons from Carla? Truth in advertising, lestatdelc swings both ways. He's also a Merkley supporter. Fickle.

---

by: E.B. Thom @ Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 19:08:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Did you just use a bisexual double-entendre (0.00 / 0)

for a gay guy? I'm trying to figure out what my response is.

---

by: James X. @ Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 19:24:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

no. yuck. (0.00 / 1)

That'll be $5.95 for the mental floss, please.

---

by: E.B. Thom @ Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 20:30:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What's yucky? (0.00 / 0)

Gays or bisexuals?

---

by: James X. @ Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 23:05:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You are right (0.00 / 0)

I have contributed to Merkely when trolls post on BlueOregon.

Your point?

cheers,

Mitch Gore

---

by: lestatdelc @ Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 19:28:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

i seem to recall (0.00 / 0)

would be my guess...

---

by: torridjoe @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 12:18:06 PM CST