This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on May 13, 2007 9:56 PM. The previous post in this blog was Not bad for 50 cents. The next post in this blog is Another transplant on Pill Hill. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Sunday, May 13, 2007

Colossally Bad Idea of the Year (So Far)

Let's make secret a bunch of additional records about where the State of Oregon is investing public money. This one's already through the State Senate and on its way to the House, apparently.

Just what we need -- the Goldschmidt crew's shadowy investment overlords cutting more backroom deals with the Texas Pacific folks, only now with no public scrutiny at all. Funny thing -- no one at the O has thought it important enough to write about. Scam on, people!

Comments (5)

Wow! Does ex-Governor Kiddie Diddler still
have his nasty finger in the pie here? We
should tell him to take his finger and stick
it elsewhere, don't ya think!

Neil's hand-picked successor is the governor, and many state and local agencies are run by people the old Neilster would have put in place himself if he still could. Maybe he's gone, and maybe he's even stopped calling to get what he wants, but his influence is still being felt throughout state government, particularly where big bucks are involved. Go by aerial tram!

This article is for Paid Print Subscribers ONLY.

You mean I can't even read about what I'm not allowed to know about?

Brilliant! If I had the print edition, why the heck would I need to look online?

You can find the CA version from 2005, SB 439, here. (You can also find analysis via the link.)

One of the arguments in support was that the state can make more money. It is an odd justification for a non-profit state government to make regardless of whether it is characterized as a legislative finding of prospective-fact or a mere aspirational state interest to support the legality of the exemption. The vulture capitalists were refusing to accept money from public entities in the absence of "secrecy" being extended out to them as a legislative policy choice – in response to a CA court decision regarding a public records request seeking info on a university's investment in pre-IPO Google.

I am curious if the exemption here will be interpreted more broadly than if the entirety of the public records law were repealed.

Clicky Web Analytics