They took out Ball, now this.

After the utter BS that the SOS argued lately in the signature verification joke, using that office as any kind of standard of ethics or even common sense is beyond laughable.

I think the whole thing hinges around when Sho became a "Candidate" and can you be both a candidate and not a candidate at the time for different purposes? (Sort of like you can use one address as your "Primary" residence to get your kid into one school, while using another address as your "Primary" residence for something else.)

Does that mean if I pay for a poll for a candidate, without their knowledge, but I FAX, or mail, them the results they get in trouble for not reporting it?

Out of curiosity, is it a "smear" only because you don't like WW's political maneuverings in general? If this was something a writer/outlet you respect reported, would it still be a "smear"?

Granted, the tone of the WW piece is very different than, say, the Trib piece. So maybe it's a tonal matter that makes the WW piece a "smear"?

I should have done my poking around before I posted a comment, so I didn't end up posting twice. But the following might be the sticking point, from the SoS manual for city candidates (page 19), where it defines "candidate" as including:

"... an individual who has solicited or received a contribution or made an expenditure to secure the nomination or election to any public office at any time, whether or not the office for which the individual will seek nomination or election is known when the solicitation is made, the contribution is received and retained or the expenditure is made and whether or not the name of the individual is printed on a ballot"

That makes my head hurt a little, but it would seem to cover a poll put into the field (if, that is, and as mentioned in the Trib article, the poll met the criteria for being considering an "in-kind" contribution).

What makes you think Sho's not legally required to list the poll? The guy sets up a campaign PAC, spends money registering websites, and starts asking for supporters to come forward, and he claims he's not a candidate? That doesn't smell right.

How did he know about the poll, anyway? Who did it, and why? Who paid for it? This is the whole point of the state campaign finance disclosure rules -- transparency.

"Failed to" implies a legal conclusion that is far from having been established. The Trib is equally guilty, in that it copied that word.

WW's preference in this election is pretty obvious. I have no problem with that -- indeed, I didn't like Ball and I'm not thrilled with Sho. But sometimes they cross a line, IMHO.

Jack—

You wrote:

"If you're not legally required to do something, and you don't do it, does that mean that you "have failed to" do it?"

I thought I addressed that point with the following sentence in today's story:

"Oregon administrative rules require that candidates disclose polling expenditures made by them — or on their behalf — within 30 days of the expenditure, according to elections compliance officer Nancy Ferry."

The relevant citation is Oregon Adminstrative Rule 165-012-0050.

As for your assertion that WW is shilling for Commissioner Adams, I would invite you to review these three stories:

http://wweek.com/editorial/3352/9925/

http://wweek.com/editorial/3409/10209/

http://www.willametteweek.com/wwire/?p=10468

You could also review the reader comments that followed WW's coverage of the Adams/Ball issue. You may be the only person who thinks we were shilling for Sam in that instance.

http://wweek.com/wwire/?p=9329

"Begins"?

IIRC, this is WWs second hit piece on Dozono.

Methimks "continues" is a more apt descripton of what WW is doing to aid
Sam the Tram Scammer.

If a city commissions a poll to test the public sentiment for or against a measure that they might choose to place on the ballot is this properly considered an expense that is attributable to the campaign for such measure? (It happens all the time, as a complete substitute for gathering signatures.)

"260.432 Solicitation of public employees; activities of public employees during working hours. (1) No person shall attempt to, or actually, coerce, command or require a public employee to influence or give money, service or other thing of value to promote or oppose any political committee or to promote or oppose the nomination or election of a candidate, the gathering of signatures on an initiative, referendum or recall petition, the adoption of a measure or the recall of a public office holder. [. . .]"

See 255_or_55_burt.pdf 1.7MB

If Mr. Dozono were to come to court to complain he might, were he to get the right judge, find that he has unclean hands because it would be against the law to try to compel the city to deliver money that it was not authorized to deliver to anyone anyway.

But in the land of oz, anything is possible.

Let the SOS attack the entirety of the portland scheme, and not selectively . . . therein lies a real "opportunity" here.

Suppose an employee in the auditor's office refused to deliver public money to any clean money candidate, including Mr. Dozono, could they be (justifiably?) discharged from their job for insubordination?

C'mon, this is kind treatment. If you don't think Sam is saving his whisper campaign when it looks like he can't win legitimately, then it will get ugly.

Welcome to Portland - Political Pop Stand

pdxnag, excellent point. WW should call Sam into question for sponsoring his several polls (at taxpayer expense)in his water bill road tax scheme.

If the tax scheme makes it to the ballot, Sam and Leonard and their staffs should be closely scrutinized to see if they spend taxpayer dollars in staff time or otherwise, to "oppose" the measure.

by them — or on their behalf

In this case, the candidate denies that it's the former, and no one has proved the latter yet. Objectively, "failed to" is the wrong phrase to describe the nonfiling at this point.

There's plenty more lack of objectivity in that piece as well.

And you clearly assassinated Ball -- I don't care what your commenters think.

Hmmmmmmm...Based on the logic here, I have a question...

If Sho had chosen not to run, based on the results of this poll, would he have been required to file as a candidate, report this expense, then drop out of the race?

Voters in Portland need to understand
how the misspending and bad management is accelerating and getting much worse.

And that the only way to change it is to throw out of office someone like Sam Adams.

Sure there are the blind faithful who enamor over everything Sam does but they have to be a super minority.

Nothing matters more than electing Sho and sending Sam packing.

If they are really concerned about the law they should to a freedom of information request for all electronic records of Sham's and Leonards staff for the past year. I have no doubt that would be an eye opener of violations under 260.432. Let's get in on, as sung by Marvin Gaye.