This is probably not the best strategy for Merkley’s campaign. The Republicans also have deep pockets to respond with this kind of circumvention of the rules. For me it shows a lack of ethical values from Jeff, and questions any motivation I would have voting for him.

What campaigning was he doing, other than telling the truth? I heard nor saw anything that showed an interest in running for an office. I did see the heartbreaking truth of the short-changing of GI's doing our countries bidding, and being screwed by the very country they served..
Repugs howl like a scalded dog when a truthful scenario scandalizes their party. When the shoe is on the other foot...ignore, ignore, ignore.

Kiss, During the month of June the Democratic-controlled Congress in the U.S. voted to fund the Iraq war deep into next year, to support a compromise version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that endangers civil liberties, and, in effect, eliminated the possibility of impeaching President George W. Bush.

If Merkley truly just cares about the issue and didn't want to campaign for himself, he could have easily just done a voice over without showing or identifying himself. Or the committee could've chosen someone else to have hosted the spot.

As someone approaching this independently, I can tell you that if a GOP candidate had tried this, the large majority of Democrats would have cried foul, and to say otherwise is disingenuous.

But then again, as they say with regard to SEC football recruiting, if you're not cheating, you're not trying. At least Merkley's trying!

I found it very interesting that the fine print at the end of the ad claims that it was "Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee".

Jeff Merkley is a candidate. He appears in the ad. But he doesn't authorize the ad?

It may not technically violate the rules, but as a practical matter it is absolutely a Merkley ad. And on that basis, Rich is absolutely right -- if Gordon Smith had run a similar ad on his "issues", paid for by ORGOP, the Democrats would have cried foul.

Given that Turtle voice of Merkley's, I agree they should have used a voice-over ... and had the "candidate" lipsync his part.

And where is all that DSCC money Schumer promised Merkley when he hand-picked (and purchased) Oregon's Democratic candidate?

Here's the answer to what happened to all that DSCC money. From Mapes' report:

"Mitchell argued that the ads should have been counted as an expenditure made with the knowledge and approval of the candidate. She said the Democrats couldn't do that, however, because they've already spent $386,000 of the $485,000 that the party committees are allowed to spend on behalf of the Merkley campaign."

Assuming the $386,000 mentioned above was spent on Merkley's behalf during the contested primary, it looks as if the Democratic Party establishment has hamstrung itself by choosing sides too early.

By spending most of its alloted resources against a fellow Democrat in favor of its hand-picked candidate in the primary -- rather than waiting for voters to choose and using its resources against Smith in the general -- The Party is in the position of having to skirt election law with a thinly-veiled loophole.

Nice work, Chuck!

I think it points out an obvious flaw in campaign finance. Not the one that Smith and company are complaining about, but the overall problem that majority of visible people in a political party are candidates for political office. Its a "celebrity" ad, using the recognizable members of the party to advertise for the party's issues. Or, are you going to limit political speech where the political parties can't use their own members? Democratic Party ads can't feature Democrats, only Republicans, Pastafarians, and Whigs. Republican Party ads can only have Libertarians, Federalists, and SubGeniuses.

If Jeff Merkley weren't running for office, the chances of the party having him be the spokesman for respect for veterans would be nil.

The only reasonable conclusions one can make from this are, 1) the senior party people involved are dumber than a box of rocks, or, 2) they would rather have Smith than Novick. I think the answer is (2), and it leaves me more disgusted with the senior D party people than with Smith.