U.S. Senate candidate Jeff Merkley has repeatedly told voters one thing about his wife Mary Sorteberg (standing by her man, above) in his race against opponent Steve Novick and several other candidates in the Democratic primary.
In TV ads and public appearances, he’s stressed the theme that his wife is a nurse. It’s all part of Merkley’s effort to show voters his commitment to tackling health-care issues.
More recently, Merkley has highlighted a second theme among many in this campaign — that “Merkley enacted the toughest ethics reforms in Oregon’s history.”
That quote emerged Sunday in a brand new TV ad from Merkley, Oregon’s House speaker, aimed squarely at Republican incumbent Sen. Gordon Smith.
The reference is to House Bill 2595, the sweeping 2007 measure that limited lobbyists’ gifts to lawmakers and gave state legislators running for higher office this year huge bragging rights.
Here’s the rub: That same bill, which passed 58-2, contains a clause that has received far less attention.
That clause doesn’t make it into campaign literature, because it didn’t restrict special interests. Instead, it codified Oregon lawmakers’ long-standing practice of nepotism, giving members of the Oregon House and Senate the special privilege of being able to hire their own family members. (Meanwhile, a separate clause in the bill banned the practice for every other public official in the state.)
Given those two themes, a review of public documents raises new questions about just how tough Merkley’s ethics reforms really were.
According to a review by WWire, Sorteberg was on Merkley’s legislative payroll in 2003, making Merkley a participant in what The Oregonian in 2005 called Oregon’s “time-honored tradition” of nepotism. That practice also was criticized that same year here, where Kari Chisholm of BlueOregon wrote, “It’s time to put an end to legislative nepotism.”
From 1999—when Merkley was first elected to the Oregon House as a representative of East Portland—until 2007, when he was serving as the House speaker, Merkley paid his wife on two occasions when the House was not in session. The Merkley campaign confirmed these payments.
One is recorded on Sept. 30, 2003 for $1,000. And the other is from Oct. 30, 2003. It’s also for $1,000. Both payments are listed on Merkley’s expense report as monthly “salary.” The 2003 Legislature ended Aug. 27.
There was nothing illegal about these payments to Merkley’s wife, even though they occurred before the nepotism clause was written into law condoning the practice. And according to a Nov. 18, 2005 story in The Oregonian, “at least half of Oregon’s 90 lawmakers have spouses or other family on their state payroll this year.”
But Janice Thompson, direction of Democracy Reform Oregon, a watch-dog group that has been part of reforming the state’s ethics laws, says Merkley’s hiring of his wife is troubling.
“That sounds like a classic case of double dipping, raising questions about whether the pay was commensurate with the work performed,” Thompson says.
Merkley was traveling Monday, but his spokesman Matt Canter defended the payments as “absolutely appropriate.” He says Sorteberg was temporarily replacing long-time Merkley aide Claire Griffin — whose salary was reduced, records show, while Sorteberg was being paid to perform clerical tasks for Merkley whose salary was lower than in previous months, records show, because she briefly stopped working for Merkley. During this period, Sorteberg was being paid to perform clerical tasks for her husband.
Canter says Merkley’s hiring of his wife is OK given the part-time nature of the Oregon Legislature. “If we moved to a full-time Legislature, it would make sense to re-examine this position,” Canter says.
Novick, who was the caucus administrator for the Oregon Senate Democrats in the late 90s, has never had the chance to decide whether to pay a family member for legislative duties. He’s never served as an Oregon legislator.
Nice find! The last sentence of a three year old comment on a blog…
Here’s a longer excerpt of my comment:
—————-
[T]here are surely relatives who do a fine job — but I think that a blanket policy that outlaws employing family members would cost less (in losing the few good ones) than the current practice, which has a tremendous cost in eroding public confidence.
I remember one ‘94 GOP revolutionary who was surprised to discover – upon arriving in DC – that there was no limo to shuttle him around (since he ran against those very perks).
Most of what the public believes about legislators is wrong (they confuse ‘em with Hollywood celebs) – which is why it’s critical to squash the few examples that are true.
It’s time to put an end to legislative nepotism.
—————-
I still think that’s right. There are surely family members whose work is quality – but we should move to a full-time legislature with full-time staff… and then ban the practice of legislative nepotism.
[Full disclosure: My firm built Jeff Merkley's website, but I speak only for myself.]
yeah, and Novick has helped torpedo campaign finance reform in this state – limits on money in political campaigns actually endorsed in 2006 by Willamette Week. When will you write about that? Why would Novick side with corporate interests to make sure there is unlimited money in Oregon politics?
Haven’t we seen this B-movie before? Merkley voted against robo-calls, but used them before the law went into effect. He votes against nepotism, but takes advantage of it as long as its still "legal." We already are seeing the Smith ads that take Merkley to task for voting against fundraising during session and then finding a loophole to jump through for himself.
And what’s the best Gordon has on Novick? "The Oregonian says he celebrates taxes." This would be the same Oregonian which endorsed Novick. My hunch is Smith’s attack dogs don’t read the local papers.
I am one of thousands of Oregon progressives who recently re-registered as a Democrat, and I’ll be voting a straight progressive ticket. Jeff Merkley as the Chuck Schumer endorsed recruit has no hope of ever receiving the votes of those of us who truly opposed the war from the start.
http://blog.oregonlive.com/mapesonpolitics/2008/04/from_the_vault_merkleys_antiwa.html#931312
Novick believed, as many organizations did, that specific provisions of the Measure would be overturned, leaving corporations still free to spend all they wanted, but hamstringing good public interest groups. Novick favors public campaign finance,
so to say he is against reform is absurd. This is a late smear attempt, IMO.
Mr. Chisholm, when will you finally stop forgetting to disclose your paid relationships when you’re shilling for your clients on KPOJ?
And why did you go behind the backs of your co-editors on BlueOregon.com to disguise who writes the supposedly neutral "in the news" posts on your blog?
(Sorry, Charlie. Kari made you look a tad foolish.)
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 28, 2007 11:04:04 AM
p.s. The Google Reader thing was a glitch. It’s now fixed. The "author" of the posts should read as "BlueOregon.com" – not any one individual.
———————————————–
Charlie Burr writes on Aug 29th, 2007 10:21am
The "in the news" pieces are meant to be neutral, or neutral from a progressive voice, but they’re actually not totally anonymous. If you click on the RSS feed button on the upper right side of the Blue Oregon home page, you can see who penned what, even as it’s listed as "elsewhere" or "in the news".
–sidenote, Kari "fixed the glitch" after he was caught fibbing and even before his Rogue of the Week award. Is there a Rogue of the Year?
http://thomsword.blogspot.com/2007/08/rogue-donkey_30.html
[Full disclosure: Kari is full of shit.]
Oh Thom… digging up nine-month-old questions. You’re such a dear. The answer is still the same: Because Nick is using my login – so the "author" variable would be incorrect.
Oh Kari…
If you’re going to offer up "answers" at least address the questions.
"when will you finally stop forgetting to disclose your paid relationships"
Answer: Never. (I have to admit, today when that guy called into KPOJ right after you and busted ya for not disclosing being on Merkley’s payroll… I chuckled…)
"why did you go behind the backs of your co-editors"
Answer: Because Kari is the chief cook and salad spinner over at BO. It’s no longer the neutral water cooler that I used to know and love and post on. It’s lost all credibility.
Archive photo found! (second pic down)
Here’s your hotlink, buddy!
http://thomsword.blogspot.com/2007/10/why-i-distrust-dscc.html
This article is so shallow.
Why not hire your wife to run the office while your Aid is out of town? I mean you don’t want just anyone in your house. That�s right, HOUSE. Most of our dear Senators and Reps. are paid so poorly that they rent space in their house to the state for the interim offices. That too is legal. Not saying it should or should not be just is at this time. I would bet that if you looked up the District Office for the time Mary was on staff you will find that it was located in their personal home. Furthermore, you have no idea about the stresses of being an elected official in Oregon. Unless you bring your dog to work with you every day, your only friend in the building is often your partner or kids. Not to mention the time commitments, unless us hire your family members, you would never see them during session. I am fine with this arrangement until we pay our Legislators a living wage, allow them to work family friendly hours and ban state funded offices in homes. And you will see the devil ice-skating before that happens.
TJ is wrong. The parts of Measure 47 banning all corporate contributions and all corporate independent expenditures are the parts most likely to be upheld. Such contributions and independent expenditures have been banned on the federal level for years (over 100 years in the case of corporate contributions to candidate campaigns) and have repeatedly been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, most recently in 2003 (McCain-Feingold).
Novick’s argument was not that the corporate parts of Measure 47 would be struck down. As an attorney, Novick would know how absurd that is. Instead, his argument was that there is not enough money in Oregon politics. He stated:
"And I can give you a pretty good argument that there ISN’T very much money in politics. General Motors spends two billion dollars a year on ads, nationwide. I’d guess the Oregon portion of that (we’re a bit over 1% of the population) is over $20 million. Annually. That’s a lot more than is spent on the Governor’s race every FOUR years. Why aren’t we trying to "get the money out of cars?"
I disagree with Steve’s position, of course. And Steve’s assertion about $20 million being "a lot more than is spent on the Governor’s race every FOUR years," turns out to be incorrect, because the $18+ million (spent in 2005-06 in the Governor’s race) is not a lot less than $20 million.
"until we pay our Legislators a living wage," How absurd! Oregon has wisely chose Not to have Professional politicians. If they wish to spend less than choose to keep the session to one in every 2 years and no more than 60 days. We don’t need no stinkin’ 2,000 bills introduced every session. Vote out incumbents and make term limits for real. In Oregon’s case Less is already too much.
This article makes me laugh when it doesn’t make me cry.
Erin caught me with her dramatic intro: "U.S. Senate Candidate Jeff Merkley has repeatedly told voters one thing about his wife Mary Sorterberg in his race [for...] the Democratic Primary…."
She’s a nurse!!!!
Oh my god!! Did he lie?
Wait….she is a nurse? Oh….so what did he do?
OH….he hired his wife to cover for his aide who was on temporary leave for two months and he paid her the incredible sum of $2000 for her work.
Oh I get it!!!! She must not have done any work….you got the facts on that right? Wait, she did stuff? So what’s the problem?
Oh, I get it. NEPOTISM!! That sounds bad.
He must have given her a really powerful job, right?????
Wait…clerical stuff?
I’m really confused……
So she is a nurse and she helped out her husband and the state and her friend on leave…..
Is this a problem? Is this journalism? Do we really need to get upset about this?
Don’t forget to vote, but don’t vote based on this article.
Peace,
Allison
You’re right, Allison. No laws were broken. Still, it’s a nice piece of work on the part of Speaker Merkley (and nice work, if you can get it).
Nepotism is reserved for the top jobs, Allison ("Heckuva job, Brownie), it also relates to handing out pretty banal jobs to close family members.
A thousand here… a thousand there… I guess that’s how you accumulate multiple properties.
**THIS JUST IN
(literally)
Eugene Weekly Endorses Steve Novick
By Andrew Gorry
Outsider candidate Steve Novick is EW’s pick as a guy who can do both. Novick is strong on the environment and healthcare, strongly anti-war and most importantly not afraid to take a strong position on controversial issues…
http://www.novickforsenate.org/news/eugene_weekly_endorses_steve_novick