http://newsok.com/article/3136503/1191110866
Sun September 30, 2007
Cleaning up: Another crack at campaign reform
The Oklahoman Editorial
Republican state Rep. David Dank has chosen to take the lead on the issue of ethics reform, particularly as it pertains to campaign financing. It's a laudable goal, although generally the more rules that are enacted, the messier and more complicated it gets for everyone involved.
We've seen this on the national stage, where post-Watergate campaign finance reform muddied already murky waters and helped lead to the McCain-Feingold reform of recent years, which in turn has created yet another level of confusion and any number of ingenious efforts to bend or skirt the rules.
Dank, R-Oklahoma City, aims to build on modest ethics reform passed during the 2007 session. He has some sound ideas in his proposed legislation, among them a ban on accepting campaign contributions during the session (and during the 15 days before and after the session) and ending the practice of transferring money from one political fundraising committee to another.
The former would apply not just to incumbents but to candidates, which legislators may find more palatable than previous efforts aimed solely at incumbents. Those, they argued, would have put incumbents at a disadvantage, which is ridiculous. The power of the incumbency is immeasurable, for one thing. For another, candidates aren't in a position to vote on legislation — incumbents are, and we're for ways to eliminate the "pay for play” mind-set that's been all too prevalent through the years.
The Oklahoma Clean Campaign Act of 2008 also would:
•Tighten the definition of a "person” making a campaign contribution, to eliminate loopholes used by some companies and other organizations.
•Require detailed listing of all campaign expenditures on regular reports filed with the state Ethics Commission.
•Prohibit the use of campaign funds raised to run for one office in seeking another office.
•Prohibit the use of surplus campaign funds for personal purposes or donation to another candidate.
We're less enthusiastic about Dank's proposal to place a $40,000 limit on contributions by any person, lobbyist or family. That's sure to sit well with the public, but why that amount? Why not $20,000, or $50,000? This and his call to limit campaign contributions to campaign expenses, as opposed to such items as computers, travel expenses and food and lodging, seem an administrative nightmare waiting to happen.
That nightmare would likely fall to the Ethics Commission, which already is overworked and undermanned as it tries to keep pace with the myriad rules regarding public officials. Until something is done by the Legislature to fix that problem, and the commission is given the teeth to dissuade bad behavior, then Dank's wish to give Oklahomans "a clean campaign finance system” is likely to remain just that.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
http://newsok.com/article/3134081/1190770299
Wed September 26, 2007
Check that: Probe of campaign funds troubling
The Oklahoman Editorial
House Speaker Lance Cargill, who has spent the year soliciting the 100 best ideas for Oklahoma, may wish to add one to his list: Produce an explanation for Republican campaign accounts that appear out of whack, and pronto.
Cargill, R-Harrah, is a party in an investigation by the state Ethics Commission into several 2004 campaign checks that were written to the state Republican Party but instead wound up in the account of the Oklahoma County Republican Committee.
Among those surprised by this turn of events was Cargill's predecessor, former Speaker Todd Hiett, who says he thought his own $5,000 contribution was going to the state. "I delegated campaign finance to Lance Cargill as the (political action committee) chairman,” Hiett told The Oklahoman' s Jennifer Mock. At the time, Cargill was honorary chairman of the House fundraising committee.
Mock reported that a dozen checks from the 2004 election cycle, totaling more than $30,000, are the focus of the investigation. Many who wrote the checks said their contributions went to the county party without them knowing it. Others said that in writing a check to the state GOP, they didn't earmark or even care where the money went, provided it helped Republican candidates.
Five House Republicans produced a statement — issued through Cargill's office — defending their boss. They said Cargill in 2004 didn't ask for the funds and that none of them told the GOP how their donations were to be spent. Cargill says he's glad to cooperate with the Ethics Commission, has denied any wrongdoing and adds that the probe stems from gripes by "political opponents.”
That may be, but having money that's intended for one campaign account turn up in another at the very least emits an unpleasant odor. And to be sure, these sorts of things rarely go over well in the court of public opinion.
Wed September 26, 2007
Check that: Probe of campaign funds troubling
The Oklahoman Editorial
House Speaker Lance Cargill, who has spent the year soliciting the 100 best ideas for Oklahoma, may wish to add one to his list: Produce an explanation for Republican campaign accounts that appear out of whack, and pronto.
Cargill, R-Harrah, is a party in an investigation by the state Ethics Commission into several 2004 campaign checks that were written to the state Republican Party but instead wound up in the account of the Oklahoma County Republican Committee.
Among those surprised by this turn of events was Cargill's predecessor, former Speaker Todd Hiett, who says he thought his own $5,000 contribution was going to the state. "I delegated campaign finance to Lance Cargill as the (political action committee) chairman,” Hiett told The Oklahoman' s Jennifer Mock. At the time, Cargill was honorary chairman of the House fundraising committee.
Mock reported that a dozen checks from the 2004 election cycle, totaling more than $30,000, are the focus of the investigation. Many who wrote the checks said their contributions went to the county party without them knowing it. Others said that in writing a check to the state GOP, they didn't earmark or even care where the money went, provided it helped Republican candidates.
Five House Republicans produced a statement — issued through Cargill's office — defending their boss. They said Cargill in 2004 didn't ask for the funds and that none of them told the GOP how their donations were to be spent. Cargill says he's glad to cooperate with the Ethics Commission, has denied any wrongdoing and adds that the probe stems from gripes by "political opponents.”
That may be, but having money that's intended for one campaign account turn up in another at the very least emits an unpleasant odor. And to be sure, these sorts of things rarely go over well in the court of public opinion.
http://newsok.com/article/3136646/1191113300
Sun September 30, 2007
Staff shortage may delay ethics investigations
By Michael McNutt
Capitol Bureau
Lack of adequate staffing at the Oklahoma Ethics Commission makes it a certainty that an investigation into Republican House fundraising tactics in 2004 will take weeks to complete.
The commission only has one attorney to interpret commission rules and state law and only one investigator to look into complaints.
Both have to work additional hours to look into ethics complaints, said Marilyn Hughes, the commission's executive director.
The commission has seven employees; a new position has not been added since 1991.
The agency takes care of candidate campaign reports, lobbyist reports, financial disclosure statements, political action committee reports and registrations.
Hughes, the commission's executive director the past 20 years, said requests for additional funding typically are turned down by legislators — the same people the commission scrutinizes.
Staff funding sought
Despite record state budgets each of the past three years, no additional money for staffing has been approved.
"We've been asking for increased staff for the last 15 years,” Hughes said.
The commission will ask legislators next year to add three staff members, including another lawyer and investigator.
Rep. David Dank, who last week said he will file an ethics bill next legislative session to tighten campaign financing, said the agency needs more money and more teeth.
"They need to be funded properly, and the ethics laws need to be strengthened,” said Dank, R-Oklahoma City. "They need to have more investigators on their staff. Right now all they can do is shuffle (campaign reporting) papers, keep up with the paperwork. They don't even have time to investigate anything.”
Permanent funding
It may be time to consider finding a permanent funding source for the agency and to take it out of the legislative process, Dank said.
He started working on his ethics ideas in late May, shortly after this year's session adjourned.
"It's ridiculous what we've done with the Ethics Commission,” he said. "I just think it's important that we have an Ethics Commission that's functional.”
Rules prohibit any Ethics Commission member or employee from talking about investigations, who files complaints or whether complaints have been filed.
Secrecy surrounding investigations is important, Hughes said.
Numerous complaints have been filed in the past two decades that had no foundation.
"We're dealing with politics, and in politics you can ruin someone with unfounded allegations,” she said. "You don't have any confidentiality — then the commission can be used as a political tool.”
Sun September 30, 2007
Staff shortage may delay ethics investigations
By Michael McNutt
Capitol Bureau
Lack of adequate staffing at the Oklahoma Ethics Commission makes it a certainty that an investigation into Republican House fundraising tactics in 2004 will take weeks to complete.
The commission only has one attorney to interpret commission rules and state law and only one investigator to look into complaints.
Both have to work additional hours to look into ethics complaints, said Marilyn Hughes, the commission's executive director.
The commission has seven employees; a new position has not been added since 1991.
The agency takes care of candidate campaign reports, lobbyist reports, financial disclosure statements, political action committee reports and registrations.
Hughes, the commission's executive director the past 20 years, said requests for additional funding typically are turned down by legislators — the same people the commission scrutinizes.
Staff funding sought
Despite record state budgets each of the past three years, no additional money for staffing has been approved.
"We've been asking for increased staff for the last 15 years,” Hughes said.
The commission will ask legislators next year to add three staff members, including another lawyer and investigator.
Rep. David Dank, who last week said he will file an ethics bill next legislative session to tighten campaign financing, said the agency needs more money and more teeth.
"They need to be funded properly, and the ethics laws need to be strengthened,” said Dank, R-Oklahoma City. "They need to have more investigators on their staff. Right now all they can do is shuffle (campaign reporting) papers, keep up with the paperwork. They don't even have time to investigate anything.”
Permanent funding
It may be time to consider finding a permanent funding source for the agency and to take it out of the legislative process, Dank said.
He started working on his ethics ideas in late May, shortly after this year's session adjourned.
"It's ridiculous what we've done with the Ethics Commission,” he said. "I just think it's important that we have an Ethics Commission that's functional.”
Rules prohibit any Ethics Commission member or employee from talking about investigations, who files complaints or whether complaints have been filed.
Secrecy surrounding investigations is important, Hughes said.
Numerous complaints have been filed in the past two decades that had no foundation.
"We're dealing with politics, and in politics you can ruin someone with unfounded allegations,” she said. "You don't have any confidentiality — then the commission can be used as a political tool.”
http://newsok.com/article/3136806/1191150781
Sun September 30, 2007
How a $441G grant helped Stipe
By Tony Thornton
Staff Writer
SCIPIO — It was heralded as a boon for tourism, the kind that would bring jobs and other economic benefits to Pittsburg County.
Three years later, the federal government has little to show for its nearly half-million-dollar investment in rugged land purchased from former state Sen. Gene Stipe.
Debate continues as to whether Stipe's political clout played a role in a federal grant used to buy his land for a 1,720-acre, off-road trail project near the Scipio community.
The $441,600 Stipe received was the largest grant ever approved for Oklahoma's federally funded Recreational Trails Program.
State officials involved in approving the grant said they scrutinized the matter intensely after learning of Stipe's involvement.
"It went through the normal process,” said David Franklin, chairman of the Oklahoma Trails Advisory Board, which recommended approval of the grant to the state Tourism and Recreation Commission.
However, Franklin said he didn't learn Stipe owned the land until after the grant was approved.
‘A fair price'
Stipe tried selling the Scipio land for years but found no one willing to meet his price of $300 an acre, said Pittsburg County Assessor Jim Kelley, who tried to broker a deal to buy the land in the mid-1980s.
"In 1984, that was way too much. Now, it's a fair price,” Kelley said.
The land, part of roughly 5,000 acres Stipe once owned in the Scipio area, is filled with rocks and scrub oaks.
In 2004, when state and federal officials approved the grant for his Scipio land, Stipe was needing cash. A federal judge and the Federal Election Commission had just fined him more than $1 million for his role in the Walt Roberts campaign fraud case. Stipe also incurred massive attorney bills in that case.
He ended up selling 1,430 acres in November 2004 to a nonprofit group called Oklahoma Trail Riders for $441,600 that the group secured through a federal grant. Stipe donated an additional 290 acres appraised at $93,607 to fulfill a requirement of the grant. Two months later, Stipe sold a right-of-way easement to the motorcycle club for $20,100. The easement provides road access to the trails.
Each state gets Recreational Trails Program grant money based on a percentage of fuel taxes. In fiscal year 2005, Oklahoma got $1,058,213. The program funds motorized and nonmotorized trail projects for towns and entities like the Oklahoma Trail Riders.
The grant program requires recipients to come up with 20 percent of the total funding. The value of the land Stipe donated was considered matching funds. Factoring in the donated land, Stipe got $256 per acre. He also got a tax write-off for his donation.
"At that price, he didn't hurt nobody,” Kelley said.
Eight months before his sale to the motorcycle club, Stipe sold 3,324 adjoining acres of similar land to a Tahlequah man for $600,000, or $180 an acre. The buyer recently resold the land to a Texas man for $1.4 million, or $428 an acre, Pittsburg County property records show. That increase illustrates how property values in southeastern Oklahoma have skyrocketed recently, largely because of hunters seeking lease property.
"It's gone crazy,” said Rick Fender, an assistant assessor in Pittsburg County. "The stuff you used to get for $200 an acre, you can hardly get it for $1,000 now,” Fender said.
Stipe associate found land
Steve Travis, president of the Oklahoma Trail Riders, said approval of the group's grant application took more than three years.
"My opinion is, because of the landowner being who it was, it took longer than it would have otherwise. I think it caused more scrutiny,” Travis said.
He said the group approached a Tahlequah real estate agent around 2001 and asked her to find enough rugged land for motocross trails to be funded through a federal grant.
"She calls us back and says, ‘I think I've got some land for you,'” Travis said.
Records obtained by The Oklahoman show that the purchase went through Crosslin Real Estate in Tahlequah. Louise Crosslin, who operates the company, has business associations with Stipe dating back nearly 40 years.
Coincidentally, Crosslin served on the federal grand jury that indicted Stipe in a 1968 income tax evasion case. She joined him in a business venture a year after his acquittal in that case.
Crosslin Real Estate collected a $28,743 commission from the Scipio land sale, records show.
Travis noted that two independent appraisers determined the land's value. A third appraiser, Stephen Greer of Edmond, then reviewed the work of the other two and recommended a fair price to the Tourism Department. Greer's recommendation of $321 per acre was used to establish the amount Stipe would receive.
Proponents became grand jury witnesses
Those who wrote letters supporting the motocross track have familiar names to the FBI and federal prosecutors. Many of them also helped Stipe obtain state and local tax money for land he sold for a McAlester dog food plant in 2002.
A federal grand jury in Muskogee has spent much of the last year investigating the financing of National Pet Products and whether Stipe also was a part-owner.
Randy Green, who was then McAlester's city manager, said the Scipio trails project would have a "tremendous economic impact” that would create new jobs.
Then-McAlester Mayor Dale Covington predicted the trails project would create 15 to 25 jobs through a 3 percent increase in local hotel/motel taxes.
Both wrote their letters to the Federal Highway Administration on Oct. 8, 2003, long before it was disclosed who owned the property for the proposed trails.
A year earlier, Green urged his city council to spend $250,000 in local tax money as startup funding for the dog food plant, failing to mention Stipe's involvement.
Others who wrote letters supporting the Scipio trails project were Chester Dennis, executive director of the Kiamichi Economic Development District of Oklahoma; and Jason Smith, who then was director of the McAlester Economic Development Service.
Both testified before the grand jury concerning their involvement in the dog food plant deal, as did Green and Covington.
Trails' location is remote
Don't bother trying to find the Scipio Recreational Trails Project without a detailed map of Pittsburg County. The trails are 18 miles northwest of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary, far from any road you'll find on a state map.
Getting there requires traversing winding blacktop county roads to Scipio, then taking a gravel road the final three miles. No signs offer directions.
10-foot sign greets all-terrain vehicle and motocross riders at the trails' entrance. The sign thanks the state and federal government and acknowledges the land donation from "State Senator Gene Stipe,” even though Stipe left office 18 months before the land deal was done.
The Oklahoma Trail Riders' plan, which helped secure the federal money, said the trails would open within two years and thereafter would be open 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
However, the group missed its projected opening by nearly a year. And on a weekday visit last week, the entrance was closed.
The McAlester Chamber of Commerce told federal officials in 2004 that the trails would bring sales tax revenue and jobs to the area.
However, the chamber's executive director, who began working there in 2005, said last week she'd never heard of the project and is unaware of any benefits it has created.
In July 2006, the Tourism and Recreation Commission approved another grant for the Scipio trails. The $51,600 grant was to develop a trailhead, build rest rooms and a payment kiosk, and add more trails.
Sun September 30, 2007
How a $441G grant helped Stipe
By Tony Thornton
Staff Writer
SCIPIO — It was heralded as a boon for tourism, the kind that would bring jobs and other economic benefits to Pittsburg County.
Three years later, the federal government has little to show for its nearly half-million-dollar investment in rugged land purchased from former state Sen. Gene Stipe.
Debate continues as to whether Stipe's political clout played a role in a federal grant used to buy his land for a 1,720-acre, off-road trail project near the Scipio community.
The $441,600 Stipe received was the largest grant ever approved for Oklahoma's federally funded Recreational Trails Program.
State officials involved in approving the grant said they scrutinized the matter intensely after learning of Stipe's involvement.
"It went through the normal process,” said David Franklin, chairman of the Oklahoma Trails Advisory Board, which recommended approval of the grant to the state Tourism and Recreation Commission.
However, Franklin said he didn't learn Stipe owned the land until after the grant was approved.
‘A fair price'
Stipe tried selling the Scipio land for years but found no one willing to meet his price of $300 an acre, said Pittsburg County Assessor Jim Kelley, who tried to broker a deal to buy the land in the mid-1980s.
"In 1984, that was way too much. Now, it's a fair price,” Kelley said.
The land, part of roughly 5,000 acres Stipe once owned in the Scipio area, is filled with rocks and scrub oaks.
In 2004, when state and federal officials approved the grant for his Scipio land, Stipe was needing cash. A federal judge and the Federal Election Commission had just fined him more than $1 million for his role in the Walt Roberts campaign fraud case. Stipe also incurred massive attorney bills in that case.
He ended up selling 1,430 acres in November 2004 to a nonprofit group called Oklahoma Trail Riders for $441,600 that the group secured through a federal grant. Stipe donated an additional 290 acres appraised at $93,607 to fulfill a requirement of the grant. Two months later, Stipe sold a right-of-way easement to the motorcycle club for $20,100. The easement provides road access to the trails.
Each state gets Recreational Trails Program grant money based on a percentage of fuel taxes. In fiscal year 2005, Oklahoma got $1,058,213. The program funds motorized and nonmotorized trail projects for towns and entities like the Oklahoma Trail Riders.
The grant program requires recipients to come up with 20 percent of the total funding. The value of the land Stipe donated was considered matching funds. Factoring in the donated land, Stipe got $256 per acre. He also got a tax write-off for his donation.
"At that price, he didn't hurt nobody,” Kelley said.
Eight months before his sale to the motorcycle club, Stipe sold 3,324 adjoining acres of similar land to a Tahlequah man for $600,000, or $180 an acre. The buyer recently resold the land to a Texas man for $1.4 million, or $428 an acre, Pittsburg County property records show. That increase illustrates how property values in southeastern Oklahoma have skyrocketed recently, largely because of hunters seeking lease property.
"It's gone crazy,” said Rick Fender, an assistant assessor in Pittsburg County. "The stuff you used to get for $200 an acre, you can hardly get it for $1,000 now,” Fender said.
Stipe associate found land
Steve Travis, president of the Oklahoma Trail Riders, said approval of the group's grant application took more than three years.
"My opinion is, because of the landowner being who it was, it took longer than it would have otherwise. I think it caused more scrutiny,” Travis said.
He said the group approached a Tahlequah real estate agent around 2001 and asked her to find enough rugged land for motocross trails to be funded through a federal grant.
"She calls us back and says, ‘I think I've got some land for you,'” Travis said.
Records obtained by The Oklahoman show that the purchase went through Crosslin Real Estate in Tahlequah. Louise Crosslin, who operates the company, has business associations with Stipe dating back nearly 40 years.
Coincidentally, Crosslin served on the federal grand jury that indicted Stipe in a 1968 income tax evasion case. She joined him in a business venture a year after his acquittal in that case.
Crosslin Real Estate collected a $28,743 commission from the Scipio land sale, records show.
Travis noted that two independent appraisers determined the land's value. A third appraiser, Stephen Greer of Edmond, then reviewed the work of the other two and recommended a fair price to the Tourism Department. Greer's recommendation of $321 per acre was used to establish the amount Stipe would receive.
Proponents became grand jury witnesses
Those who wrote letters supporting the motocross track have familiar names to the FBI and federal prosecutors. Many of them also helped Stipe obtain state and local tax money for land he sold for a McAlester dog food plant in 2002.
A federal grand jury in Muskogee has spent much of the last year investigating the financing of National Pet Products and whether Stipe also was a part-owner.
Randy Green, who was then McAlester's city manager, said the Scipio trails project would have a "tremendous economic impact” that would create new jobs.
Then-McAlester Mayor Dale Covington predicted the trails project would create 15 to 25 jobs through a 3 percent increase in local hotel/motel taxes.
Both wrote their letters to the Federal Highway Administration on Oct. 8, 2003, long before it was disclosed who owned the property for the proposed trails.
A year earlier, Green urged his city council to spend $250,000 in local tax money as startup funding for the dog food plant, failing to mention Stipe's involvement.
Others who wrote letters supporting the Scipio trails project were Chester Dennis, executive director of the Kiamichi Economic Development District of Oklahoma; and Jason Smith, who then was director of the McAlester Economic Development Service.
Both testified before the grand jury concerning their involvement in the dog food plant deal, as did Green and Covington.
Trails' location is remote
Don't bother trying to find the Scipio Recreational Trails Project without a detailed map of Pittsburg County. The trails are 18 miles northwest of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary, far from any road you'll find on a state map.
Getting there requires traversing winding blacktop county roads to Scipio, then taking a gravel road the final three miles. No signs offer directions.
10-foot sign greets all-terrain vehicle and motocross riders at the trails' entrance. The sign thanks the state and federal government and acknowledges the land donation from "State Senator Gene Stipe,” even though Stipe left office 18 months before the land deal was done.
The Oklahoma Trail Riders' plan, which helped secure the federal money, said the trails would open within two years and thereafter would be open 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
However, the group missed its projected opening by nearly a year. And on a weekday visit last week, the entrance was closed.
The McAlester Chamber of Commerce told federal officials in 2004 that the trails would bring sales tax revenue and jobs to the area.
However, the chamber's executive director, who began working there in 2005, said last week she'd never heard of the project and is unaware of any benefits it has created.
In July 2006, the Tourism and Recreation Commission approved another grant for the Scipio trails. The $51,600 grant was to develop a trailhead, build rest rooms and a payment kiosk, and add more trails.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070930_1_A21_hTheO11725
GOP funds under question
By MICK HINTON World Capitol Bureau
9/30/2007
The Oklahoma County Republican Party received money meant for the state party.
OKLAHOMA CITY — Key Republicans intent on taking over the state House of Representatives in 2004 found a way to capture tens of thousands of dollars not intended for their use, according to documents obtained by the Tulsa World.
The bulk of the money came from legislators who thought it was going to the state Republican Party. Unbeknownst to some of these lawmakers, the money was diverted to the Oklahoma County Republican Party’s coffers, where the House PAC gained access to spend it for key races across the state.
Legislators are prohibited by state law from making contributions directly to the House Republican’s political action committee.
Whether the PAC’s actions under the leadership of chairman Lance Cargill were illegal apparently is being sorted out by the Oklahoma Ethics Commission.
Cargill, who is now speaker of the House, remains silent on questions about what kind of arrangements the PAC had with Oklahoma County Republicans, sticking to a statement he made on Sept. 20.
Asked to comment on questions about the diverted money, Cargill issued a statement saying, “I did not solicit, receive, deposit or expend any Victory Fund checks.”
Although the Victory Fund is not an actual entity, it is the term used by Republicans to refer to any party money raised for campaigns.
Checks to state party: Documents show that former House Speaker Todd Hiett and eight other lawmakers wrote checks to the state party, but the money ended up with the Oklahoma County Republican Party.
In all, House members put up a total of $48,000 that ended up at the disposal of the Oklahoma County party.
Hiett has said that Cargill, chairman of of the House PAC in 2004, should be able to explain how the state party’s money ended up with the county party.
Republicans took notice when GOP stalwart Ray Vaughn, a former state representative who is now an Oklahoma County commissioner, declared he was not pleased that his check was diverted. Vaughn said he remembers sending the check to the State Party Headquarters at 4031 North Lincoln Blvd. The Oklahoma County Republican Party rents space from the state party at the same address.
Rep. Susan Winchester, RChickasha, said there was no way that she would have donated money to Oklahoma County, rather than giving it to Grady County where she lives.
Paying for polling: Documents obtained by the World indicate that the PAC headed by Cargill had a role in directing the funds to specific candidates involved in tough races.
According to invoices presented by pollsters to the Oklahoma County Republicans, the PAC had a role in getting the county to foot the bill.
According to an invoice dated Oct. 29, 2004, pollster Bill Shapard conducted six surveys of key House races, all outside Oklahoma County.
Shapard sent the bill to the Oklahoma County party, and the party paid the bill.
A notation on the invoice states that Aaron Currey, then executive director of the House PAC, “instructed” Shapard’s firm to send the bill over to the Oklahoma County Republican Party. Currey could not be reached for comment. Shapard confirmed the polls were conducted for the Republican House PAC.
A notation on another invoice obtained by the World indicates that polling done by Cole Hargrave Snodgrass and Associates at a cost of $15,050 was paid jointly, with the House PAC footing the bill for $5,000 and the Oklahoma County party picking up the rest.
Fount Holland, the House Republican PAC’s primary consultant, also served as a paid consultant to individual candidates.
Several of the lawmakers contacted said they did not know the House PAC polling of their races was being conducted, even though Holland was consulting for their campaigns.
Holland said there was no law preventing him from serving as a consultant for both the Republican House PAC and individual candidates. He said he did not use information resulting from the House PAC polling when he was advising individual candidates. If the PAC information was used to the benefit of a candidate, it would have to be reported as an in-kind contribution, Holland said.
Over the limit: Questions have arisen on whether some candidates benefited from contributions exceeding the $5,000 limit. Records filed in 2004 by the Republican House PAC failed to delineate how much the PAC actually was giving to specific candidates, as required by ethics rules.
The only notation was “candidate contribution - campaign.” When the World pointed out this lack of information, the House PAC filed an amended report shortly after noon Friday, which was three years after the expenditures had been made.
The revised record showed that Republican incumbent Stuart Ericson received a $4,000 contribution from the House PAC. In addition, Cole Hargrave conducted a poll in his race, costing another $2,450, while Shapard’s firm conducted a survey in that race costing $500.
Ericson lost the race. However, Republicans were successful in capturing command of the House for the first time since the 1920s, when they held it for only a short time.
Another lawmaker, Rep. Tad Jones, R-Claremore, received $4,000 from the House PAC. In addition, two polls — one costing $2,450 and another costing $500 — were conducted on his behalf.
Possible Ethics Commission probe: State Republican Party Chairman Gary Jones confirmed in mid-September that the party’s attorney had informed him that the state Ethics Commission was asking some Republicans to appear, although he did not know their names.
However, the state Ethics Commission refuses to comment on whether it is investigating. Marilyn Hughes, executive director of the Ethics Commission, also declined to discuss whether the House Republican PAC could legally direct Oklahoma County to pay its bills.
Meeting behind closed doors to decide whether ethics rules have been broken, the commission has the choice of issuing a private reprimand, a public reprimand, calling for a civil fine or doing nothing.
A state law prohibits “a campaign contribution to be made to a particular candidate or committee through an intermediary or conduit” to evade reporting requirements or exceed contribution limits.
Richard Morrissette, a Democratic representative and an attorney, said his interpretation would be that this law prohibits the PAC from directing the county to pay for polls conducted for the benefit of the political action committee.
“If the factual scenario is that the expense was done for the candidate under the direction of the PAC, that could be a criminal offense,” Morrissette said.
Willful violation of the Oklahoma statute could result in a felony conviction and fine up to four times the amount exceeding the contribution limit or imprisonment for up to a year, or both. If the contribution amount in question is less than $5,000, a willful violator could be found guilty of a misdemeanor.
Mick Hinton (405) 528-2465
mick.hinton@tulsaworld.com
By MICK HINTON World Capitol Bureau
Comments:
(1) readers have commented on this story so far. Tell us what you think below!
1. 9/30/2007 8:57:52 AM, David,
I dont understand the consultant Holland's comment ..Are we to believe that the knowledge which he gleaned from those polls paid for by the county party would not benefit his clients like Representative Ericson? These folks are running a shell game ...as evidenced by not even reporting who they are contributing to. At the least there is a foul oder coming from the Republicans in OKC. Speaker Cargill should resign.
GOP funds under question
By MICK HINTON World Capitol Bureau
9/30/2007
The Oklahoma County Republican Party received money meant for the state party.
OKLAHOMA CITY — Key Republicans intent on taking over the state House of Representatives in 2004 found a way to capture tens of thousands of dollars not intended for their use, according to documents obtained by the Tulsa World.
The bulk of the money came from legislators who thought it was going to the state Republican Party. Unbeknownst to some of these lawmakers, the money was diverted to the Oklahoma County Republican Party’s coffers, where the House PAC gained access to spend it for key races across the state.
Legislators are prohibited by state law from making contributions directly to the House Republican’s political action committee.
Whether the PAC’s actions under the leadership of chairman Lance Cargill were illegal apparently is being sorted out by the Oklahoma Ethics Commission.
Cargill, who is now speaker of the House, remains silent on questions about what kind of arrangements the PAC had with Oklahoma County Republicans, sticking to a statement he made on Sept. 20.
Asked to comment on questions about the diverted money, Cargill issued a statement saying, “I did not solicit, receive, deposit or expend any Victory Fund checks.”
Although the Victory Fund is not an actual entity, it is the term used by Republicans to refer to any party money raised for campaigns.
Checks to state party: Documents show that former House Speaker Todd Hiett and eight other lawmakers wrote checks to the state party, but the money ended up with the Oklahoma County Republican Party.
In all, House members put up a total of $48,000 that ended up at the disposal of the Oklahoma County party.
Hiett has said that Cargill, chairman of of the House PAC in 2004, should be able to explain how the state party’s money ended up with the county party.
Republicans took notice when GOP stalwart Ray Vaughn, a former state representative who is now an Oklahoma County commissioner, declared he was not pleased that his check was diverted. Vaughn said he remembers sending the check to the State Party Headquarters at 4031 North Lincoln Blvd. The Oklahoma County Republican Party rents space from the state party at the same address.
Rep. Susan Winchester, RChickasha, said there was no way that she would have donated money to Oklahoma County, rather than giving it to Grady County where she lives.
Paying for polling: Documents obtained by the World indicate that the PAC headed by Cargill had a role in directing the funds to specific candidates involved in tough races.
According to invoices presented by pollsters to the Oklahoma County Republicans, the PAC had a role in getting the county to foot the bill.
According to an invoice dated Oct. 29, 2004, pollster Bill Shapard conducted six surveys of key House races, all outside Oklahoma County.
Shapard sent the bill to the Oklahoma County party, and the party paid the bill.
A notation on the invoice states that Aaron Currey, then executive director of the House PAC, “instructed” Shapard’s firm to send the bill over to the Oklahoma County Republican Party. Currey could not be reached for comment. Shapard confirmed the polls were conducted for the Republican House PAC.
A notation on another invoice obtained by the World indicates that polling done by Cole Hargrave Snodgrass and Associates at a cost of $15,050 was paid jointly, with the House PAC footing the bill for $5,000 and the Oklahoma County party picking up the rest.
Fount Holland, the House Republican PAC’s primary consultant, also served as a paid consultant to individual candidates.
Several of the lawmakers contacted said they did not know the House PAC polling of their races was being conducted, even though Holland was consulting for their campaigns.
Holland said there was no law preventing him from serving as a consultant for both the Republican House PAC and individual candidates. He said he did not use information resulting from the House PAC polling when he was advising individual candidates. If the PAC information was used to the benefit of a candidate, it would have to be reported as an in-kind contribution, Holland said.
Over the limit: Questions have arisen on whether some candidates benefited from contributions exceeding the $5,000 limit. Records filed in 2004 by the Republican House PAC failed to delineate how much the PAC actually was giving to specific candidates, as required by ethics rules.
The only notation was “candidate contribution - campaign.” When the World pointed out this lack of information, the House PAC filed an amended report shortly after noon Friday, which was three years after the expenditures had been made.
The revised record showed that Republican incumbent Stuart Ericson received a $4,000 contribution from the House PAC. In addition, Cole Hargrave conducted a poll in his race, costing another $2,450, while Shapard’s firm conducted a survey in that race costing $500.
Ericson lost the race. However, Republicans were successful in capturing command of the House for the first time since the 1920s, when they held it for only a short time.
Another lawmaker, Rep. Tad Jones, R-Claremore, received $4,000 from the House PAC. In addition, two polls — one costing $2,450 and another costing $500 — were conducted on his behalf.
Possible Ethics Commission probe: State Republican Party Chairman Gary Jones confirmed in mid-September that the party’s attorney had informed him that the state Ethics Commission was asking some Republicans to appear, although he did not know their names.
However, the state Ethics Commission refuses to comment on whether it is investigating. Marilyn Hughes, executive director of the Ethics Commission, also declined to discuss whether the House Republican PAC could legally direct Oklahoma County to pay its bills.
Meeting behind closed doors to decide whether ethics rules have been broken, the commission has the choice of issuing a private reprimand, a public reprimand, calling for a civil fine or doing nothing.
A state law prohibits “a campaign contribution to be made to a particular candidate or committee through an intermediary or conduit” to evade reporting requirements or exceed contribution limits.
Richard Morrissette, a Democratic representative and an attorney, said his interpretation would be that this law prohibits the PAC from directing the county to pay for polls conducted for the benefit of the political action committee.
“If the factual scenario is that the expense was done for the candidate under the direction of the PAC, that could be a criminal offense,” Morrissette said.
Willful violation of the Oklahoma statute could result in a felony conviction and fine up to four times the amount exceeding the contribution limit or imprisonment for up to a year, or both. If the contribution amount in question is less than $5,000, a willful violator could be found guilty of a misdemeanor.
Mick Hinton (405) 528-2465
mick.hinton@tulsaworld.com
By MICK HINTON World Capitol Bureau
Comments:
(1) readers have commented on this story so far. Tell us what you think below!
1. 9/30/2007 8:57:52 AM, David,
I dont understand the consultant Holland's comment ..Are we to believe that the knowledge which he gleaned from those polls paid for by the county party would not benefit his clients like Representative Ericson? These folks are running a shell game ...as evidenced by not even reporting who they are contributing to. At the least there is a foul oder coming from the Republicans in OKC. Speaker Cargill should resign.
http://www.okgazette.com/p/12776/a/1068/Default.aspx?ReturnUrl=LwBEAGUAZgBhAHUAbAB0AC4AYQBzAHAAeAAslashAHAAPQAxADIANwAyADkA
Documents reveal state GOP work billed to county party
Monday, September 24, 2007
By Scott Cooper
The Oklahoma County Republican Party, under investigation for questionable 2004 campaign contributions, was billed thousands of dollars for candidates in districts well outside of Oklahoma County during that election cycle.
In documents obtained by Oklahoma Gazette, various political and survey consulting firms conducted work for nine Republican state House candidates in the fall of 2004, none of whom ran for office inside Oklahoma County.
PAYMENTS
One firm sent a bill for $15,050 to the county party for survey work on six incumbent representatives. Another firm conducted six polls for various district races at a cost of $3,000.
The surveys were for races in the counties of:
• Cleveland,
• Texas,
• Pottawatomie,
• Rogers,
• Tulsa,
• Muskogee,
• Mayes,
• Wagoner and
• Murray.
Another invoice sent to the county party in 2004 totaling $1,705 went for “background research” and searches with the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation, records show.
On one invoice, a memo is written on the cover of a fax to forward the attached invoices to the Oklahoma County Republican Party for payment. The fax was sent to the county party.
NO COMMENT
Pam Pollard, executive director of the county party, said she could not comment about the documents, which deal with the timeframe under investigation.
State Republican financing is being investigated by the Oklahoma Ethics Commission for contributions made out to the state Republican Party, but ending up in the county party coffers. Some of the donors, who were elected Republican House members, have publicly said they did not direct their contribution to the county party.
Look for more coverage in the Oct. 3 Oklahoma Gazette. —Scott Cooper
2 Comment(s):
Tip of the Iceberg?
Are we sure this money came from campaign funds or did it possibly come originate in the PAC funds that Todd Heitt and other leading republicans filled with "contributions" from lobbyists during the legislative sessions? I know for a fact that at least one Republican lobbyist made a phone call to a retired legislator complaining about the "new cost of doing business" during Scott Heitt's first term as Speaker.
9/25/2007 10:57 AM | Okiecrat
Um....
So, what was wrong with the Oklahoma County Republicans helping out the other counties?
9/25/2007 10:57 AM | stinkerpants
Documents reveal state GOP work billed to county party
Monday, September 24, 2007
By Scott Cooper
The Oklahoma County Republican Party, under investigation for questionable 2004 campaign contributions, was billed thousands of dollars for candidates in districts well outside of Oklahoma County during that election cycle.
In documents obtained by Oklahoma Gazette, various political and survey consulting firms conducted work for nine Republican state House candidates in the fall of 2004, none of whom ran for office inside Oklahoma County.
PAYMENTS
One firm sent a bill for $15,050 to the county party for survey work on six incumbent representatives. Another firm conducted six polls for various district races at a cost of $3,000.
The surveys were for races in the counties of:
• Cleveland,
• Texas,
• Pottawatomie,
• Rogers,
• Tulsa,
• Muskogee,
• Mayes,
• Wagoner and
• Murray.
Another invoice sent to the county party in 2004 totaling $1,705 went for “background research” and searches with the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation, records show.
On one invoice, a memo is written on the cover of a fax to forward the attached invoices to the Oklahoma County Republican Party for payment. The fax was sent to the county party.
NO COMMENT
Pam Pollard, executive director of the county party, said she could not comment about the documents, which deal with the timeframe under investigation.
State Republican financing is being investigated by the Oklahoma Ethics Commission for contributions made out to the state Republican Party, but ending up in the county party coffers. Some of the donors, who were elected Republican House members, have publicly said they did not direct their contribution to the county party.
Look for more coverage in the Oct. 3 Oklahoma Gazette. —Scott Cooper
2 Comment(s):
Tip of the Iceberg?
Are we sure this money came from campaign funds or did it possibly come originate in the PAC funds that Todd Heitt and other leading republicans filled with "contributions" from lobbyists during the legislative sessions? I know for a fact that at least one Republican lobbyist made a phone call to a retired legislator complaining about the "new cost of doing business" during Scott Heitt's first term as Speaker.
9/25/2007 10:57 AM | Okiecrat
Um....
So, what was wrong with the Oklahoma County Republicans helping out the other counties?
9/25/2007 10:57 AM | stinkerpants
http://www.newsok.com/article/3131060/
Sat September 22, 2007
Ethics panel looks into GOP fundraising
By Jennifer Mock
Capitol Bureau
Twelve checks from the 2004 election cycle obtained by The Oklahoman on Friday are at the heart of an ongoing investigation by the state Ethics Commission into the fundraising practices of the House Republican leadership.
The checks — most of which are made out to the "Oklahoma Republican Party” and total more than $33,000 — ended up in the Oklahoma County Republican Committee's account. Many of the current and former House members cutting the checks say they thought the money was intended for the state party and went to the county party without their knowledge.
Others say it is common practice for lawmakers without a race in any given election year to write checks to the party to be distributed to candidates who need the money. By writing "Oklahoma Republican Party,” they did not indicate, or in many cases care, where the money went as long as the money got to financially needy GOP candidates, many said.
The Ethics Commission is barred from confirming if an investigation is occurring.
Pam Pollard, chairman of the Oklahoma County Republican Party, said she was barred from commenting because it is a "confidential manner before the Ethics Commission.”
Chairman confirms inquiry
State GOP Chairman Gary Jones confirmed Friday his attorney notified him letters had gone out to several party members about appearing before the Ethics Commission in connection with the investigation.
Jones said he did not know who received the letters. He was not asked to appear. He said he did not receive any of the $33,000 in 2004 and did not know the money was intended for the state Republican Party.
House Speaker Lance Cargill, who as honorary chairman of the Republican state House Committee at the time raised money for House campaigns, has denied wrongdoing, saying he "did not solicit, receive, deposit or expend” any of the checks in question.
What donors said
Six of the 11 lawmakers who wrote the 12 checks also said in a statement that Cargill did not solicit them for the funds and did not try to control how the money would be spent.
•The spokesman for former Rep. Ray Vaughn, who is now an Oklahoma County commissioner, said Vaughan's check was sent directly to Jones' office address. Rick Buchanan said he does not know how it ended up at the county party.
•Rep. John Trebilcock, R-Broken Arrow, said he wrote a check to the state party.
•Former Rep. Dale DeWitt said he wanted to help GOP candidates. He is not sure where the check ended up, but he knows it went to the candidates who needed it.
Sat September 22, 2007
Ethics panel looks into GOP fundraising
By Jennifer Mock
Capitol Bureau
Twelve checks from the 2004 election cycle obtained by The Oklahoman on Friday are at the heart of an ongoing investigation by the state Ethics Commission into the fundraising practices of the House Republican leadership.
The checks — most of which are made out to the "Oklahoma Republican Party” and total more than $33,000 — ended up in the Oklahoma County Republican Committee's account. Many of the current and former House members cutting the checks say they thought the money was intended for the state party and went to the county party without their knowledge.
Others say it is common practice for lawmakers without a race in any given election year to write checks to the party to be distributed to candidates who need the money. By writing "Oklahoma Republican Party,” they did not indicate, or in many cases care, where the money went as long as the money got to financially needy GOP candidates, many said.
The Ethics Commission is barred from confirming if an investigation is occurring.
Pam Pollard, chairman of the Oklahoma County Republican Party, said she was barred from commenting because it is a "confidential manner before the Ethics Commission.”
Chairman confirms inquiry
State GOP Chairman Gary Jones confirmed Friday his attorney notified him letters had gone out to several party members about appearing before the Ethics Commission in connection with the investigation.
Jones said he did not know who received the letters. He was not asked to appear. He said he did not receive any of the $33,000 in 2004 and did not know the money was intended for the state Republican Party.
House Speaker Lance Cargill, who as honorary chairman of the Republican state House Committee at the time raised money for House campaigns, has denied wrongdoing, saying he "did not solicit, receive, deposit or expend” any of the checks in question.
What donors said
Six of the 11 lawmakers who wrote the 12 checks also said in a statement that Cargill did not solicit them for the funds and did not try to control how the money would be spent.
•The spokesman for former Rep. Ray Vaughn, who is now an Oklahoma County commissioner, said Vaughan's check was sent directly to Jones' office address. Rick Buchanan said he does not know how it ended up at the county party.
•Rep. John Trebilcock, R-Broken Arrow, said he wrote a check to the state party.
•Former Rep. Dale DeWitt said he wanted to help GOP candidates. He is not sure where the check ended up, but he knows it went to the candidates who needed it.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OK_ETHICS_GOP_OKOL-?SITE=OKTUL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2007-09-21-10-15-15
Sep 22, 11:11 AM EDT
Worthen: Ethics panel has not asked him to appear
TULSA, Okla. (AP) -- The chairman of a state House political action committee that raises money to elect Republican candidates says he has not received a letter asking him to appear before the Oklahoma Ethics Commission.
Rep. Trebor Worthen, R-Oklahoma City, chairman of the House PAC, told the Tulsa World he called the Ethics Commission after it was reported he had been sent a letter to make sure that was not the case.
Gary Jones, chairman of the State Republican Party, said earlier this week the Ethics Commission is probing possible violations in GOP campaign financial dealings in 2004. Questions have been raised as to why contributions designated for the state party ended up with the Oklahoma County Republican Committee.
Jones said the party's attorney informed the party that "some people have received letters to appear" before the Ethics Commission, but Jones did not know who they were.
The commission will not confirm or deny whether it is conducting investigations.
Meanwhile, State House Democrats said Friday no one should rush to conclusions regarding the reports that House Republicans' campaign activities three years ago are being probed.
"Too often, politicians trip over each other rushing to judgment in these matters," said Rep. Danny Morgan, head of the House's minority party. "Right now, there are simply more questions than there are answers. We should patiently wait while the Ethics Commission investigators do their work."
On the other hand, Rep. Chuck Hoskin, the House Democrats' new caucus chairman, said the allegations appear to be serious, "involving Republicans at high levels of state government."
Questions have been raised as to why Republican candidates' contributions to the state party in 2004 were diverted to the Oklahoma County Republican Party, unbeknownst to some of the contributors.
Todd Hiett, then House speaker, said he did not know that the money intended for the state party ended up in the coffers of the Oklahoma County Republican Party. But he said Rep. Lance Cargill, who headed up the House Republican caucus, should be able to answer questions because he was responsible for the Republican PAC's activities.
Cargill, now House speaker, has not addressed the question as to why the money was moved.
Cargill, R-Harrah, released a statement Thursday saying, "We will play by the rules and work diligently to resolve any matter, and to show that unfounded claims that have been made are false."
The speaker said he did not "solicit, receive, deposit or expend any Victory Fund checks" contributed by candidates to the party.
Candidates can contribute money to parties but cannot designate how those contributions must be spent.
Meanwhile, another former lawmaker, Rep. Mark Liotta, R-Tulsa, said Friday he wrote a check to the state party for $5,000 at the time and was asked later by a staffer with the House PAC if it would be all right for the county party, instead of the state, to have the money.
Sep 22, 11:11 AM EDT
Worthen: Ethics panel has not asked him to appear
TULSA, Okla. (AP) -- The chairman of a state House political action committee that raises money to elect Republican candidates says he has not received a letter asking him to appear before the Oklahoma Ethics Commission.
Rep. Trebor Worthen, R-Oklahoma City, chairman of the House PAC, told the Tulsa World he called the Ethics Commission after it was reported he had been sent a letter to make sure that was not the case.
Gary Jones, chairman of the State Republican Party, said earlier this week the Ethics Commission is probing possible violations in GOP campaign financial dealings in 2004. Questions have been raised as to why contributions designated for the state party ended up with the Oklahoma County Republican Committee.
Jones said the party's attorney informed the party that "some people have received letters to appear" before the Ethics Commission, but Jones did not know who they were.
The commission will not confirm or deny whether it is conducting investigations.
Meanwhile, State House Democrats said Friday no one should rush to conclusions regarding the reports that House Republicans' campaign activities three years ago are being probed.
"Too often, politicians trip over each other rushing to judgment in these matters," said Rep. Danny Morgan, head of the House's minority party. "Right now, there are simply more questions than there are answers. We should patiently wait while the Ethics Commission investigators do their work."
On the other hand, Rep. Chuck Hoskin, the House Democrats' new caucus chairman, said the allegations appear to be serious, "involving Republicans at high levels of state government."
Questions have been raised as to why Republican candidates' contributions to the state party in 2004 were diverted to the Oklahoma County Republican Party, unbeknownst to some of the contributors.
Todd Hiett, then House speaker, said he did not know that the money intended for the state party ended up in the coffers of the Oklahoma County Republican Party. But he said Rep. Lance Cargill, who headed up the House Republican caucus, should be able to answer questions because he was responsible for the Republican PAC's activities.
Cargill, now House speaker, has not addressed the question as to why the money was moved.
Cargill, R-Harrah, released a statement Thursday saying, "We will play by the rules and work diligently to resolve any matter, and to show that unfounded claims that have been made are false."
The speaker said he did not "solicit, receive, deposit or expend any Victory Fund checks" contributed by candidates to the party.
Candidates can contribute money to parties but cannot designate how those contributions must be spent.
Meanwhile, another former lawmaker, Rep. Mark Liotta, R-Tulsa, said Friday he wrote a check to the state party for $5,000 at the time and was asked later by a staffer with the House PAC if it would be all right for the county party, instead of the state, to have the money.
http://wwwtmrcom.blogspot.com/2007/09/ktok-cargill-refuses-to-discuss-ethics.html
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
KTOK: Cargill Says He's Not Been Notified Of Probe
From NewsRadio 1000 KTOK ~ State House Speaker Lance Cargill on Wednesday made it clear he did not want to answer questions about a reported State Ethics Commission probe that could involve his fundraising in 2004.
It was at an Oklahoma City event where KTOK's Michael Cross attempted to question the Republican leader about the possible investigation.
Cross: "Have you heard about an ethics investigation or anything like that?" Cargill: "No, I think actually Damon has talked to the station."
Cross: "I was wondering if you heard anything about that at all?" Cargill walked off and State House Communications Director Damon Gardenhire was left to handle things.
"I guess first of all I'm not aware of an investigation, but secondly, the Speaker's not received any notification of anything like that. If they were conducting one like that with him, they would typically notify him and they haven't done so."
The reported Ethics Commission investigation centers around money raised by top House Republicans in 2004.
Labels: Ethics, Lance Cargill,
posted by Mike @ 4:05 PM 1 comments
1 Comments:
At 6:01 PM, Mike Donovan said...
I remember something an old friend of mine, the late Herb Johnson, used to say: "If you don't stand up and talk about it - that's all they're going to talk about."
His point, of course, whether you DO have something to hide or you DON'T, you better stand up and eagerly discuss it, even it means saying nothing for five minutes or the result is going to be, "He has something to hide *because he won't talk about it*."
For Cargill to walk off like that does NOT look good.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
KTOK: Cargill Says He's Not Been Notified Of Probe
From NewsRadio 1000 KTOK ~ State House Speaker Lance Cargill on Wednesday made it clear he did not want to answer questions about a reported State Ethics Commission probe that could involve his fundraising in 2004.
It was at an Oklahoma City event where KTOK's Michael Cross attempted to question the Republican leader about the possible investigation.
Cross: "Have you heard about an ethics investigation or anything like that?" Cargill: "No, I think actually Damon has talked to the station."
Cross: "I was wondering if you heard anything about that at all?" Cargill walked off and State House Communications Director Damon Gardenhire was left to handle things.
"I guess first of all I'm not aware of an investigation, but secondly, the Speaker's not received any notification of anything like that. If they were conducting one like that with him, they would typically notify him and they haven't done so."
The reported Ethics Commission investigation centers around money raised by top House Republicans in 2004.
Labels: Ethics, Lance Cargill,
posted by Mike @ 4:05 PM 1 comments
1 Comments:
At 6:01 PM, Mike Donovan said...
I remember something an old friend of mine, the late Herb Johnson, used to say: "If you don't stand up and talk about it - that's all they're going to talk about."
His point, of course, whether you DO have something to hide or you DON'T, you better stand up and eagerly discuss it, even it means saying nothing for five minutes or the result is going to be, "He has something to hide *because he won't talk about it*."
For Cargill to walk off like that does NOT look good.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Advertising Age: Thompson's Choice: Tonight Show Trumps GOP Debate
http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=120317
Thompson's Choice: Tonight Show Trumps GOP Debate
Rash Report: By the Ratings Race, Presidential Candidate Chose Right
By John Rash
Published: September 07, 2007
Here's this week's Rash Report, in which one brave media buyer, John Rash of Campbell Mithun, Minneapolis, dives into a week's worth of broadcast-TV ratings in order to illuminate those that delivered and those that didn't. Look for the Rash Report every Friday at Ad Age's MediaWorks.
MINNEAPOLIS (AdAge.com) -- Political pronouncements used to happen in town squares. Now they happen in rectangles. Or at least rectangular screens -- be it TV or computer -- as sitting on a bale of hay in Keokuk has nothing compared to chatting on the couch with Jay Leno in Hollywood. At least that's the route Fred Thompson took, along with buying a spot right before the GOP debate on the Fox News Channel and releasing today's version of an FDR fireside chat: a folksy online video.
This media morphing is just the latest in the political-media complex, as the onetime senator straight out of central casting can cast himself as a law-and-order candidate in large part by his part in NBC's "Law and Order" TV series.
Of course, all politicians prize loyalty. And networks do, too. His choice of "The Tonight Show" was certainly due to his NBC affiliation, but it was also no doubt because Jay Leno is the broadest, most accessible late-night host. And Barack Obama has already kept his cool with the cooler (if not icier) David Letterman, and Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul seem more like Charlie Rose guys. And all the candidates eventually make ABC's "Nightline" as part of the news cycle.
For those voters who judge a candidate's judgment more than his political platform, Sen. Thompson chose well -- at least as far as the ratings are concerned. Had he shown up to get scuffed up at the Republican debate, he would have been seen by far fewer people than watched him on "The Tonight Show." While Wednesday's "Tonight Show" numbers won't be available until next week, the season-to-date 1.7/7 rating and share in the ad-centric (and vote-rich) adult 18-49 demographic is 183% higher than the 0.6/2 the debate got, which was the highest for a presidential debate yet this election season (or seasons, given the length of campaign 2008).
This prompted the most trenchant -- and funny -- observation during the exchange, when host and guest agreed it was much harder to get booked on "The Tonight Show" than the Republican debate.
This blurring between L.A. and D.C. is indicative of the postmodern media moment much of TV is finding itself in, as the textbook postmodern markers of opposing hierarchy, embracing paradox and recycling culture are omnipresent in today's pop culture. This postmodernism is long what has cobbled cable together, and it is also increasingly prominent in prime time, including some of this week's top 10 programs.
Big Brother, for instance, used to refer to an oppressive, Orwellian surveillance society. Now, Big Brother isn't watching you, you (or at least some of you in these last days of summer) are watching CBS's "Big Brother," with two episodes in the top 10, at third place with a 3.0/9 and fifth place with a 2.8/8.
Indeed, what was once subversive is now celebrated: Fox's "Family Guy," which appealed mostly to single guys when it first debuted, is now embraced like a family comedy, as two episodes of the cynical sitcom tied for ninth this week with a 2.5/8. and the nontraditional family of CBS's "Two and a Half Men" is arguably the top family comedy on network TV and this week was sixth with a 2.8/7.
And Fox's "House" has broken through by breaking the mold of most protagonists: Out is the modern medical miracle worker so often portrayed in prime time, in is the postmodern Dr. House, who is an unpleasant, pill-popping, rule-breaking anti-hero that is loved by millions. Tuesday's episode delivered a 2.6/7, good for seventh.
To be sure, postmodernism hasn't hit every aspect of prime-time. Absent is the notion of meritocracy: Now many reality shows are embracing the paradox of lack of skill, such as NBC's "The Singing Bee" and Fox's "Don't Forget the Lyrics," which was fourth with a 2.9/8.
And the police procedurals, which are more indicative of modernism with their scientific certitude, has produced what many prosecutors call the "CSI effect," leaving jaundiced juries wanting foolproof forensic evidence. This isn't likely to end soon, at least based on CBS's franchise, as "CSI" was eighth with a 2.6/7 and "CSI: Miami" and "CSI: NY" cracked the top 20; "Miami" was 11 with a 2.5/7 and "NY" 20 with a 2.2/6.
And witness this week's top two programs, NBC's "Thursday Night Football" and "NFL Opening Kickoff Pre-game," which scored a 6.8/19 and 4.2/14 in last night's Nielsen "Fast Affiliate Ratings."
Oh, and as for Mr. Thompson's previous gig? Not the Senate (which has yet to discover ironic postmodernism, unless you count "family values" Sen. Larry Craig) but rather the modern "Law and Order," which spans crime-court-incarcerate in 44 minutes (and 16 minutes from your friendly sponsors). Well, it didn't run this week, but its spin-off, "Law and Order: SVU" did -- twice -- averaging a 1.6/5, slightly below the season average of "The Tonight Show."
~ ~ ~
NOTE: A share is a percentage of TV households that have their TV sets on at a given time. A rating is a percentage of all TV households, whether or not their sets are turned on. For example, a 1.0 rating is 1% of the total U.S. households with a TV. Ad deals traditionally have been negotiated on the basis of live-viewing figures, though Nielsen Media Research and the broadcast networks release viewership statistics that include live-plus-same-day playback on digital video recorders. All the ratings listed here are live.
John Rash is senior VP-director of broadcast negotiations for Campbell Mithun, Minneapolis. For daily rating updates, see rashreport.com.
Thompson's Choice: Tonight Show Trumps GOP Debate
Rash Report: By the Ratings Race, Presidential Candidate Chose Right
By John Rash
Published: September 07, 2007
Here's this week's Rash Report, in which one brave media buyer, John Rash of Campbell Mithun, Minneapolis, dives into a week's worth of broadcast-TV ratings in order to illuminate those that delivered and those that didn't. Look for the Rash Report every Friday at Ad Age's MediaWorks.
MINNEAPOLIS (AdAge.com) -- Political pronouncements used to happen in town squares. Now they happen in rectangles. Or at least rectangular screens -- be it TV or computer -- as sitting on a bale of hay in Keokuk has nothing compared to chatting on the couch with Jay Leno in Hollywood. At least that's the route Fred Thompson took, along with buying a spot right before the GOP debate on the Fox News Channel and releasing today's version of an FDR fireside chat: a folksy online video.
This media morphing is just the latest in the political-media complex, as the onetime senator straight out of central casting can cast himself as a law-and-order candidate in large part by his part in NBC's "Law and Order" TV series.
Of course, all politicians prize loyalty. And networks do, too. His choice of "The Tonight Show" was certainly due to his NBC affiliation, but it was also no doubt because Jay Leno is the broadest, most accessible late-night host. And Barack Obama has already kept his cool with the cooler (if not icier) David Letterman, and Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul seem more like Charlie Rose guys. And all the candidates eventually make ABC's "Nightline" as part of the news cycle.
For those voters who judge a candidate's judgment more than his political platform, Sen. Thompson chose well -- at least as far as the ratings are concerned. Had he shown up to get scuffed up at the Republican debate, he would have been seen by far fewer people than watched him on "The Tonight Show." While Wednesday's "Tonight Show" numbers won't be available until next week, the season-to-date 1.7/7 rating and share in the ad-centric (and vote-rich) adult 18-49 demographic is 183% higher than the 0.6/2 the debate got, which was the highest for a presidential debate yet this election season (or seasons, given the length of campaign 2008).
This prompted the most trenchant -- and funny -- observation during the exchange, when host and guest agreed it was much harder to get booked on "The Tonight Show" than the Republican debate.
This blurring between L.A. and D.C. is indicative of the postmodern media moment much of TV is finding itself in, as the textbook postmodern markers of opposing hierarchy, embracing paradox and recycling culture are omnipresent in today's pop culture. This postmodernism is long what has cobbled cable together, and it is also increasingly prominent in prime time, including some of this week's top 10 programs.
Big Brother, for instance, used to refer to an oppressive, Orwellian surveillance society. Now, Big Brother isn't watching you, you (or at least some of you in these last days of summer) are watching CBS's "Big Brother," with two episodes in the top 10, at third place with a 3.0/9 and fifth place with a 2.8/8.
Indeed, what was once subversive is now celebrated: Fox's "Family Guy," which appealed mostly to single guys when it first debuted, is now embraced like a family comedy, as two episodes of the cynical sitcom tied for ninth this week with a 2.5/8. and the nontraditional family of CBS's "Two and a Half Men" is arguably the top family comedy on network TV and this week was sixth with a 2.8/7.
And Fox's "House" has broken through by breaking the mold of most protagonists: Out is the modern medical miracle worker so often portrayed in prime time, in is the postmodern Dr. House, who is an unpleasant, pill-popping, rule-breaking anti-hero that is loved by millions. Tuesday's episode delivered a 2.6/7, good for seventh.
To be sure, postmodernism hasn't hit every aspect of prime-time. Absent is the notion of meritocracy: Now many reality shows are embracing the paradox of lack of skill, such as NBC's "The Singing Bee" and Fox's "Don't Forget the Lyrics," which was fourth with a 2.9/8.
And the police procedurals, which are more indicative of modernism with their scientific certitude, has produced what many prosecutors call the "CSI effect," leaving jaundiced juries wanting foolproof forensic evidence. This isn't likely to end soon, at least based on CBS's franchise, as "CSI" was eighth with a 2.6/7 and "CSI: Miami" and "CSI: NY" cracked the top 20; "Miami" was 11 with a 2.5/7 and "NY" 20 with a 2.2/6.
And witness this week's top two programs, NBC's "Thursday Night Football" and "NFL Opening Kickoff Pre-game," which scored a 6.8/19 and 4.2/14 in last night's Nielsen "Fast Affiliate Ratings."
Oh, and as for Mr. Thompson's previous gig? Not the Senate (which has yet to discover ironic postmodernism, unless you count "family values" Sen. Larry Craig) but rather the modern "Law and Order," which spans crime-court-incarcerate in 44 minutes (and 16 minutes from your friendly sponsors). Well, it didn't run this week, but its spin-off, "Law and Order: SVU" did -- twice -- averaging a 1.6/5, slightly below the season average of "The Tonight Show."
~ ~ ~
NOTE: A share is a percentage of TV households that have their TV sets on at a given time. A rating is a percentage of all TV households, whether or not their sets are turned on. For example, a 1.0 rating is 1% of the total U.S. households with a TV. Ad deals traditionally have been negotiated on the basis of live-viewing figures, though Nielsen Media Research and the broadcast networks release viewership statistics that include live-plus-same-day playback on digital video recorders. All the ratings listed here are live.
John Rash is senior VP-director of broadcast negotiations for Campbell Mithun, Minneapolis. For daily rating updates, see rashreport.com.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/09/fred_thompsons_record_on_econo.php
Club for Growth Releases Sixth Presidential White Paper
Fred Thompson Senate Record is Generally Pro-Growth
Washington - Today, the Club for Growth released its presidential white paper on Republican presidential candidate former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson (see PDF). The sixth in a series of white papers on the pro-growth records of presidential candidates, the attached report provides an extensive summary of Fred Thompson's economic policies during his eight years in the U.S. Senate.
"Fred Thompson's eight-year record is generally pro-growth with an excellent record on entitlement reform and school choice and a very good record on taxes, regulation, and trade," said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey. "His belief in a limited federal government is demonstrated by his numerous votes against government intrusion in the private sector and increased federal spending. His fondness for Tennessee pork aside, Thompson consistently voted against increased spending and new government projects, at times, one of only a handful of senators to do so."
The white paper provides an in-depth look at Thompson's strengths and weaknesses, giving the Senator credit for supporting the flat tax and for sponsoring legislation for Social Security personal accounts at a time when few would touch the issue. At the same time, the white paper explores Thompson's enigmatic record on tort reform and takes the southern Senator to task for his instrumental support of McCain-Feingold, questioning why his belief in limited government doesn't extend to government's regulation of political speech.
"Given his recent doubts about McCain-Feingold, Senator Thompson will have to clarify his current position on political speech," Mr. Toomey continued, "and explain how he would deal with our expensive tort system given his philosophical opposition to comprehensive tort reform. That said, Fred Thompson's overall record contains the hallmarks of a pro-growth economic conservative."
Fred Thompson Senate Record is Generally Pro-Growth
Washington - Today, the Club for Growth released its presidential white paper on Republican presidential candidate former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson (see PDF). The sixth in a series of white papers on the pro-growth records of presidential candidates, the attached report provides an extensive summary of Fred Thompson's economic policies during his eight years in the U.S. Senate.
"Fred Thompson's eight-year record is generally pro-growth with an excellent record on entitlement reform and school choice and a very good record on taxes, regulation, and trade," said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey. "His belief in a limited federal government is demonstrated by his numerous votes against government intrusion in the private sector and increased federal spending. His fondness for Tennessee pork aside, Thompson consistently voted against increased spending and new government projects, at times, one of only a handful of senators to do so."
The white paper provides an in-depth look at Thompson's strengths and weaknesses, giving the Senator credit for supporting the flat tax and for sponsoring legislation for Social Security personal accounts at a time when few would touch the issue. At the same time, the white paper explores Thompson's enigmatic record on tort reform and takes the southern Senator to task for his instrumental support of McCain-Feingold, questioning why his belief in limited government doesn't extend to government's regulation of political speech.
"Given his recent doubts about McCain-Feingold, Senator Thompson will have to clarify his current position on political speech," Mr. Toomey continued, "and explain how he would deal with our expensive tort system given his philosophical opposition to comprehensive tort reform. That said, Fred Thompson's overall record contains the hallmarks of a pro-growth economic conservative."
The Fred Heads are Coming!
Oklahomans for Fred Thompson is pleased to announce that there will be a Fred Thompson for President Kickoff party at Cocina De Mino restaurant on Thursday, September 6th starting at 6PM. The restaurant is located at 6022 S. Western in Oklahoma City. Appetizers and non-alcoholic beverages will be free. The event will include the live webcast of Senator Thompson’s presidential announcement speech as well as short comments by some of the many Oklahoma leaders who are endorsing him.
Oklahomans for Fred Thompson is pleased to announce that there will be a Fred Thompson for President Kickoff party at Cocina De Mino restaurant on Thursday, September 6th starting at 6PM. The restaurant is located at 6022 S. Western in Oklahoma City. Appetizers and non-alcoholic beverages will be free. The event will include the live webcast of Senator Thompson’s presidential announcement speech as well as short comments by some of the many Oklahoma leaders who are endorsing him.
Fred Thompson on Jay Leno: "I'm running for President of the United States."
Transcript
FRED THOMPSON: Thank you.
JAY LENO: Thanks for coming. I hope you didn't hear the monologue.
FRED THOMPSON: I did. We'll let the Tennessee joke slide until after the election.
JAY LENO: Right.
FRED THOMPSON: You know, I appreciated that last segment you did, though. Every once in a while I need something that just makes me glad I got out of television. (Laughter.)
JAY LENO: Oh, really. Thanks. That's very kind of you. I've got to ask you something. You were here in June. You said then you were testing the water. You've been in the water for a while now. Are you starting to get a little wrinkly? (Laughter.)
FRED THOMPSON: These wrinkles don't come from the water. (Laughter.)
JAY LENO: They don't come from the water. All right. What's the temperature? Is it tepid? What does the water tell you.
FRED THOMPSON: Nice and warm.
JAY LENO: Nice and warm?
FRED THOMPSON: It hasn't been that long really. We've done in a few months, where a lot of people have been working on it since they were in the choir in high school. So we're where we need to be right now, and that's one of the things I wanted to talk to you about. I'm running for President of the United States.
JAY LENO: All right. (Applause.)
FRED THOMPSON: Thank you.
JAY LENO: I'm excited. Wow.
FRED THOMPSON: Thank you.
JAY LENO: Well, that's very exciting. Now, it took a long time to decide this.
FRED THOMPSON: Not really. We started -- we mentioned it the first time in March. A lot of people have been, of course, running for some time. Everybody kind of changed the rules. Usually you don't announce until after Labor Day, but they started running a lot earlier, spending millions of dollars and so forth, and everyone said that you couldn't run this year without raising a hundred million dollars and starting much earlier. I don't believe that. I wasn't in the room when they made the rules; so I had to kind of follow my own lead. So we started around the kitchen table in late March talking about it, thinking about it, thinking about what kind of world and what kind of country our kids were going to grow up in and how many people have a chance to do something about it. And I decided that it was time for me to step up. So I did. (Applause.)
JAY LENO: A lot of the pundits say, "Oh, well, you waited too long."
FRED THOMPSON: No, I don't think so. Of course, we'll find out, but I don't think people are going to say, you know, "That guy would make a very good President, but he just didn't get in soon enough." (Laughter.) Communications being what they are nowadays, if you can't get your message out in a few months, you're probably not ever going to get it out. Most people don't start paying attention to these elections until they get a little closer. They treat politicians kind of like the dentist -- they don't have anything to do with them until they have to, until the election is near. (Laughter.)
JAY LENO: Well, you haven't spent any money yet, and you're second in the polls. There must be something to the theory.
FRED THOMPSON: Not too bad. Well, you can't tell much by polls these days, but obviously the people are going to give me an opportunity to talk to them about the things that I think are important. I think there will be decisions made in the next few years that are going to impact our lives and the lives of our kids and grandkids for a long, long time. They're going to determine whether or not we're a weaker, less prosperous, more-divided nation than we have been. We can't let that happen on our watch.
JAY LENO: Now, if you -- Giuliani, Romney, McCain -- which of those guys is the toughest opponent? Which do you fear the most?
FRED THOMPSON: I don't know. I know them all to a certain extent. John McCain and I sit side by side on the Senate floor. He's a good friend and will be after this is over with unless, of course, he beats me.
JAY LENO: Right. (Laughter.)
FRED THOMPSON: Then I'll have to take another look at it, but I can't gauge them. I still think it's kind of early. You know, if you look back in history, some of these primary states, early primary states, have changed from what the polls were from like three weeks out.
JAY LENO: Right.
FRED THOMPSON: They're all formidable, but I think I will be, too. So the nation is not going to be hurt by having one more good person step into the race.
JAY LENO: Now you're on the cover of "Newsweek." It says "Lazy Like a Fox," which is -- I used to get this in school. "Jay has the ability but does not apply himself. (Laughter.) "If Jay spent as much time" -- Do you consider yourself a good -- do you like to campaign, or is it one of those necessary evils?
FRED THOMPSON: No, I like the part where you get out with the people.
JAY LENO: Right.
FRED THOMPSON: That's kind of been my history, you know, the red pick-up truck and all, you know, more than just symbolism. First of all, it got me away from the staff. They couldn't ride along in the truck. It also got me out with the people.
JAY LENO: You took a truck and drove around?
FRED THOMPSON: Took my truck and with one guy. A lot of times he drove; sometimes I drove. We'd go from town to town and announce ahead of time we were showing up, pull up in the square. I'd get in the back of the truck in the bed and make a speech, and we'd move on. And we went from 20 points down against a popular incumbent congressman to 20 points ahead on election night. And then, two years later, we ran again in another contested race, won by another 20 points. I won in Tennessee -- if I can brag a little bit on myself politically -- by 20 points in two races in a state that Bill Clinton carried twice. So I must like campaigning enough to get the job done. And the same thing is true with regard to what we're facing now. Of course, the stakes are much more important, I think, much more serious when you're running for President, and I take it that way. I'm going to do my dead-level best to make sure that the people get an opportunity to make the decision. You know,
the pundits have all decided one way or another. The media and a lot of people make their living off of politics nowadays, and that's fine. But if I can get out with the folks, sometimes I'll communicate to them on the air waves, where tonight, I think, right after the show is over, we're going to have on our website -- Fred08.com -- I'm on for about 15 minutes telling the folks what I'm doing and why I'm doing it. So we're using that. And then we're going tonight, Jeri and the kids are backstage here. We're going to go to Iowa. So we'll do that plus grassroots campaigning which is what we're going to do in Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina for the next, oh, seven days.
JAY LENO: You mentioned New Hampshire now. Your fellow Republicans are debating tonight, and they're a little miffed at you for being here instead of being there. What do you say?
FRED THOMPSON: Well, we'll have an opportunity to debate a lot. I've been debating in courtrooms in the country since I was 28 years old and political forums and so forth. So they're fine, and we'll do our fair share.
JAY LENO: What do you think of them? As someone who watches these debates, I must admit it's a little thirty-second --
FRED THOMPSON: I don't think much of them.
JAY LENO: How would you like to debate? FRED THOMPSON: I would do it in small groups preferably one-on-one and set aside a segment of time -- Newt Gingrich has a good idea. He talks about the Lincoln-Douglas debates. The circumstances are different, but the principal is still the same: A thoughtful discussion over a period time to get to know what people are really thinking and what they're really like. The segments now, you know, you've got ten guys if everybody shows up, you know, with 30, 40 second sound bites. It's not designed to enlighten the American people. It's more designed for the people who are putting the debates on, and you run from one to another to another to another, and that's all well and good. I'll do my share, but I don't think it's a very enlightening forum to tell you truth. And I'll tell you something else. For those who talk about that New Hampshire situation, I'm certainly not disrespecting them, but it's a lot more difficult to get on the
"Tonight Show" than it is to get into a presidential debate. (Applause.)
JAY LENO: Exactly. We'll be right back with Fred Thompson right after this. (Commercial break.)
JAY LENO: We're back with newly announced Presidential candidate Fred Thompson. And that is the most presidential suit I've ever seen.
FRED THOMPSON: Thank you very much.
JAY LENO: That's the one they issue when you're going to run?
FRED THOMPSON: The official Presidential suit.
JAY LENO: Let me ask you. I've got some bumper stickers. Let's see if you like any of these here. "Fred Thompson Because Giuliani is Too Hard to Spell." (Laughter.) I like this one, "Fred Thompson. He has a narrow stance." (Laughter.) Probably can't comment on that one.
FRED THOMPSON: Uh-uh.
JAY LENO: We'll try one more. "Because I'm not Dr. Phil." (Laughter.)
FRED THOMPSON: I have been mistaken for Dr. Phil.
JAY LENO: Really.
FRED THOMPSON: Yes.
JAY LENO: If it works, use it.Let me ask you about some serious matters. The Iraq war, obviously the biggest issue in the campaign -- were you for it?
FRED THOMPSON: Yeah.
JAY LENO: You were for it.
FRED THOMPSON: I think we got to remember what it would be like if we had not done what we did. Saddam would still be there, having defeated the United Nations, all the resolutions. It would have defeated the United States in effect. It would have been in a position to continue its nuclear weapons program. His two sons would still have been doing what they were doing -- putting people in human shredders and attacking their neighbors. And I think, especially in light of what Iran is doing right now, they certainly would have been in a nuclear competition in that part of the world, sitting on those oil reserves. To think that, had we not gone in there, we wouldn't have any problems or anything, I think is dead wrong.
JAY LENO: Do we stay?
FRED THOMPSON: I think we stay until we get the job done, Jay. I don't think --
JAY LENO: What is the definition of "get the job done"? I think that's the part that is confusing people.
FRED THOMPSON: Until it is pacified enough for those people who walk through those lines with people shooting at them in some cases who voted, put their finger in the ink and so forth, the first time in that part of the world, in the history of the world, until they have an opportunity to have a free life and to not be killed by al-Qaeda and others fighting in that part of the world. I think that's doable. I think it's tough, but I think we can't afford to go into a situation and not show resolve. I think the most dangerous thing in the world that could happen to the United States of America is for people to think we're weak and divided. Iraq is a part of a much bigger picture -- Iraq and Afghanistan. There's a global war going on. We are the main target and those who would befriend us. The enemy is ruthless. Al-Qaeda is here in this country. National intelligence estimates tell us that. They are strong. They're trying to get their hands on nuclear weapons and other
weapons of mass destruction. I don't know how much -- how more stark the situation could be. That's going to be the situation we're going to have to deal with for sometime regardless of what happens in Iraq, but if the wrong result happens in Iraq and we're perceived the wrong way by friends and enemies alike, it's going to make the situation more difficult, and we're going to be more vulnerable. It's a tough deal, but a it's a choice of two bad choices. It's not a good and a bad.
JAY LENO: Well, how about Iran? Do you see possible military action there as well? I mean, at what point does it stop?
FRED THOMPSON: You can't ever tell what the facts on the ground are going to be a year or two years from where we're sitting here. Obviously our intelligence know some things that you and I don't know. I was chairman of a committee that dealt with some of these issues for the Secretary of State until I resigned to do this. I had a high security clearance, but I don't know exactly where they are in their nuclear program. I don't think our intelligence knows precisely, but they're moving in that direction, and they're clearly responsible for more and more of our problems. They are sending in these improvised explosive devices. They're training Iraqi militants in Iran and sending them back in to Iraq. They're sponsoring Hezbollah and probably as we speak are planning another attack on Israel. They support Hamas. They support terrorism all around the world. They've got a fellow who is not put together well upstairs running the country and has threatened the destruction of
Israel. I mean, sometimes, when these maniacs make threats, they mean it, and it comes to pass later on. So we've got to take that situation very seriously, but obviously a military attack is the last thing in the world that you want to have to do, and there's some things that we can do that probably will not necessitate that.
JAY LENO: I just wonder what we do to get a -- I grew up -- when I was a kid, John F. Kennedy was President. It was the Peace Corps, and we would send American college students to these countries, and they would love us. I think we made friendships that were good for 25, 30 years because Americans had befriended these countries. And it seems like we are not well-liked around the world. Maybe I'm naive and maybe because I'm in show business, but it seems like I would want people to like us as a country because they think we're a -- I know we're a good country, but I wonder what we have to do to get these allies, these other countries to maybe -- what are we doing wrong?
FRED THOMPSON: Well, part of that comes with being the strongest, most powerful, most prosperous country in the history of the world. I think that goes with the territory. We're more unpopular than we need to be. That's for sure, but our people have shed more blood for the liberty and freedom of other peoples in this country than all the other countries put together. (Applause.) And I don't feel any need to apologize for the United States of America. We don't make --
JAY LENO: I wasn't suggesting that --
FRED THOMPSON: I know you weren't. We make mistakes. I think we can do some things better. I think part of what we've got to do with regard to the global terrorist problem I talked about is for all the forces of civilization, all of our friends and people who love freedom need to understand that this is a battle against freedom and tyranny worldwide, that the good guys need to be on one side. To the extent that we can do better in reaching out and convincing people, sharing intelligence and sharing military operations and so forth and equipment and know-how and technology, we certainly need to do that. We have shown how difficult it is to shoulder these burdens or the greatest share of these burdens by ourselves, and we need to do that. But we need to keep it in perspective. We're probably never going to be loved by everyone as long as we're that way. Look, on the other hand, at a place like France. We've gotten more criticism probably from French leaders and French
people or press than anybody else; yet they elected a person that came over here, shook President Bush's hand before the election, went back, and said, "We want to be friends with the United States," and they elected him. (Applause.) So we may have misjudged -- we may have taken some of that rhetoric coming from the leaders of that country from what the real people think. So it's not a totally clear picture.
JAY LENO: So you're off to Iowa tonight?
FRED THOMPSON: Off to Iowa.
JAY LENO: It starts right now.
FRED THOMPSON: It starts right now. (Applause.)
JAY LENO: Senator, good luck in your campaign, sir. (Applause.) Come back and see us any time.
FRED THOMPSON: Appreciate it. Thank you.
Transcript
FRED THOMPSON: Thank you.
JAY LENO: Thanks for coming. I hope you didn't hear the monologue.
FRED THOMPSON: I did. We'll let the Tennessee joke slide until after the election.
JAY LENO: Right.
FRED THOMPSON: You know, I appreciated that last segment you did, though. Every once in a while I need something that just makes me glad I got out of television. (Laughter.)
JAY LENO: Oh, really. Thanks. That's very kind of you. I've got to ask you something. You were here in June. You said then you were testing the water. You've been in the water for a while now. Are you starting to get a little wrinkly? (Laughter.)
FRED THOMPSON: These wrinkles don't come from the water. (Laughter.)
JAY LENO: They don't come from the water. All right. What's the temperature? Is it tepid? What does the water tell you.
FRED THOMPSON: Nice and warm.
JAY LENO: Nice and warm?
FRED THOMPSON: It hasn't been that long really. We've done in a few months, where a lot of people have been working on it since they were in the choir in high school. So we're where we need to be right now, and that's one of the things I wanted to talk to you about. I'm running for President of the United States.
JAY LENO: All right. (Applause.)
FRED THOMPSON: Thank you.
JAY LENO: I'm excited. Wow.
FRED THOMPSON: Thank you.
JAY LENO: Well, that's very exciting. Now, it took a long time to decide this.
FRED THOMPSON: Not really. We started -- we mentioned it the first time in March. A lot of people have been, of course, running for some time. Everybody kind of changed the rules. Usually you don't announce until after Labor Day, but they started running a lot earlier, spending millions of dollars and so forth, and everyone said that you couldn't run this year without raising a hundred million dollars and starting much earlier. I don't believe that. I wasn't in the room when they made the rules; so I had to kind of follow my own lead. So we started around the kitchen table in late March talking about it, thinking about it, thinking about what kind of world and what kind of country our kids were going to grow up in and how many people have a chance to do something about it. And I decided that it was time for me to step up. So I did. (Applause.)
JAY LENO: A lot of the pundits say, "Oh, well, you waited too long."
FRED THOMPSON: No, I don't think so. Of course, we'll find out, but I don't think people are going to say, you know, "That guy would make a very good President, but he just didn't get in soon enough." (Laughter.) Communications being what they are nowadays, if you can't get your message out in a few months, you're probably not ever going to get it out. Most people don't start paying attention to these elections until they get a little closer. They treat politicians kind of like the dentist -- they don't have anything to do with them until they have to, until the election is near. (Laughter.)
JAY LENO: Well, you haven't spent any money yet, and you're second in the polls. There must be something to the theory.
FRED THOMPSON: Not too bad. Well, you can't tell much by polls these days, but obviously the people are going to give me an opportunity to talk to them about the things that I think are important. I think there will be decisions made in the next few years that are going to impact our lives and the lives of our kids and grandkids for a long, long time. They're going to determine whether or not we're a weaker, less prosperous, more-divided nation than we have been. We can't let that happen on our watch.
JAY LENO: Now, if you -- Giuliani, Romney, McCain -- which of those guys is the toughest opponent? Which do you fear the most?
FRED THOMPSON: I don't know. I know them all to a certain extent. John McCain and I sit side by side on the Senate floor. He's a good friend and will be after this is over with unless, of course, he beats me.
JAY LENO: Right. (Laughter.)
FRED THOMPSON: Then I'll have to take another look at it, but I can't gauge them. I still think it's kind of early. You know, if you look back in history, some of these primary states, early primary states, have changed from what the polls were from like three weeks out.
JAY LENO: Right.
FRED THOMPSON: They're all formidable, but I think I will be, too. So the nation is not going to be hurt by having one more good person step into the race.
JAY LENO: Now you're on the cover of "Newsweek." It says "Lazy Like a Fox," which is -- I used to get this in school. "Jay has the ability but does not apply himself. (Laughter.) "If Jay spent as much time" -- Do you consider yourself a good -- do you like to campaign, or is it one of those necessary evils?
FRED THOMPSON: No, I like the part where you get out with the people.
JAY LENO: Right.
FRED THOMPSON: That's kind of been my history, you know, the red pick-up truck and all, you know, more than just symbolism. First of all, it got me away from the staff. They couldn't ride along in the truck. It also got me out with the people.
JAY LENO: You took a truck and drove around?
FRED THOMPSON: Took my truck and with one guy. A lot of times he drove; sometimes I drove. We'd go from town to town and announce ahead of time we were showing up, pull up in the square. I'd get in the back of the truck in the bed and make a speech, and we'd move on. And we went from 20 points down against a popular incumbent congressman to 20 points ahead on election night. And then, two years later, we ran again in another contested race, won by another 20 points. I won in Tennessee -- if I can brag a little bit on myself politically -- by 20 points in two races in a state that Bill Clinton carried twice. So I must like campaigning enough to get the job done. And the same thing is true with regard to what we're facing now. Of course, the stakes are much more important, I think, much more serious when you're running for President, and I take it that way. I'm going to do my dead-level best to make sure that the people get an opportunity to make the decision. You know,
the pundits have all decided one way or another. The media and a lot of people make their living off of politics nowadays, and that's fine. But if I can get out with the folks, sometimes I'll communicate to them on the air waves, where tonight, I think, right after the show is over, we're going to have on our website -- Fred08.com -- I'm on for about 15 minutes telling the folks what I'm doing and why I'm doing it. So we're using that. And then we're going tonight, Jeri and the kids are backstage here. We're going to go to Iowa. So we'll do that plus grassroots campaigning which is what we're going to do in Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina for the next, oh, seven days.
JAY LENO: You mentioned New Hampshire now. Your fellow Republicans are debating tonight, and they're a little miffed at you for being here instead of being there. What do you say?
FRED THOMPSON: Well, we'll have an opportunity to debate a lot. I've been debating in courtrooms in the country since I was 28 years old and political forums and so forth. So they're fine, and we'll do our fair share.
JAY LENO: What do you think of them? As someone who watches these debates, I must admit it's a little thirty-second --
FRED THOMPSON: I don't think much of them.
JAY LENO: How would you like to debate? FRED THOMPSON: I would do it in small groups preferably one-on-one and set aside a segment of time -- Newt Gingrich has a good idea. He talks about the Lincoln-Douglas debates. The circumstances are different, but the principal is still the same: A thoughtful discussion over a period time to get to know what people are really thinking and what they're really like. The segments now, you know, you've got ten guys if everybody shows up, you know, with 30, 40 second sound bites. It's not designed to enlighten the American people. It's more designed for the people who are putting the debates on, and you run from one to another to another to another, and that's all well and good. I'll do my share, but I don't think it's a very enlightening forum to tell you truth. And I'll tell you something else. For those who talk about that New Hampshire situation, I'm certainly not disrespecting them, but it's a lot more difficult to get on the
"Tonight Show" than it is to get into a presidential debate. (Applause.)
JAY LENO: Exactly. We'll be right back with Fred Thompson right after this. (Commercial break.)
JAY LENO: We're back with newly announced Presidential candidate Fred Thompson. And that is the most presidential suit I've ever seen.
FRED THOMPSON: Thank you very much.
JAY LENO: That's the one they issue when you're going to run?
FRED THOMPSON: The official Presidential suit.
JAY LENO: Let me ask you. I've got some bumper stickers. Let's see if you like any of these here. "Fred Thompson Because Giuliani is Too Hard to Spell." (Laughter.) I like this one, "Fred Thompson. He has a narrow stance." (Laughter.) Probably can't comment on that one.
FRED THOMPSON: Uh-uh.
JAY LENO: We'll try one more. "Because I'm not Dr. Phil." (Laughter.)
FRED THOMPSON: I have been mistaken for Dr. Phil.
JAY LENO: Really.
FRED THOMPSON: Yes.
JAY LENO: If it works, use it.Let me ask you about some serious matters. The Iraq war, obviously the biggest issue in the campaign -- were you for it?
FRED THOMPSON: Yeah.
JAY LENO: You were for it.
FRED THOMPSON: I think we got to remember what it would be like if we had not done what we did. Saddam would still be there, having defeated the United Nations, all the resolutions. It would have defeated the United States in effect. It would have been in a position to continue its nuclear weapons program. His two sons would still have been doing what they were doing -- putting people in human shredders and attacking their neighbors. And I think, especially in light of what Iran is doing right now, they certainly would have been in a nuclear competition in that part of the world, sitting on those oil reserves. To think that, had we not gone in there, we wouldn't have any problems or anything, I think is dead wrong.
JAY LENO: Do we stay?
FRED THOMPSON: I think we stay until we get the job done, Jay. I don't think --
JAY LENO: What is the definition of "get the job done"? I think that's the part that is confusing people.
FRED THOMPSON: Until it is pacified enough for those people who walk through those lines with people shooting at them in some cases who voted, put their finger in the ink and so forth, the first time in that part of the world, in the history of the world, until they have an opportunity to have a free life and to not be killed by al-Qaeda and others fighting in that part of the world. I think that's doable. I think it's tough, but I think we can't afford to go into a situation and not show resolve. I think the most dangerous thing in the world that could happen to the United States of America is for people to think we're weak and divided. Iraq is a part of a much bigger picture -- Iraq and Afghanistan. There's a global war going on. We are the main target and those who would befriend us. The enemy is ruthless. Al-Qaeda is here in this country. National intelligence estimates tell us that. They are strong. They're trying to get their hands on nuclear weapons and other
weapons of mass destruction. I don't know how much -- how more stark the situation could be. That's going to be the situation we're going to have to deal with for sometime regardless of what happens in Iraq, but if the wrong result happens in Iraq and we're perceived the wrong way by friends and enemies alike, it's going to make the situation more difficult, and we're going to be more vulnerable. It's a tough deal, but a it's a choice of two bad choices. It's not a good and a bad.
JAY LENO: Well, how about Iran? Do you see possible military action there as well? I mean, at what point does it stop?
FRED THOMPSON: You can't ever tell what the facts on the ground are going to be a year or two years from where we're sitting here. Obviously our intelligence know some things that you and I don't know. I was chairman of a committee that dealt with some of these issues for the Secretary of State until I resigned to do this. I had a high security clearance, but I don't know exactly where they are in their nuclear program. I don't think our intelligence knows precisely, but they're moving in that direction, and they're clearly responsible for more and more of our problems. They are sending in these improvised explosive devices. They're training Iraqi militants in Iran and sending them back in to Iraq. They're sponsoring Hezbollah and probably as we speak are planning another attack on Israel. They support Hamas. They support terrorism all around the world. They've got a fellow who is not put together well upstairs running the country and has threatened the destruction of
Israel. I mean, sometimes, when these maniacs make threats, they mean it, and it comes to pass later on. So we've got to take that situation very seriously, but obviously a military attack is the last thing in the world that you want to have to do, and there's some things that we can do that probably will not necessitate that.
JAY LENO: I just wonder what we do to get a -- I grew up -- when I was a kid, John F. Kennedy was President. It was the Peace Corps, and we would send American college students to these countries, and they would love us. I think we made friendships that were good for 25, 30 years because Americans had befriended these countries. And it seems like we are not well-liked around the world. Maybe I'm naive and maybe because I'm in show business, but it seems like I would want people to like us as a country because they think we're a -- I know we're a good country, but I wonder what we have to do to get these allies, these other countries to maybe -- what are we doing wrong?
FRED THOMPSON: Well, part of that comes with being the strongest, most powerful, most prosperous country in the history of the world. I think that goes with the territory. We're more unpopular than we need to be. That's for sure, but our people have shed more blood for the liberty and freedom of other peoples in this country than all the other countries put together. (Applause.) And I don't feel any need to apologize for the United States of America. We don't make --
JAY LENO: I wasn't suggesting that --
FRED THOMPSON: I know you weren't. We make mistakes. I think we can do some things better. I think part of what we've got to do with regard to the global terrorist problem I talked about is for all the forces of civilization, all of our friends and people who love freedom need to understand that this is a battle against freedom and tyranny worldwide, that the good guys need to be on one side. To the extent that we can do better in reaching out and convincing people, sharing intelligence and sharing military operations and so forth and equipment and know-how and technology, we certainly need to do that. We have shown how difficult it is to shoulder these burdens or the greatest share of these burdens by ourselves, and we need to do that. But we need to keep it in perspective. We're probably never going to be loved by everyone as long as we're that way. Look, on the other hand, at a place like France. We've gotten more criticism probably from French leaders and French
people or press than anybody else; yet they elected a person that came over here, shook President Bush's hand before the election, went back, and said, "We want to be friends with the United States," and they elected him. (Applause.) So we may have misjudged -- we may have taken some of that rhetoric coming from the leaders of that country from what the real people think. So it's not a totally clear picture.
JAY LENO: So you're off to Iowa tonight?
FRED THOMPSON: Off to Iowa.
JAY LENO: It starts right now.
FRED THOMPSON: It starts right now. (Applause.)
JAY LENO: Senator, good luck in your campaign, sir. (Applause.) Come back and see us any time.
FRED THOMPSON: Appreciate it. Thank you.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/gallup/2007/09/potential-impac.html?csp=34
Potential impact of Fred Thompson's entry into the race
by Frank Newport
Fred Thompson will spice up the race for the Republican nomination for president this week – with his appearance on the Jay Leno show and then his formal announcement on Thursday in Iowa that he is running for president.
Thompson’s appearances this week come as no surprise to anyone. His interest in the presidency has been so well known that we have included him in our USA Today/Gallup trial heat polls of Republicans since late March. And he’s done quite well in all of those polls. Thompson received 13% of the GOP vote in that very first March poll, immediately establishing himself in third place – behind Rudy Giuliani and John McCain. Now, in our latest poll in August, Thompson's in second place at 19% -- behind Giuliani, but ahead of McCain and Mitt Romney.
I think it’s reasonable that Thompson may move up further over the weekend, given the publicity that will surround his “official” announcement. The key question is how close he will come to supplanting Rudy Giuliani as the front-runner. In the last August poll, there was a 13% point gap separating the two men. We’ll see as the dust settles by next week whether that gap has diminished significantly.
(Of course, there is a Republican debate sponsored by Fox News Wednesday night in New Hampshire. And any time candidates get together before a camera, there is the possibility of a major gaffe or attention-generating event that could shake up the race. John McCain has been more and more direct in his criticisms of his fellow Republicans as he tries a new strategy to shake up his “on the decline” campaign. It would not be unreasonable to find McCain coming out swinging, so to speak, at the debate.)
Thompson has some hidden strengths. An important Gallup analysis – reported here last week – shows that even at this point only 56% of Republicans know enough about Thompson to be able to rate him. That compares to 91% who have an opinion about Giuliani. When we shrank the sample down just to those Republicans who knew Giuliani, Thompson, McCain and Romney, lo and behold Giuliani’s lead fell away and Thompson led the pack.
This doesn’t necessarily mean that Thompson will become the front runner as he becomes better known. But it does suggest at least the possibility that he will gain and that Giuliani will drop on a relative basis as the latter's name identification advantage disappears.
We also know that Giuliani does less well among highly religious Republicans. Thompson does better. In fact the lead between Giuliani and Thompson is only 4 points among Republicans who attend church every week. This could have a bearing on the inclinations of Republican voters in some of the early primary states.
Potential impact of Fred Thompson's entry into the race
by Frank Newport
Fred Thompson will spice up the race for the Republican nomination for president this week – with his appearance on the Jay Leno show and then his formal announcement on Thursday in Iowa that he is running for president.
Thompson’s appearances this week come as no surprise to anyone. His interest in the presidency has been so well known that we have included him in our USA Today/Gallup trial heat polls of Republicans since late March. And he’s done quite well in all of those polls. Thompson received 13% of the GOP vote in that very first March poll, immediately establishing himself in third place – behind Rudy Giuliani and John McCain. Now, in our latest poll in August, Thompson's in second place at 19% -- behind Giuliani, but ahead of McCain and Mitt Romney.
I think it’s reasonable that Thompson may move up further over the weekend, given the publicity that will surround his “official” announcement. The key question is how close he will come to supplanting Rudy Giuliani as the front-runner. In the last August poll, there was a 13% point gap separating the two men. We’ll see as the dust settles by next week whether that gap has diminished significantly.
(Of course, there is a Republican debate sponsored by Fox News Wednesday night in New Hampshire. And any time candidates get together before a camera, there is the possibility of a major gaffe or attention-generating event that could shake up the race. John McCain has been more and more direct in his criticisms of his fellow Republicans as he tries a new strategy to shake up his “on the decline” campaign. It would not be unreasonable to find McCain coming out swinging, so to speak, at the debate.)
Thompson has some hidden strengths. An important Gallup analysis – reported here last week – shows that even at this point only 56% of Republicans know enough about Thompson to be able to rate him. That compares to 91% who have an opinion about Giuliani. When we shrank the sample down just to those Republicans who knew Giuliani, Thompson, McCain and Romney, lo and behold Giuliani’s lead fell away and Thompson led the pack.
This doesn’t necessarily mean that Thompson will become the front runner as he becomes better known. But it does suggest at least the possibility that he will gain and that Giuliani will drop on a relative basis as the latter's name identification advantage disappears.
We also know that Giuliani does less well among highly religious Republicans. Thompson does better. In fact the lead between Giuliani and Thompson is only 4 points among Republicans who attend church every week. This could have a bearing on the inclinations of Republican voters in some of the early primary states.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)