Today's Oklahoma Gazette in its article, Who's Behind the Money (http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/article-11066-who%E2%80%99s-behind-the-money.html), asks some good questions but doesn't really have many answers about the non-transparent city council campaign hidden groups, principally the Committee for Oklahoma City Momentum.

I've expressed my opinions here: Dirty Politics: Committee For Oklahoma City Momentum (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2011/03/dirty-politics-committee-for-oklahoma.html).

My conclusions are:




The lack of identification and accountability of contributors to the Committee for Oklahoma City Momentum is appalling and pathetic, or so it seems to me. If these guys were living in the 1940s, their mommas would rightly stick a red bar of Lifebuoy soap in their mouths. Every member of the Committee for Oklahoma City Momentum should be ashamed, and every citizen should be appalled.

Being for the "right" candidates is not all that there is. Doing so for good and consistent and transparent reasons — and not being just plain dirty — is also part of the mix.

Don't forget the mayor. He has shown in the last year who he supports and supports him.

Yep, don't see him getting re-elected either.

Huh?

Yep, don't see him getting re-elected either.

The only way Mayor Cornett does not get re-elected is if he chooses not to run.

Yep, don't see him getting re-elected either.

Did you think VanManen or Hearron or Walters were going to win too?

Muncipal voters are very pro-Chamber and pro-MAPS. The Mayor has been the face of those things. He's so popular that the most serious threat he's had was a Taco Bell employee....and that fella was never a serious threat. So what do you base this prognostication on?

I have no doubt that Mayor Cornett remains popular. This thread is about hidden money, hidden contributions, hidden decision making of/by the Committee for Oklahoma City Momentum.

I have no doubt that Mayor Cornett remains popular. This thread is about hidden money, hidden contributions, hidden decision making of/by the Committee for Oklahoma City Momentum.

Unfortunately, there's nothing illegal about citizens with a private personal agenda backing political campaigns. We used to have this sort of a problem with some of the OKC public trusts, notably, the OIA. For public trusts, we had FOIA and the Open Meetings Act to get things straightened out. For these private organizations, since Citizens United passed, there's zero oversight. I think where it starts to get really hairy is when big donors start to be able to pull the strings of the public trusts in order to have major municipal development built within close proximity to land they've purchased for a song for the purpose of private development. This is objectionable because it's basically on the same level as insider trading. Of course, I have no basis for thinking that, except I can't think of any other reason anonymous people would be that interested in municipal elections.

Doug - that story just goes to show how screwed up this country has gotten at every level. All of these poblems are casued by a system that was put in place to solve this very problem.

Kerry, I don't know the history of the development of ordinary PACs or the §527 organization that the Committee for Oklahoma City Momentum is masking itself behind, quite legally, I'm sure. But I share council member Bowman's observations made in City Council on March 1, and I share his lack of knowledge of what, if anything, can be done about it. I share his hope that something can be done, even if a solution does not appear on the horizon.

There is nothing new about a small group of moneyed interests in the city influencing how the city will progress and proceed behind closed doors ... that's doubtless gone on throughout our city's history. But, as far as political campaigns are concerned, the mechanism is now present for undisclosed membership and contributions groups to maintain shadow/parallel campaigns without any membership or contribution disclosure. What that means is that the behind-closed-doors meetings now have the legal blessing of being masked in overt but undisclosed political campaigns, as well. That part is new and is not a part of our historic lore.

So much so, in my article, I said this about the comparative Momentum Committee's campaigns in Ward 5 & 6:



Ward 5 Campaign by Momentum. The article notes that at least some of Momentum's advertising in ward 5 was directed to making the point that Walters wasn't really a conservative and likening him to or aligning him with President Obama. Now, I'm one who admires our president and is not generally conservative and one who has not been a fan of Brian Walters, he being the only council member to oppose MAPS 3 even being submitted to a vote of the people.

That said, Momentum's direct mailing ads in Ward 5 were clearly a hatchet job. Anyone with a brain knows that Walters IS very conservative and is no fan of our President. And the bit about Walters voting for tax increases ... how misleading can Momentum get since the incumbent council members in wards 4 and 6 which it supported did precisely the same thing -- but were not faulted for doing so in either the ward 4 or 6 elections?

Ward 6 Campaign by Momentum. Drive a few miles north to ward 6 and the tone of Momentum's direct mail ads was radically different ...

In this ward, Tea-Partier VanManen was Salyer's opposition, and, in this ward, Momentum emphasized the values of being non-partisan and progressive, showing endorsements by Al McAffrey, a popular and openly gay democrat house member, and Mayor Cornett, our popular mayor and a known republican. The ad featuring Rep. McAffrey quoted him as saying,



I strongly encourage you to go to your polls and support Meg Salyer. She is a non-partisan progressive leader who is moving Oklahoma City forward. We cannot allow a handful of Tea Party extremists to take over our community.

The Bottom Line. Apparently, Momentum's bottom line solely relates to anticipated results. In ward 5, Momentum waved the ultra-conservative flag and said that Walters wasn't conservative enough, but in ward 6 it waved the moderate flag and knocked ultra-conservatives, a good part of ward 6 being progressive and moderate in its political makeup. Momentum's unprincipled approach is to do whatever it takes to win.

I've also expanded my conclusion at the end of my article to read,




The Runoff Election in Ward 2. Now, in the last election, the ward 2 runoff, Momentum is supporting Charlie Swinton just as it did in the primary. As far as I know, there have been no direct mailings yet but you know that they are right around the corner. But, there has been some push-pull phone campaigning, judging by multiple reports, such as ...



Phone caller/surveyor: "Would you be more or less likely to vote for Ed Shadid if you knew he ...

* was for abortion rights
* was for gay marriage
* was for less military spending?"

Like such issues will be involved in being a member of a non-partisan city council whose function is to make decisions affecting the city. Right? Wrong -- unless it should be anticipated that the Oklahoma City Council will be called upon to take action on any of those subjects during the next four years, or ever.



Memo to Oklahoma City Big Money: You don't have to be outrageously deceitful to run an effective political campaign. When and if you do, some will be moved to call you to task to show your true colors and/or to vote exactly the opposite of what you intend. You may think that citizens don't think about your inconsistent political activity, but at least some of us do. And, if, as I suspect, Momentum is funded by a few or several big moneyed interests in the city, such campaigns also reflect the arrogant attitude of those moneyed-interests in assuming that ordinary voters are so damn dumb as not to be able to see what is going on.

The lack of identification and accountability of contributors to the Committee for Oklahoma City Momentum is appalling and pathetic, or so it seems to me. If these guys were living in the 1940s, their mommas would rightly stick a red bar of Lifebuoy soap in their mouths. Every member of the Committee for Oklahoma City Momentum should be ashamed, and every citizen should be appalled and take note of Momentum's political advertisements during the ward 2 runoff election.

Being for the "right" candidates (whomever a citizen or a committee perceives them to be) is not all that there is. Doing so for good and consistent and transparent reasons — and not being just plain dirt-red dirty — are also part of the mix of what makes up responsible campaigns and campaigners.

The bottom-line truth is that, whether my observations are useless and are merely akin to Don Quixote or not, depends, perhaps, on whether ordinary citizens take heed of a more formidable opinion than mine, that expressed by Sam Bowman on March 1:

v/H2tbdQL-yGE?version=3"

It will be a sad day for this city if Sam Bowman's remarks are not taken to heart.

Good reporting Doug. Keep it up.

Kerry,

I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to, but to me what is screwed up is the SCOTUS decision that basically opens the doors for corporations to give unlimited amounts of money -- even anonymously -- to candidates. This is not going to go well for this country.

Not sure if that's what you were talking about, but the SCOTUS decision is going to lay waste to transparency and fair elections in this country.

As if corporations didn't already have enough power. Now it is virtually unlimited.

By the way: Vote Shadid!!!!

Steve,

Your employer is a joke -- and I'm not just talking about the editorial page. They are doing a piss-poor job of covering this election. No knock on you, but this particular example is a shameful embarrassment to this city. I can honestly say that situations like this -- when your newspaper is actively involved in electing a candidate, and abjectly refuses to report obvious shenanigans and conflicts of interest -- make me honestly cheer for the demise of newspaper journalism, and yours in particular. The Oklahoman is not doing its job on this race, a race affecting the cultural and geographic heart of Oklahoma City.

Steve,

Your employer is a joke -- and I'm not just talking about the editorial page. They are doing a piss-poor job of covering this election. No knock on you, but this particular example is a shameful embarrassment to this city. I can honestly say that situations like this -- when your newspaper is actively involved in electing a candidate, and abjectly refuses to report obvious shenanigans and conflicts of interest -- make me honestly cheer for the demise of newspaper journalism, and yours in particular. The Oklahoman is not doing its job on this race, a race affecting the cultural and geographic heart of Oklahoma City.

You know what they say about opinions. It's great to live in a free world, one where we can choose which news channel to watch, what radio station to listen to, and what newspaper to read.

Kerry,

I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to, but to me what is screwed up is the SCOTUS decision that basically opens the doors for corporations to give unlimited amounts of money -- even anonymously -- to candidates. This is not going to go well for this country.


Look up from your liberal talking points memo and get your facts straight for once.

This is a ridiculous misrepresentation of the SCOTUS decision, and completely false. Nothing in the SCOTUS decision allows corporations to give unlimited amounts of money to a candidate or do so anonymously. In fact, it is against the law for federal candidates to receive corporate or union donations.

I'm giving you the Samuel Alito headshake, in awe that some of you guys maintain this absurdity. If you don't bother to get your facts straight before you begin your silly polemics, why should I trust your choice of candidates? Makes me think your making your choice based on bad information.

EDIT: Here's a blurb from the Federal Elections Commission website on their regulations: "The ruling [Citizens United v. FEC] did not affect the ban on corporate or union contributions or the reporting requirements for independent expenditures and electioneering communications."

One candidate I think it was Salyer, said they did not know the group or specifics on why they donated to their campaign. Has anyone seen comments from others that might imply if the others who received contributions heard anything from the group?

§527 organizations, like Momentum, may not make direct contributions to candidates. Instead, if they want, they run shadow or parallel campaigns. This is the "hidden" type that I'm talking about. Ordinary PACs can donate up to $5000 per candidate, and those contributions and contributors show up in both the candidate's Form C-1 and the PAC's C-1 and are not hidden.

Look up from your liberal talking points memo and get your facts straight for once.

This is a ridiculous misrepresentation of the SCOTUS decision, and completely false. Nothing in the SCOTUS decision allows corporations to give unlimited amounts of money to a candidate or do so anonymously. In fact, it is against the law for federal candidates to receive corporate or union donations.

I'm giving you the Samuel Alito headshake, in awe that some of you guys maintain this absurdity. If you don't bother to get your facts straight before you begin your silly polemics, why should I trust your choice of candidates? Makes me think your making your choice based on bad information.

EDIT: Here's a blurb from the Federal Elections Commission website on their regulations: "The ruling [Citizens United v. FEC] did not affect the ban on corporate or union contributions or the reporting requirements for independent expenditures and electioneering communications."

Nice pirouette. Actually you are only partially right; they can now just give unlimited amounts to groups like the US Chamber -- or Citizens for Momentum -- without reporting them now. So, yeah, big difference.

So, yeah, big difference.

It's actually worse, because these groups can engage in hatchet-job operations such as what's going on in Ward 2 and the candidate can at least claim plausible deniability.

Nice pirouette. Actually you are only partially right; they can now just give unlimited amounts to groups like the US Chamber -- or Citizens for Momentum -- without reporting them now. So, yeah, big difference.

My god, you're being ridiculous. I'm actually 100% correct; and you're 100% incorrect, again. First, you said corporations could donate unlimited money to candidates. That's absolutely false. Second, you said they could do it anonymously. That, again, is absolutely false. Now you're saying they can donate to groups like the US Chamber without reporting them. Again, false. NOTHING you have said about the Citizens United v. FEC has been correct. Nothing. It truly makes me question your support for particular candidates or causes, as if you're basing it off pure B.S. like you are CU v FEC.

Lastly, you brought that case up in the context of a CITY COUNCIL election, for which that court ruling had NO relevance. The case only dealt with federal laws for FEDERAL candidates, specifically under McCain-Feingold (BCRA).


So, yeah, HUGE difference.

King, the law may have dealt with federal candidates, but the ruling stood for constitutional principles which effect the application of any laws anywhere. If OKC wanted to eliminate or limit the way PAC money was spent in municipal races, Citizens United would have the same effect here as it did on federal laws because the same Constitutional principles apply to both.

King, the law may have dealt with federal candidates, but the ruling stood for constitutional principles which effect the application of any laws anywhere. If OKC wanted to eliminate or limit the way PAC money was spent in municipal races, Citizens United would have the same effect here as it did on federal laws because the same Constitutional principles apply to both.

Midtowner, okay, but so what? The point is that the SCOTUS ruling didn't do anything SoonerGuru (and others) claim it did. The fact that it applied only to a federal law (BCRA) is just icing on the cake. We ban corporate contributions to our state candidates in Oklahoma and the SCOTUS ruling doesn't affect that ban one bit.

So, just for fun, let's pretend the SCOTUS ruling applied to ALL election laws nationwide: city, state, and federal. It STILL didn't allow corporations to give unlimited contributions to candidates or do so anonymously. That's a lie that's been perpetuated since the ruling came down.

I received a flyer in the mail today from the Committee for Oklahoma City Momentum. I'd never heard of them until today, so I looked for a web site-unsuccessfully. I have to say, all the things their flyer pointed out as reasons not to vote for Dr. Shadid have had just the opposite effect on me! Thanks COCM for helping me make up my mind.

[The] SCOTUS ruling * * * STILL didn't allow corporations to give unlimited contributions to candidates or do so anonymously. That's a lie that's been perpetuated since the ruling came down.
This stuff is all Greek to me. Can you give any citations or references? I'm just trying to understand.

Shadid seems like he is extremely independent and just can not be bought by any special interest (Fire said they offered to run an independent expenditure and Shadid told them not to - that is amazing, and maybe naive at the same time, makes me like him even more). Either that scares momentum or they have a specific agenda that Swinton can help satisfy...or maybe both.

So, just for fun, let's pretend the SCOTUS ruling applied to ALL election laws nationwide: city, state, and federal. It STILL didn't allow corporations to give unlimited contributions to candidates or do so anonymously. That's a lie that's been perpetuated since the ruling came down.

Well, A) It does apply and B) You're right, corporations cannot give directly. But a 527 can be setup and funnel corporate executives money to the 527 group - all unaccounted for and anonymous.

Read the ruling.

Midtowner, okay, but so what? The point is that the SCOTUS ruling didn't do anything SoonerGuru (and others) claim it did. The fact that it applied only to a federal law (BCRA) is just icing on the cake. We ban corporate contributions to our state candidates in Oklahoma and the SCOTUS ruling doesn't affect that ban one bit.

So, just for fun, let's pretend the SCOTUS ruling applied to ALL election laws nationwide: city, state, and federal. It STILL didn't allow corporations to give unlimited contributions to candidates or do so anonymously. That's a lie that's been perpetuated since the ruling came down.

It seems that you are splitting hairs.

Donating to a PAC versus donating to a candidate, at least in this context, are not totally different things. And when you start splitting hairs to make your legal argument, most folks are smarter than you give them credit for.

This stuff is all Greek to me. Can you give any citations or references? I'm just trying to understand.

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/fecfeca.shtml

Federal campaign finance law bans corporate and union contributions to candidates. In 2002, Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, with the aim to make the campaign financing more transparent. One of the provisions of the Act prohibited corporations from spending money from their treasury on electioneering communications that mention a candidate's name and when they could be aired: 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election, such communications were banned.

Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that those restrictions violated the First Amendment. Lazy people then claimed the Supreme Court legalized unlimited and anonymous donations to candidates. In fact, it did no such thing. At issue specifically was a non-profit corporation (Citizens United) that wanted to air a documentary on On Demand cable about Hillary Clinton during her primary against Barack Obama. (Those same lazy people who claim it allows corporate contributions to candidate also think a corporation is only large, for-profit companies like ExXon Mobile. In fact, a corporation is simply a legal arrangement of a group of people. Sierra Club, for instance, is legally a corporation. Under the law, prior to the SCOTUS case, they would have been banned from running an ad, within 60 days of the general election, to support or oppose a candidate they thought was better or worse for the environment.)

More information at the link above.

Post deleted by me.

I just decided it wasn't worth going over again. Oh well. People will apparently believe what they want to believe about the SCOTUS ruling.

Because you're wrong. It DOES affect local and state elections.

Simple Google search. Read any of the pages returned and they all confirm this was a free speech issue and no local or state government can restrict the kind of "speech" cited in Citizens United. Period.

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=how+does+citizens+united+affect+local+campaign+l aw

For further reading about OKC's situation, see Michael Bates' Shadowy 527 jumps into Oklahoma City election (http://www.batesline.com/archives/2011/03/okc-shadowy-527.html).

Among other things, he opines,




It's obvious enough that there's some project that someone wants pushed through. Perhaps they want to steer funding to a favored developer or general contractor. Control over the Core-to-Shore redevelopment area might be involved. Voters just gave city government a big pot of money to play with, so it would be worth investing money in a campaign to get control of it.

Perhaps they want to clear away urban design and historic preservation obstacles, the sort that slowed down the undevelopment of Sandridge Commons -- tearing down historic structures, like the India Temple building, which once housed the State Legislature, for a 1960s-style open plaza, the sort that has never worked as a public place. Historic preservation has played a key, but underappreciated, role in Oklahoma City's resurgence, while too many people believe that the city's momentum comes from magically transferring money from citizens to contractors and basketball team owners.

As far as 527 reporting requirements is concerned, I find this at the Campaign Legal Center Blog (http://www.clcblog.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=403:what-changed-in-the-2010-election-cycle) as to federal elections ...

From a PDF file located there (http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/attachments/CLC_501c_disclosure_chart.pdf),




“Super-PACS” are registered federal political committees that make only independent expenditures and do not contribute to candidates or parties. Due to Citizens United and other judicial decisions, these “Super PACs” are now exempted from the federal contribution limits and from the restrictions on corporate and union contributions. Super-PACs remain subject to the federal political committee disclosure requirements, however.

Information about the Campaign Legal Center is located here (http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=50&Itemid=64). It reads as though the organization's information should be regarded as credible.

I've located nothing absolutely clear to me as to whether the above is equally applicable to state and political subdivision campaigns, but, logically, it would seem that it would be. If you want to read Title 26 USC §527, it is here (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sec_26_00000527----000-.html).

I had a nice, long reply written out and it got erased when I was automatically logged out and had to log back in. Oh well. All I care about is that you guys know that Citizens United did not legalize corporate or union contributions--unlimited or anonymous-- to candidates, despite the erroneous claims by some.

Honestly, I cannot agree more with Doug.
I feel that there should be absolutely no campaign funding. When you bring in money, you bring corruption. I say, if you really want to win an election, you take your feet to the sidewalk and you start walking door to door and you win people over with your words, not money for signs, and pamphets. All the money that committees have spent could have been used for other things within the community, instead of lazy politicians using money. I want a politician who will come to my door and ask me what I am looking for in this city. I want someone who can be face to face, and honestly, OKC is too big of a city to go that. They are too big of a city with no money to invest in the things they need to do to protect the citizens, transportation for the citizens, etc. If they can't do their job, I'm willing to move. Protection is number one in this city, I have been broken into six different times while living in this OKC area for two years. This city needs to downgrade in order to serve the citizen's best interest, not these big corporations from out of state.

I had a nice, long reply written out and it got erased when I was automatically logged out and had to log back in. Oh well. All I care about is that you guys know that Citizens United did not legalize corporate or union contributions--unlimited or anonymous-- to candidates, despite the erroneous claims by some.

The same thing has happened to me multiple times. Now, if I write a long post, I copy it before I hit "post quick reply".

To jholstein: I'm not sure if more police officers would really keep breaking in down. It would be nice if that were the case, but even in Nichols Hills where they've got a significant police presence there are a lot of breakins. And, I'm not sure what corporations from out of state you're referring to.

I had a nice, long reply written out and it got erased when I was automatically logged out and had to log back in. Oh well. All I care about is that you guys know that Citizens United did not legalize corporate or union contributions--unlimited or anonymous-- to candidates, despite the erroneous claims by some.

And I said, several posts back, that you are right about that technically. But who knows about the 527 groups like the Committee for OKC Momentum? The fact is that millions of dollars can now be poured into those anonymously. That simply was NOT possible before. But, you were adamant that the CU decision didn't apply to any elections other than federal elections. That part is just not true.

king is doing better than most in that he's apparently read the case and can glean the holding from it. Huzzah for him, he can brief cases. The next step is to be able to apply that information to this meta-concept that a certain older lawyer used to try and explain to me in law school, which really didn't make much sense until the end of my second year--the "seamless web" of the law. Holdings don't exist in vacuums. One must be able to see not just the splash in the pond, but the ripples as well.

In this case, we have a narrow (as always) holding, which king is right, applied to federal election laws. But what he's missing is that the principle announced in the holding was announced as being birthed by the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Hence, the holding applies to any similar state or municipal election body anywhere in the United States or her territories--and it doesn't even matter if these campaign laws are enshrined in states' constitutions. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Now King does have some ground to cling to. This holding actually was about federal law, not state law. If he can give us a good reason to distinguish why the holding in CU shouldn't apply to states, and that reason is upheld by the SCOTUS, well, maybe he has an argument. At this time though, no one seems to think that's a viable direction to go.

At the more mundane level, I'm pretty sure that the next Form C-1 filing deadline with the city clerk is this Friday, March 25. Should be interesting, one way or another.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/CityCouncilElections/pac_pushpulloperators.jpg (http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/CityCouncilElections/pac_pushpulloperator.jpg)
More on Push-Pull. As it turned out, a friend of mine of about 35 years (but whom I've probably not spoken with for 30) who lives in Ward 2 has informed me that he received two telephone calls relevant to this discussion. I interviewed him and this is what I got. The first call was from an unidentified young woman who indicated that she was taking a survey of residents in Ward 2, and it lasted about 8 to 12 minutes. My friend could hear other callers in the background during the conversation. The call was made during the evening of March 8 and was from telephone number 877-759-2780. A good bit of the conversation's detail he doesn't recall, but the substance of what he does is rather like the following:

The First Call.
R i n g.


Friend: Hello.
Surveyor: Hi. I'm calling you tonight to participate in a survey concerning the Ward 2 council race in Oklahoma City. Is that OK with you?
Friend: Sure.
Surveyor: For whom would you vote if the vote were today?
Friend: Dr. Ed Shadid.
Surveyor: Why?
Friend: I've just returned to Oklahoma City after living away for 12 years and two of my closest friends are supporting him.
Surveyor: [My friend doesn't recall the detail, but he was asked to rate several matters about MAPS 3 on a scale of 1 to 5.]
Surveyor: Chose your highest priority from a list of eight priorities: paying police and fire more; adding new police and fire; more parks and recreation; better streets; lower taxes; neighborhood development and safety; two others.
Friend: Well, I'm always in favor of neighborhood safety.
Surveyor: What are your thoughts about the fire union's support of two Tea Party candidates? (This wasn't exactly the way the question was asked.)
Friend: One of those candidates was railing about neighborhood potholes when a billion was being spent downtown ignoring the fact that downtown money is mostly private which wouldn't have been spent in the neighborhoods anyway.
Surveyor: If you knew that Ed Shadid supported abortion rights, would you be more or less likely to vote for him?
Friend: Well, I personally believe that abortion is wrong (interrupted: "You're right about that!") so I have made a sacred vow that I will never have one - but what a woman decides to do is none of my personal business.
Surveyor: If you knew that Ed Shadid supported marriage for gays, would you be more or less likely to vote for him?
Friend: That doesn't affect me.
Surveyor: Did you know that Ed Shadid had supported a Green Party position to reduce military spending by 75%?
Friend: No, but I agree with that idea.
Surveyor: Would you be more or less likely to vote for a candidate who was endorsed by Mick Cornett?
Friend: It wouldn't make any difference.
Surveyor: Would you be more or less likely to vote for a candidate who was endorsed by Brad Henry?
Friend: It wouldn't make any difference.
Surveyor: Would you be more or less likely to vote for a candidate who was endorsed by the Tea Party?
Friend: I couldn't support a TPer.
Surveyor: If the election were today, for whom would you vote?
Friend: Ed Shadid (emphatically).


The Second Call. My friend received the second call on March 11, it being a recorded message from Charlie Swinton saying "someone" was using his name to make negative calls and he just wants everyone to know how mad he is about it and how he's telling everyone to "play nice." (Not his literal words.)

Clearly, Swinton thinks the voters are morons.

Actually, I heard we are going to start relabeling the city vehicles with a logo that reads "City of Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce"

Oddly enough in a lunch meeting one of our firefighters made a comment to Pete White about the Chamber running the city now. He was livid, saying that wasn't the case. I guess he hasn't figured out what's going on yet!

'Mo' money: A group running candidate attack ads is receiving indirect funding from the OKC Chamber
http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/article-11163-mo%E2%80%99-money.html

'Mo' money: A group running candidate attack ads is receiving indirect funding from the OKC Chamber
http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/article-11163-mo%E2%80%99-money.html

There certainly isn't much information in that article. Maybe more to follow?

This stuff is all Greek to me. Can you give any citations or references? I'm just trying to understand.

Doug, I believe the word is sophistry.

Losing Momentum: New Ward 2 Councilman Ed Shadid won with a grassroots campaign, despite efforts by a well-funded political machine.

(WITH DIRECT-MAIL FLOWCHART AND SIMILAR MAILERS FROM TULSA'S MAYORAL RACE)

http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/article-11329-losing-momentum.html

Losing Momentum: New Ward 2 Councilman Ed Shadid won with a grassroots campaign, despite efforts by a well-funded political machine.

(WITH DIRECT-MAIL FLOWCHART AND SIMILAR MAILERS FROM TULSA'S MAYORAL RACE)

http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/article-11329-losing-momentum.html

The well funded machine could not even manage to put together a decent website or remember not to use the chamber of commerces address so not to give themselves away

Everyone should read the latest Gazette article. The funniest part to me is AH Campaigns or Strategies or whatever they call themselves trying to run away from their own work. Priceless. I'm sure King183 knows who they are, given his involvement in similar efforts in the past. No one at the firm will take credit for their $hit advertising and disastrous strategy. They got totally smoked by Ed's people and were clueless about messaging in Ward 2.

It was hilarious, but there was a woman who is associated with Chesapeake who showed up at Shadid's watch party and she admitted to a friend of mine she supported Shadid because she was a vegetarian and was so appalled by AH's ham-fisted advertising strategy. I don't know the players involved with the firm other than Trebor Worthen, a GOP house member or former house member. Still, it must have been UGLY over there when the big suits called the day after the election, bitching at them about their crappy advertising and all of the money they wasted on things like digital billboards.

More on point, will the Chamber come out and clarify its role in this election? They have really stained their reputation with a lot of people.

I went and looked at some of momentum's ad buys in public files of Citadel and Channel 9 the other day. Didn't find out too much other than that they used an agency out of Ohio to do their tv spots... They use to be a LOT more open in the past. Just look at this "Big League City" ad buy

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yNUpd9L0Cn4/TZikNmVIT2I/AAAAAAAAAPY/heW5BT9CWC8/s1600/fedex.jpg

and this with the Chambers Credit Card number AND pin number showing!...

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f313/fashionquote/cc.jpg

I'll figure all this stuff out soon...will be fun.

Explanation point

At least 16 organizations that participated in the recent Oklahoma City Council election may not have complied with state reporting laws and the city charter.

http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/article-11606-explanation-point.html

Was it ever reported anywhere how much the Commettee for Oklahoma City Momentum spent on each individual campaign?

Show me the money

Two groups were behind nearly half of the cash flow in the contentious Oklahoma City Council election.

http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/article-11762-show-me-the-money.html

Thanks for the link. So it looks like Momentum spent $486,041 on the city council races, and A Better Local Government spent $136,050. I would like to know how much they spent on each candidate, it doesn't look like they have to report that info.

(Those entities don't have to report how much was spent on each race.)

New story:

‘Out of compliance’

Could some of Oklahoma’s laws regulating corporate donations be at odds with federal case law?

http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/article-11911-%E2%80%98out-of-compliance%E2%80%99.html

Councilman claims Devon executive chairman was force behind contentious campaign

http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/article-12488-councilman-claims-devon-executive-chairman-was-force-behind-contentious-campaign.html

From the Gazette article - I couldn't agree with this more:



Shadid said Nichols, who sits on multiple public boards and subcommittees, wields an enormous amount of power, and expressed concern that it was not good for a democracy that only a few high-powered individuals make decisions that affect everyone.

“Everyone indicates Larry Nichols is a very good man who deeply loves Oklahoma City, that he for me personally would be a tremendous ally for building density and walkability and a healthy city, but he and the people around him are engaging in policy making the way a surgeon does surgery: They’re telling everyone what to do and then executing,” said Shadid, a spinal surgeon. “It’s not particularly democratic. You can have a benevolent plutocracy, you could agree that what he is doing is best for the city, but it’s still a plutocracy and not a representative democracy.”

Absolutely right.

I don't think anyone is doubting the intentions of Nichols but he is one man and nowhere close to an expert on urban development and planning.

In fact, people forget he was the chair at OCURA for a number of years and under his leadership they made a ton of decisions that almost everyone agrees were very, very poor (The Hill, Legacy, etc.).


Might doesn't necessarily make right. Especially now that we have a very big group of stakeholders involved in trying to make the city a better place.

Shadid has a brass pair. These people spend money privately because they don't want people to know they're meddling. Nichols is great for OKC but he should knock this stuff off.

Also, the Chamber is ridiculously out of step with reality right now.

The irony is that the Momentum campaign has made Shadid far more powerful than he would have been had they not spent thousands crudely and creepily trying to beat him. Now he has survived all of their money onslaught and has become a hero to his ward.

Now he can say whatever he wants without fear of their money and influence, because he is virtually guaranteed reelection in Ward 2 as long as he wants to serve.

Glad to see that progress has been made since I've been on vacation. Seriously.

Well, I don't know if Shadid is right about the identity of his invisible opponent or opponents. But I will say ths: that person, whoever it is, does not love Oklahoma City. He may love himself so much that he thinks the city should be a monument to his tastes, opinions, etc., just as EK and EL Gaylord did, and maybe we all benefit to the extent that his narcissism is relatively benign in its expression. But no one who loves the city, and more importantly, good government and fair representation, engages in the kind of anonymous, high-dollar character assassination that was employed against Shadid, and Brian Walters as well.

Ruling class

OKC councilman argues that the city is not functioning as a representative democracy.

http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/article-12512-ruling-class.html