SALEM — Lobbyists and business officials say House Democratic leadership is engaging in a campaign of payback against lobbyists and industries who opposed the tax increases approved by voters last month.
Mark Nelson, a lobbyist who represents Deschutes County as well as many other clients, has long been considered one of the top lobbyists in Salem. But now, he says, he is facing retribution from House Speaker Dave Hunt, D-Clackamas County, and other Democrats. Nelson says they have urged clients to drop him because he co-led the campaign opposing Measures 66 and 67, two proposals recently approved by voters that boost taxes on corporations and high-income earners.
Nelson also says a bill he was working on was dropped in part because of the perception that Nelson’s involvement doomed it to failure.
“This was a campaign,” Nelson said. “We lost the campaign. But (Hunt) seems to be just sort of hell-bent on making people who supported the ‘no’ side of the campaign pay.”
House leaders say the accusations are baseless.
In an interview Monday, Hunt admitted that he had advised several of Nelson’s clients that other lobbyists would be more effective. And he said he has heard that other lawmakers have given similar advice about anti-tax advocates who also lobby.
However, he says he only gave advice when groups asked for it. “I just try to give them my honest assessment of how I think the legislative process plays out,” he said.
He said he based his advice to Nelson’s clients, as well as other groups represented by anti-tax lobbyists, on the fact that if the “no” campaign succeeded, state funding sought by some of those clients would be cut.
‘Honest and straightforward’
“I think I have been pretty honest and straightforward with them that it is pretty challenging for them to be represented in a request for more general fund by someone who is trying to reduce the amount of general fund available.”
“Anytime you are represented by someone who is clearly hypocritical in (a funding) request, I think it is problematic for that client,” he said. “Just like you wouldn’t want an attorney representing you in court who had broken the law in a courtroom.”
But Nelson said the message has been different: “When you’re told ‘get rid of him or we’ll cut your budgets’ — that’s pretty tough.”
Nelson says Hunt and other lawmakers have contacted at least four or five of his clients, starting during the campaign. He said Hunt sent clients e-mails noting that Nelson was opposing the taxes they relied on for funding; Hunt then asked one client in a follow-up e-mail, “Have you fired him yet?” Nelson said.
Hunt, through a spokesman, admitted sending e-mails noting Nelson’s role in opposing taxes, but denied sending an e-mail asking if Nelson’s client had fired him yet. “He’d like to see it,” said spokesman Geoff Sugerman.
Nelson declined to share the e-mail, citing client confidentiality and saying there were limits on how far he wanted to go in discussing the situation.
It’s not just Nelson making the allegations. On Monday, a similar claim was made in a hearing about a bill that would give credit unions equal standing with banks in competing to be repositories for public funds. Banks were a key supporter of the opposition campaign, contributing $150,000.
Raymond Davis, the president and CEO of Umpqua Bank, faulted “political gamesmanship” and said that the bill, because it was introduced without notice or surprise, appeared to be payback.
People in Salem “have stated that this bill is being quickly brought to a vote in retribution to Oregon bankers taking a position against Measures 66 and 67. I ask the question: Pay back for what? For standing up and voicing their opinion, for doing what they thought was right?”
Hunt, asked about the bill, defended it, saying he had long been interested in moving the bill if some state officials signed off on the bill’s language. That happened in just the last 10 days, he said, calling the notion that the bill is retribution “laughable.”
Nelson points to a bill he worked on, House Bill 3607, that was intended to help a group of clinical social workers he represents. The bill was dropped after several supporting groups, including the social workers, publicly said they wanted to hold off on it. Nelson says he was told the groups were told his involvement in the bill would be a problem.
Rep. Bill Kennemer, R-Oregon City, the bill’s sponsor, declined to specifically discuss the allegation, but conceded that part of the reason the bill didn’t move was that “politics took a nasty turn” in the Legislature.
Voice mail
Nelson and several other lobbyists point to a voice mail that Jon Chandler, a lobbyist for the Oregon Home Builders Association, received from House Majority Leader Mary Nolan, D-Portland. Chandler, a leader in the opposition campaign against the tax measures, had written an Op-Ed in The Oregonian last July criticizing top Democrats. Two days later he received a voice mail. According to a recording of the voice mail that is being circulated among lobbyists, Nolan said. “Hey Chandler ... I somehow managed to miss your retirement announcement. When did you decide you were going to drop out of the lobbying business? Let me know if there’s a farewell party; I certainly wouldn’t want to miss it. Stay in touch. Thanks.”
Many, like Nelson, viewed the voice mail as a threat. Asked about the recording, Nolan said it was meant in a “lighthearted spirit.” She, like Hunt, dismissed the notion of payback, and said that she and Chandler are friends.
Chandler, however, said he doesn’t know what to make of the voice mail. And he said he believes that there is a payback campaign afoot.
“It looks like there are retribution bills,” he said, adding that they were warned to expect them. “I got it from a good source who heard it from a better source,” he said. “I can’t prove it.”
But he said there are bills being heard in the “emergency” special session that don’t seem to be an emergency, and “you don’t have to be too much of a paranoid to see a connection.”
Nelson said of the retribution allegations, “That kind of activity around the building, I’ve never seen it happen before, and doesn’t belong in the process.”
When there are disagreements, he said, “You move on because next week you’re working with them on another issue. It’s part of the process. I mean, they won the campaign. They need to get over it.”
Nolan, like Hunt, said it’s the anti-tax lobbyists who need to move on. “We have more important things to do than continuing to fight,” she said. “The election happened two weeks ago; I’m focusing on how we move forward.”
Nick Budnick can be reached at 503-566-2839 or at nbudnick@bendbulletin.com.
ARTICLE ACCESS: This article is among those available to all readers. Many more articles are available only to E-Edition members. Sign up today!
