The Oklahoman is the only paper which has not written about this ... both the Gazette (2x) and the Journal Record have had articles but nada from the Oklahoman. As Jim Kyle said in an interview at http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2011/06/memoirs-thoughts-of-oklahoman-reporter.html,


But, I also learned the seamy side of the newspaper business ... found out how often we had to compromise with our consciences things that might embarrass an advertiser frequently didn't get reported and if "important people" would be offended, again, the story would not see the light of day.
***
I'd been there Ardmoreite] about a year when there was a showdown between my managing editor who I considered to be my boss and for that matter my mentor at that time, and the owner of the paper, and it ended up with the editor getting fired. Our city editor was promoted to the managing editor's spot. They offered me the city editor's spot, but being young and idealistic I decided I didn't really want to have any more to do with them. So I hightailed it up to Oklahoma City and visited the Oklahoman.
So, when is "news" not news at the Oklahoman? I think I smell a blog article coming on ... :dizzy:

Double post. Sorry. Please delete.

So, when is "news" not news at the Oklahoman?

When C.E. Gaylord, Clay Bennett, and others concerned decide it's not. PRAVDA On The Plains.

Never expect to see negative news of Nichols, McClendon, Records, Ward, Bennett (obviously) and a few others (including certain local elected and non-elected politicians). The "plutocracy" of Oklahoma City.

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

Does this qualify as shaking things up yet?

Since a parallel thread has developed, I'll limit this comment to related to the Momentum committee matters ...

This July 19 video clip is presented in my blog post ...

VvhuYMo9f4A

For more, see http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2011/07/oklahomans-selective-news-reporting-why.html

Maybe something will come of this: http://newsok.com/article/3596167



Corporations, unions should disclose independent campaign contributions, two Oklahoma City Council members say

Two OKC council members say a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year that allows corporations and unions to independently spend whatever it wants on a campaign changed the character of this year's Oklahoma City city council elections.

BY MICHAEL MCNUTT
Published: August 20, 2011

Two Oklahoma City Council members, having seen an unprecedented amount of money spent in this year's municipal elections, asked the state Ethics Commission on Friday to require corporations and labor unions to disclose how much they spend on state, legislative and county campaigns.

The Ethics Commission staff proposed a rule that was available for the first time Friday for public comment. It would require itemized disclosure of all independent expenditures that support the election or defeat of a candidate or ballot measure by any committee or individual.

A U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year that allows corporations and unions to independently spend whatever they want on a campaign changed the character of this year's Oklahoma City city council elections, Ward 4 Councilman Pete White said. This spring's elections were the first held in Oklahoma City since the high court's ruling.

White said special interests earlier this year spent more than $630,000 on Oklahoma City Council election races. Many are questioning the process because so much money has been spent, and it's hard to determine the identities of those behind the spending.

“What happened in the Oklahoma City city council elections this spring was legal,” White said.

“To not require disclosure ... will throw us back into the dark ages of campaigns when I first started running for office 30 years ago,” he said. “I would urge you to do whatever you can to require disclosure.

“It's absolutely a travesty for as much money as was invested in the Oklahoma City Council races to come in without knowing who gave the money,” White said. “It came in for different candidates on both sides of the issues. Somebody ought to be able to stand up and say, ‘I put the money in.' ... We ought to require that at the minimum. It just goes to the heart of what our election process is all about.”

Thirteen candidates, vying for four open seats, along with the groups running independent campaigns in support of candidates, raised about $1.2 million and have spent more than $1 million on the Oklahoma City Council races. The city council post pays $12,000 a year.

“It is not fair. It has changed the playing field to the point where there is no equity in the playing field without disclosure,” White said. “If you're going to play, you ought to tell us who you are.”

Ward 2 Councilman Ed Shadid, who won in a runoff election this year, said he is concerned what happened in Oklahoma City could occur in other cities.

“It's the lack of disclosure that invites tremendous influx of funds,” he said.

Panel will decide

Commissioners will decide in January whether to propose the rule to legislators. Lawmakers may accept rules proposed by the commission or veto them; the governor can override their veto.

The proposed rule is a response to the 2010 Supreme Court decision that allows a corporation or labor union to independently spend whatever it wants on a campaign as long as it doesn't coordinate the expenditures with a candidate or the candidate's campaign committee.

The Federal Election Commission since has issued an advisory opinion that corporations and unions cannot be prohibited from giving to political action committees that are formed to pay independent campaign expenses or ads. The amount they give cannot be limited, but state ethics agencies may require that the donors be disclosed.

The Ethics Commission oversees state and county elections. Municipal and school board elections are regulated by state laws.

Commissioners, however, were asked to make an interpretation on questions dealing with this year's Oklahoma City elections.

The Ethics Commission appeared ready Friday to tackle the issue but backed off after its executive director, Marilyn Hughes, checked before the meeting with the state attorney general's office.

She said she called for advice after Commission Chairman Bob McKinney and Commissioner Karen Long questioned whether the commission could take up the request when its responsibilities don't cover municipal elections.

Hughes said the attorney general's office told her the commission could take up the question because it involves candidates, which fall under the Ethics Commission's jurisdiction. But because the request for the interpretation came from the media and not from someone involved in the election, it could not be considered, according to the attorney general's office.
Sounds to me like someone at the AG's office doesn't have his/her screwed on right.

It sounds like locals are trying to promulgate rules that run afoul of the SCOTUS decision and will if they do inevitably be fought and ultimately probably be overturned. At least that is how I am reading you post Doug. As far as loose heads at the AG's office it would not be the first nor the last time we will see that.

The part of McNutt's article that gave me some hope that notwithstanding the SCt decision, some elbow room may be left to the states, where he says,



The Federal Election Commission since has issued an advisory opinion that corporations and unions cannot be prohibited from giving to political action committees that are formed to pay independent campaign expenses or ads. The amount they give cannot be limited, but state ethics agencies may require that the donors be disclosed.

Now, whether McNutt knows come here from sick 'em about such things, I don't know. I'll see if I can find anything on the FEC advisory opinion (unless someone else already knows ...).

I wonder if there's a need for a Jerry Fent type attorney to wage litigation on these municipal matters (Fent won't do it because he's contracted time to time by the city).

In a preliminary review of Federal Election Commission advisory opinions post-Citizens United, I didn't find anything particularly helpful. But, for the first time, I did take a cursory look at the Citizens United v. FEC decision (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html) itself, after listening to this 4-minute NPR audio/text discussion (http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=122958233&m=122956783) as to the effects of the Citizens United decision upon donor disclosure, which suggests if it doesn't state that donor disclosure requirements were not impacted by the decision, if my eyes and ears were seeing and hearing correctly.

That's when I decided to have a look at the Citizens United decision and see what I could see for myself. As shown by the summary (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html), the Supreme Court's decision was 5-4, with Justice Kennedy writing for the 5-member majority (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZO.html).

I still haven't read Kennedy's opinion closely, and I haven't looked at the 4 separate opinions at all, but I did find these interesting tidbits as relates to disclosure in Kennedy's majority opinion (the emphasis added, like this, is mine, and is not in the opinion):




[In the introduction]
The Government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether. We turn to the case now before us.

[In section IV.A]
Disclaimer and disclosure requirements may burden the ability to speak, but they “impose no ceiling on campaign-related activities,” Buckley, 424 U. S., at 64, and “do not prevent anyone from speaking,” McConnell, supra , at 201 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). The Court has subjected these requirements to “exacting scrutiny,” which requires a “substantial relation” between the disclosure requirement and a “sufficiently important” governmental interest. Buckley, supra, at 64, 66 (internal quotation marks omitted); see McConnell, supra, at 231–232.

In Buckley, the Court explained that disclosure could be justified based on a governmental interest in “provid[ing] the electorate with information” about the sources of election-related spending.
* * *
Although both provisions were facially upheld, the Court acknowledged that as-applied challenges would be available if a group could show a “ ‘reasonable probability’ ” that disclosure of its contributors’ names “ ‘will subject them to threats, harassment, or reprisals from either Government officials or private parties.’ ”

[In section IV.B]
As a final point, Citizens United claims that, in any event, the disclosure requirements in §201 must be confined to speech that is the functional equivalent of express advocacy. The principal opinion in WRTL limited 2 U. S. C. §441b’s restrictions on independent expenditures to express advocacy and its functional equivalent. 551 U. S., at 469–476 (opinion of Roberts, C. J.). Citizens United seeks to import a similar distinction into BCRA’s disclosure requirements. We reject this contention.

The Court has explained that disclosure is a less restrictive alternative to more comprehensive regulations of speech. See, e.g., MCFL , 479 U. S., at 262. In Buckley, the Court upheld a disclosure requirement for independent expenditures even though it invalidated a provision that imposed a ceiling on those expenditures.
* * *
Citizens United also disputes that an informational interest justifies the application of §201 to its ads, which only attempt to persuade viewers to see the film. Even if it disclosed the funding sources for the ads, Citizens United says, the information would not help viewers make informed choices in the political marketplace. This is similar to the argument rejected above with respect to disclaimers. Even if the ads only pertain to a commercial transaction, the public has an interest in knowing who is speaking about a candidate shortly before an election. Because the informational interest alone is sufficient to justify application of §201 to these ads, it is not necessary to consider the Government’s other asserted interests.
Now, I'm just beginning my looking into this topic as a lawyer, but, at first blush, it doesn't sound as though contributor disclosure requirements would necessarily run afoul with federal law, as decided in Citizens United. In fact, it may be that donor disclosure requirements received favorable discussion in the decision.

But, as I said, I'm just beginning to study this topic as a lawyer. Before I'm done, I may find that the preliminary observation which I've stated above is incorrect.

And, yes, Steve, someone with more legal knowledge than I have on this topic than should step up, chime in, and do whatever. This isn't something I'm presently familiar with, but I can still learn. My 2nd impression, after doing this preliminary research, is that an FEC advisory opinion which relates to states being able to set disclosure rules (post-Citizens United) doesn't exist as at least stated or inferred in the McNutt article ... at least, I've not found such an advisory opinion. Again, I'm not done with my research.

‘In the shadows’

After receiving last-minute advice, the Oklahoma Ethics Commission denied giving an interpretation on municipal elections.

http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/article-12794-%E2%80%98in-the-shadows%E2%80%99.html

‘In the shadows’

After receiving last-minute advice, the Oklahoma Ethics Commission denied giving an interpretation on municipal elections.

http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/article-12794-%E2%80%98in-the-shadows%E2%80%99.html

I'm so glad we have a GOP stooge in the AG's office. What a joke.

I'm so glad we have a GOP stooge in the AG's office. What a joke.

The AG is probably the biggest concentration of power in state government. Having someone like Pruitt is simply dangerous. He's a career politician, not an attorney. The AG is supposed to be the chief defender of the state's constitution and state laws. When he picks and chooses according to the whims of his political benefactors, we the people aren't getting a good deal. Unfortunately, I don't trust the electorate to set this straight.

True to a point. However Edmonson's political bullying and failing to perform were legendary and thankfully he is gone forever.

True to a point. However Edmonson's political bullying and failing to perform were legendary and thankfully he is gone forever.

On his worst day, Edmondson wasn't anything nearly as bad as Pruitt. Edmondson's office did offer opinions from time to time which were inconvenient for his party, or members thereof. Pruitt seems to be determined to wield the power of his office to increase his political standing and to reward his patrons. We haven't had a good AG in a long time. Probably around 30 years.

Agreed about the good AG. I had several experiences with Edmonson and ALL were bad. He was IMHO Hitler/Mussolini/Ghengis Kahn all rolled into one. He had a massive Messianic complex too. In his own office, by his own handpicked staff he was derisively referred to as Little Napolean.

If only the current AG had a Messianic complex.... then he might actually do something involving protecting and defending the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma.

I take it that readers have noted the differences between the Oklahoman article (http://newsok.com/article/3596167)and the Gazette article (http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/article-12794-%E2%80%98in-the-shadows%E2%80%99.html). They are substantial.

Also noteworthy: the Gazette, and not the Oklahoman, was proactive in the matter. The Gazette is steadily showing itself as the superior source for city political news.

I take it that readers have noted the differences between the Oklahoman article (http://newsok.com/article/3596167)and the Gazette article (http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/article-12794-%E2%80%98in-the-shadows%E2%80%99.html). They are substantial.

Also noteworthy: the Gazette, and not the Oklahoman, was proactive in the matter. The Gazette is steadily showing itself as the superior source for city political news.

Yes, I agree with you, Doug. It's especially true when it's more than just what happened when and where. The Gazette is far superior with going deeper into issues, activities around the shoe, etc. Good, investigative reporting that we rarely see from The Oklahoman.

Agreed about the good AG. I had several experiences with Edmonson and ALL were bad. He was IMHO Hitler/Mussolini/Ghengis Kahn all rolled into one. He had a massive Messianic complex too. In his own office, by his own handpicked staff he was derisively referred to as Little Napolean.

While I don't have any experience with him I have a hard time seeing anyone coming close to being Hitler/Mussolini/Ghengis Kahn all rolled into one.

I take it that readers have noted the differences between the Oklahoman article (http://newsok.com/article/3596167)and the Gazette article (http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/article-12794-%E2%80%98in-the-shadows%E2%80%99.html). They are substantial.

Also noteworthy: the Gazette, and not the Oklahoman, was proactive in the matter. The Gazette is steadily showing itself as the superior source for city political news.

Good point, Doug, but the real question is: When is the Oklahoman Going to Come Clean About its Own Involvement in the Elections?

You would have to have graduated from the University of Phoenix School of Journalism to believe that the Oklahoman has displayed any ethics in this matter. In fact, it is blatantly unethical and worthy of the "Worst Newspaper in America" moniker over this single issue.

All indications are that the Oklahoman played a hand in supporting -- and in all likelihood, materially supporting -- the Momentum group. Yet, they do not disclose this to readers. This is a major unethical move.

Who here actually believes the Oklahoman was not involved with Momentum?

There is virtually no such thing as unbiased journalism. So, I'm not sure we can call their behavior unethical. The DOK is a business, and rather, we're naive if we expect impartiality on the part of our news media.

Exactly when was it that "Newspapers" DIDN'T "[butter up] the hand that feeds them"?
(And I mean going all the way back to Colonial, Pre-Revolutionary, times)

There is virtually no such thing as unbiased journalism. So, I'm not sure we can call their behavior unethical. The DOK is a business, and rather, we're naive if we expect impartiality on the part of our news media.

Betts, you're missing the point. Reputable newspapers disclose their business interests in news articles related to the subject at hand. I didn't say they have to be completely impartial or unbiased. I simply suggested that they are likely concealing involvement in the Momentum group, which is something readers should be informed.

We can all moan and groan about this issue ad infinitum into the future. Until and unless another case hits SCOTUS and they rule differently it is the law of the law. Complaining about it is pointless and a waste of time. Learn how to deal with it and peal back the layers of the onion.

We can all moan and groan about this issue ad infinitum into the future. Until and unless another case hits SCOTUS and they rule differently it is the law of the law. Complaining about it is pointless and a waste of time. Learn how to deal with it and peal back the layers of the onion.

The trouble is that the SCOTUS ruling did give us protections, namely, that political donations shouldn't be anonymous. The Oklahoma AG's office shut down the Ethics Commission when they were asked to rule on this issue. This deprives the people of Oklahoma of the protections afforded to them by the Constitution.

True but there is nothing any of us have any reasonable change of doing to change it.

True but there is nothing any of us have any reasonable change of doing to change it.

At this point, voting for a different AG would seem to be the best option.

Agree but years away. And even a new AG might not change anything.

Agree but years away. And even a new AG might not change anything.

Yeah, if he actually decided to enforce the law as Citizens United lays out, it'd very likely change something. At the very least, the Ethics Comm'n's work shouldn't have been put on ice.