What's The Deal With Committee for Oklahoma City Momentum?

[Doug Loudenback]

Today's Oklahoma Gazette in its article, Who's Behind the Money, 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.

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.

[lasomeday]

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

[metro]

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

[Spartan]

Huh?

[rcjunkie]

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.

[Midtowner]

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?

[Doug Loudenback]

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.

[Midtowner]

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.

[Kerry]

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.

[Doug Loudenback]

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:



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

[barnold]

Good reporting Doug. Keep it up.

[soonerguru]

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!!!!

[soonerguru]

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.

[rcjunkie]

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.

[king183]

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."

[Snowman]

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?

[Doug Loudenback]

§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.

[soonerguru]

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.

[Midtowner]

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.

[king183]

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.

[Midtowner]

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.

[king183]

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.

[Wallabyjoe]

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.

[Doug Loudenback]

[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.

[OkieDave]

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.