Respectfully Republican covers a Vancouver Columbian editorial chiding Maria Cantwell's dealings with Ron Dotzauer. Based on current events, I don't think this issue will have a huge impact on the campaign unless an independent group does an effective ad on the topic later this fall. Yet, it is nice to see appropriate condemnation for the appearance of ethical lapses evident in dealings between Maria and Ron.
Posted by Eric Earling at September 13, 2006 11:02 PM | Email ThisIt's not hard to see why. First, there's the obvious point that you don't buy influence by borrowing money from a legislator six years ahead of the vote you need. Most people have seen enough real influence peddling that they understand how it works, and this isn't it.
Another reason this isn't going anywhere can be found in the bloviating words of the Columbian editorial and ethicist Melanie Sloan. After pointing out that Cantwell has probably done nothing wrong and has always fully disclosed the loan, both pontificate that she should nevertheless avoid "the appearance of a conflict of interest." However, neither offer any advice on how she could have done this. The only action Cantwell had any control over was the initial loan -- which was completely legal and ethical at the time she made it. All of the subsequent actions (becoming a lobbyist, taking on clients, paying or not paying the loan, etc.) were Dotzauer's and not under Cantwell's control. In order to accuse Cantwell of an ethical lapse, one would need to point to a specific unethical act she committed, or to some action she could have taken but failed to take. To date, nobody has done this.
It's interesting that you hold out hope that some independent group may take out an effective ad on this topic in the fall -- not that Mike! would engage in such a thing. I suppose the purpose of such an ad would be to repeat the words "Money". "Lobbyist", and "Cantwell" in an appropriately sinister voice often enough and hope that people draw the wrong conclusion that Cantwell took money from a lobbyist and changed her vote. So much for the politics of civility.
Posted by: scottd on September 14, 2006 08:50 AMThere are many more reasons not to vote for Maria beside this issue , but the lack of reporting indicates that the local press knows she's dirty, but do not want it to hurt her re-election chances.
Have you noticed she's not personally addressing any of this? She filed the loan on the PDC form, is it a pattern? Does she routinely give out $50,000 loans and forget what they are about? Talk about out of touch.
Posted by: Smokie on September 14, 2006 02:24 PMSo our local press doesn't have any bronze--fine. But if they want to keep talking about McGavick, why not tell us about the issues driven campaign he is running? If they can ever wedge themselves away from a 13-year old DUI, I would personally like to hear more on where the candidates stand on these issues:
Winning the War on Terror
Immigration Reform
Energy & The Environment
Health Care
The Federal Budget