The story of Mrs. Gregoire auctioning off the Governor's Mansion to the highest bidding donor to the Darcy Burner campaign is in today's Seattle Times.
Andrew Villeneuve1, the teenager who calls himself "Northwest Progressive Institute" and scored an own goal by reporting Gregoire's tacky and possibly illegal fundraising stunt, has leapt to Gregoire's defense:
the mansion can actually be rented by the public for private eventsWhat a great idea. I'll rent the Governor's Mansion to host a fundraising dinner for Sound Politics! I'll call Mrs. Gregoire's office on Monday for a price quote and availability check.
1 Like most of Darcy Burner's supporters, Villeneuve lives at home with his parents. Outside the 8th District.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at September 16, 2006 04:31 PM | Email ThisShe became a magnet for bad press when she took he governor's office.
I think we should rent the place weekly for a Drink Conservatively kegger. All pets welcome!
Posted by: GS on September 16, 2006 04:37 PM;)
Posted by: BRC on September 16, 2006 04:44 PMYou renting out the Governor's Mansion for a party for SP is still NOT the same thing.
If you rent it, and then auction off the tickets to the 50 highest bidders with the profit going to a Republican candidate, then it would be the same thing................
Posted by: sgmmac on September 16, 2006 05:43 PMhttp://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/8491
Posted by: sgmmac on September 16, 2006 06:44 PMJust remember, all tickets must be prepaid. No $ can change hands inside gov't buildings...right?
Posted by: Old Faithful on September 16, 2006 07:18 PMHealthcare???? I'm sorry, but if Burner really believes that she isn't qualified to be a congressperson. My neighbors and I will NOT be represented by this woman.
Posted by: Michele on September 16, 2006 09:00 PMThat's priceless!
Burner must have a lot of friends, considering she is leading in the 8th in the latest poll 49-46: ( http://www.constituentdynamics.com/mw/2006/index2.html ) and has beat Reichert in fund raising the last two quarters. And you tell us that she has even more friends out side her district! She'll make a great Congressperson given how popular she is.
Shame you can't say the same for Reichert or McGavick (who is making Katherine Harris look popular, which is saying a lot).
Oh please! I think it's been well established that Darcy Burner is a legend in her own mind -with regard to her self-embellished resume and life history....
Let's be honest here....Darcy Burner is a virtual "nobody". Her commercials are a stunning expample of putting lipstick on a pig! The Dems have dressed her up and placed her in the standard "action" shots...yet - she's never been in any capacity as shown in her commercial ads! After the election..she can go back to being the "nobody" she always was meant to be!
Posted by: Deborah on September 16, 2006 11:20 PMThis is quite a novel experience. I look forward to having it again sometime, but I'm not holding my breath!
Posted by: TB on September 16, 2006 11:28 PMSure, Burner is a nobody, that is why she is ahead in the polls.
Of course, if you can show a poll released in the last few weeks showing Reichert ahead..., oh, that's right, you can't.
Posted by: JDB on September 17, 2006 01:36 AMthen--let's see those in power backpedal & doubletalk while kicking the Tents out "for security reasons"--that is, not being inclusive, diverse or other code-word-behavior they impose on the rest of us.
And Andrew? schoolyard victim? pasty white? definitely a poly sci major or journalist in the bud; PI caliber;
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on September 17, 2006 07:56 AMhttp://www.realclearpolitics.com/blog/2006/09/the_aps_switcheroo.html
Posted by: Jaybo on September 17, 2006 08:06 AMWhat about colelge students who live in dorms, or peopel who live in state owned housing. Should poltical events be banned from public parks as well.
As long as the only state contribution is the facility it is not really a problem. Kind of like the difference between using your work internet connection for the occasional personal surfing and using works copy machine to run of 10000 copies of a lost dog flyer. One has no net cost to the employer and the other does.
By the way Bush pretty much did the same thing when he was governor and I would bet most other governors, or others forced to live in state owned housing have as well.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/report.aspx?aid=227
Posted by: Giffy on September 17, 2006 08:44 AM
Gregoire, on the other hand, expressly auctioned off a dinner visit (and the state-prepared meal) to the Governor's Mansion in exchange for a politicald donation.
Washington law may also be tougher than Texas law. In Texas, the budget appropriations bill merely contained a clause prohibiting any appropriated money from being used for political campaign purposes. Washington, on the other hand, has a permanent law prohibiting political campaign use of all state money, property, and employees.
Posted by: Richard Pope on September 17, 2006 09:32 AMPosted by alphabet soup at September 17, 2006 06:12 AM
Why do you think of me and blowjobs soup? Isn't that a sin?
Posted by: JDB on September 17, 2006 09:43 AM"No elective official nor any employee of his [or her] office nor any person appointed to or employed by any public office or agency may use or authorize the use of any of the facilities of a public office or agency, directly or indirectly, for the purpose of assisting a campaign for election of any person to any office or for the promotion of or opposition to any ballot proposition. Facilities of a public office or agency include, but are not limited to, use of stationery, postage, machines, and equipment, use of employees of the office or agency during working hours, vehicles, office space, publications of the office or agency, and clientele lists of persons served by the office or agency. However, this does not apply to the following activities"
The question is whether the governors mansion is included in the "facilities of public office". Clearly using state employees would be in violation if they were used during their "working hours". This is not the case as she is paying them for their work. It would also problematic if she was say having a sleepover in her office. however using her personal residence seems less problematic. Essentially she gets housing as a function of her job. Just as she can sue her salary to support candidates, she can also use her house. Just as the president of a University or a college student can. Similarly the president can use air force one to fly to political events as long as the cost of doing so is not paid by the government.
Posted by: Giffy on September 17, 2006 09:56 AMIt's her choice as I see it.
Posted by: GS on September 17, 2006 10:30 AMThe mansion is part of the Office of the Governor. The employees working at the mansion are employees of the Office of the Governor.
No matter what the feds or other states allow, our state laws do not. You cannot use public resources for campaign activity, even if you later reimburse the state. Use and reimburse is not allowed.
The Governor has her own residence in Olympia which she and her husband own. The mansion is public property, and a facility of the Office of the Governor. She doesn't even pay rent- her office does.
And no governor of this state has ever used the mansion for political fundraising. When the Governor's staff says there is precedent going back to Evans, the are referring to the precedent of having private functions at the mansion. But no one is questioning having private events- what is being questioned is the use of the mansion for partisan political fundraising.
You cannot use your work computer in a state office for partisan political purposes; you cannot solicit partisan political contributions in a state park; and when you choose to live in publicly-owned facilities paid for by the people (unlike a dform room you are renting) you have to live by the law.
Gregoire just needs to follow through on this being a mistake based on the exhuberance of the moment, and move on...
Posted by: Captain Wierd on September 17, 2006 11:47 AM
The very first thing that jumped out at me in the Times article is the way the framed the question.
Notice they used the touchy-feely liberal buzz word "UNFAIR", rather than 'unethical' or ethical, 'inappropriate' or 'appropriate', 'illegal' or legal'.
Even the descriptive 'questionable' would have been less biased.
***
Actually Joe she will pay for all food and staff time. It is her house so she can use it for what she wants. However she cannot use public funds for political events. This is actually quite standard for politicians who live in public spaces. As long as the public does not food the bill for food or staff it is kosher. -Posted by Giffy at September 16, 2006 06:04 PM
From the sublime to the ridiculous, since you choose to go there...
I wonder, who pays the utility bills, the property taxes, the upkeep on her "home".
Oh, that's right: the CITIZENS!
Is she reimbursing us for her 'highest bidder soiree'?
Hells bells, maybe Dave ought to have an auction... the highest bidder WON'T have to watch the illegitimate queen masticate!
The mansion is an extension of the Office of the Governor- there is a line item in the appropriation to the Office of the Governor for the mansion. Find me any line item for your dorm room. You pay rent for your dorm room- the Gov gets the mansion for free, like she gets her office for free- in fact, it is considered part of her office.
The bottom lin, Giffy, is you continue to write about things about which you have no clue. You might start by going to the Executive Ethics Board website and doing some research- and remember, this isn't D.C., or any other state- washington state has never allowed the use of public resources in political campaigns.
Posted by: Captain Wierd on September 17, 2006 03:24 PMBut Harris and Gregoire's staff say the mansion does not appear to fall under the law cited in the complaint because the building is also the governor's home.
"We'd look differently at it if she was not required to live there," Harris said."
Thats the executive director of the Ethics Board indicating it is likely not a problem. Yes she is given it for free, but it is more akin to a job benefit then an office. Similar to what University presidents often get, or even teachers. They can use there residence as they would any other residence.
By the way many college students get their dorm rooms for free. Namely athlete, RA's, etc. They still can use it for political purposes.
Please quote me some RCW, WAC, ruling that specifically indicates that publicly owned residence are included under the prohibition. I have yet to see one.
Why should anybody quote you anything when you've clearly indicated you won't accept any argument which contradicts your uninformed position?
Stop trying to defend the indefensible. The governor can use the publicly owned mansion for private functions ... even if it's hosting lunch to auction winners. What the governor cannot do is use that public facility for explicit campaign purposes as described in this incident. Period. There's not even a gray area on this.
Instead of reflexively defending a position on a subject you know very little about, why don't you take a look at the big picture? Do you really want any governor to be auctioning off public space in order to reward political allies?
Posted by: jimg on September 17, 2006 04:32 PMNow, you might want to know that the Capitol Press corps was all over at the mansion last week chillin' with the Gov, hubbie, and Trooper, so don't expect any real digging on this.
And you are approaching it all wrong, anyway. There is a very clear and unmistakable prohibition- find me an exception for the mansion or other residences...
Even find an example of a governor of Washington who fundraised for a partisan campaign from the mansion...
Even find an example of a university president in our state who fundraised for a partisan campain from their official residence...
Those examples don't exist, because it hasn't been done and it isn't allowed, but hunt away anyway...
In the non-exclusive listing of what those means, housing for public officials is not included. That leaves it up to interpretation. Based on the statement I quoted from the chair of the ethics board, they do seem inclined to included the mansion under those designations. We will know for sure when they issue their ruling on Popes complaint.
The last time I was at the governors mansion it was for an event organized by the Young Dems. I remember that they were asking for something like 20-30 dollars per person. I imagine much of that went to the Young Dems, a political organization.
Posted by: Giffy on September 17, 2006 05:09 PMEnough said!
Let them defend their choice as perfectly legal! It won't matter!
What will matter is perception.
And the perception of auctioning off a public place for political contributions has a strong perception of wrong in this day and age.
Posted by: GS on September 17, 2006 06:52 PMI wonder how this statute has been used with regard to groups at say the UW or other public facilities. Not that it is really relevant here, but it seem interesting.
Posted by: Giffy on September 17, 2006 07:50 PMShe crossed a line, and unless she backs up and just admits she made a spur of the moment mistake and hosts the dinner elsewhere she'll be drawing literal meanings and repercussions down on a lot of people. This is not a point for the Gov to go stubborn.
The ethics board tend to be VERY literal in their interpretations, as do the AG and Auditor. We don't want to enter this swamp...
Posted by: Chocolate Moose on September 17, 2006 08:45 PMMaybe now she can start renting out parking spaces on the mansion grounds, it is her private residence isn't it?
Posted by: Huh? on September 17, 2006 08:48 PMa Hybrid
a Governor owned chauffeur driven SUV or Limo
a Mayor owned chauffeur driven Hybrid van
a King County Executive chauffeur drivven Limo
a state patrol escort
or...............................
a "Bush Lied and people died bumper sticker
(must be attached to the paint of your car, not the bumper).
what next? posting our port security tactics on the internet in the interest of "transparent govenment?!" makes one wonder at times what/how these political minds are thinking; ...and we trust them with our money and our security...
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on September 18, 2006 02:15 AMCan you really be THAT naive?
Posted by: Baynative on September 18, 2006 06:46 AMDo you think if we get in they will force us to convert to being a democrat to get out alive? Worked for the Fox News guys.
Or they will play Her ferry audio over and over in the bathrooms to drive us out.
Got to get the meatiest barbeque possible with the smoke blowing in the windows.
Posted by alphabet soup at September 17, 2006 07:16 PM
jdb is my name, bitemejeff is my email address. However, the blowjob seems to be entirely in your mind.
Why do you associate it with me? What sick little thoughts fill your head? Either way, I think you need to repent.