EDITORIAL
Journal’s backing
unfair advantage
With ASUO election season moving into high gear,
candidates are looking for press and publicity in a myr
iad of ways. Unfortunately, the Oregon Commentator is
already promoting two candidates who also happen to
be staff members of the publication.
The two. Justin Good and Thomas Schoenborn. are
running for president and vice president of ASl JO. They
also received a substantial amount of publicity in the
April 10 issue of the Commentator.
The Commentator has obviously taken it upon itself to
promote the Good/Schoenborn campaign — even before
the publication has officially "endorsed" anyone.
Consider:
• An article, written by Good, appears on page 10 of
the issue Below it is nn ad for Good /Sc hoen born, osten
sibly paid for by the Dominant Paradigm Committee."
advising renders to "prepare for the revolution."
• Good and Schoenborn were mentioned as being in
the race for the ASUO Executive in the "What Rules fc
What Drools” section, while no other campaigns were
noted.
• Items from the Good/Schoonborn platform were
mentioned at the ton of the list In a profile of the five
candidates. White tliat isn't Incriminating, it is ques
tionable that the first item listed, an optional incidental
fee system, resulted in a two-page article on the same
siibjec». in the same issue.
As a journal of opinion whose workers are unpaid, the
Commentator should not be expected to adhere as strict
ly to the rules of fairness and equal-time as other publi
(at ions.
However, just as it would ho inappropriate for the
president of some student club to use that club's treasury
to finance his candidacy, it’s also inappropriate for the
editors of a well-read, student-financed publication to
use the pages of that publication to promote their own
electoral ambitions.
It Isn't unusual for a publication to endorse a particu
lar candidate, and in fact, it's a newspaper's cherished
First Amendment privilege to do so. But there are two
important differences between a fair endorsement and
the kind performed by the Commentator.
First, the candidate usually isn’t a high-level editor at
the publication doing the endorsement, with the unique
privilege of having his or her name distributed to thou
sands of readers, at no cost to him — because the paper
picks up the tab.
And second, the endorsement is usually the result of
an Interview and research process In which all candi
dates are compared against one another. The endorse
ment then appears in a single issue, in a single place. It
doesn't need to be throughout the edition, a whole cam
paign on a half-dozen pages.
In the interest of fairness, Good and Schoenborn
should refrain from contributing to the Commentator
until the end of the brief election season. In the mean
time, they should seriously look at other ways to pro
mote their campaign.
Oregon Daily
po eoi m* fiXct'Nf o«fC»04*74j}
T t*0 OfttffOn Oseff l ^jrdfci -■* put«te%ha<j <$&ty UkWtGy thfOuQh f ’*$ay OurmQ the acfaooi
*■*«* end 1 ueaday and Thufiday du**na the lumma by the Oopon Qafty Emerald
Co .k tf tt-«e Unam*y oi Outgo** fu-pwn* Oregon
The f;/n«w aid £*>**»!«* <ndk#>*rKJeotry o< the ^ v«vt) *-4* oM*c«e at $u*e 300 o* !f»e
f: ft) Memo* utf Urwoh and *s a m&mCmt at the Aa*ocw*«d Pr***
The Emmwki >-§ prorate property The uwkWirM removal c» u*e t»t paper* <* pro*«cvtab*e
by Mae
Cdno/WvChM K-aty Soto
Edtlctfi**Editor
Hmm% Art £<Hio*
fr—iatKm £<*to#
J*OCtX> f Wv«k*
tO^ BMrtsnM'
Sport* Etffto* 0**» Met/
Supplements Editor Inst* New*
Wight Ecktc* to*’ ftattruMhi
| V/Wiiyu, JIWWH ¥a\W'd t. iTW»a#.
CammunYy Co*MK' Puhag. f*gha« < A* aftvy A»n*v»ha<«vi
Havrt Sun '>!*vm AUsury Magna ttW) Moot*) Gomoy. A—, l Qai anport Prmj f ontjavn.
Gay« I t*m»v Maft Oort*' Joe HtNuOOd Kin Hanry. Ti«wy K«nrtey. Shannon K*jj« Ad*®
K net Samartha Martat. Mss Mt {Vide KAvv tV ’ j-5 Pane* lAntor 3 Bar Moafev.*. Itesfca
WrtjiK^ Amo Una KanUB Shany Kjtnay ttas*iha Shephard. Pan Van Son* Saar
Sr'-It' u&hew Sb*** Mara STna. Jeremy $*veon, Kvr Watt. Bran A ornate tat /a ite
General Manager Judy ll«j
Advertleing Director Ui> Walter Production Manager. IANh Rom
Advertiaing Anna Amador Avia Horgan Uaio Chevg. tony f o« Ktcoa Marjmarti. Kaiy
l yon Je»r*- j Manor. S*ah Mtchei, Tom U’'c'',ial A«tm
Detained Natty Merchant Ut<a}a Kyt« Davit. Jo® Se*ar
Dlttn button; John tong. I wane NaPocjn. Graham Srmpaon
Butineee Kathy Caitiona. Supervewr Judy Connoty
Production Oahha McCot*. I'-oduchori Coorlnefor Sha»«a Abate Tait Gau*n*y. (Va3
Joe* M ", WfcCanU, Jarmiar Bogan]. Dayton Yaa
nwnwoom
Bu*io**» Office
W6-M12
AOV#f tinny
Atfv#rtl**ny W6-4W3
■ OPINION
Rich don’t deserve cheap shots
Brian Womack
n an unprecedented natumal
ly-telev isih! speech to the
JLnation Friday night, Newt
Gingrich spelled out the suc
cesses and failures of the first
100 days of the 10-tth Congress.
One of the biggest claims of
sin.i ess he could boast of was
the tax- reduction bill passing
the House — finishing up the
Contrai l with America before
the 100 days were even com
pleted
The t uts include redut ing
capital gains taxes, expanding
the tax credit for children to
$500 for those making up to
$200,000 and slu ing taxes for
businesses
Obviously, not everybody is
happy with these cuts
As sure ns ram in Kugene and
stress in Info Hell, the Democ
rats get out their favorite drums
Those drums beat the beats of
class envy.
Pounding away at our heads
until we long for decapitation,
the Democratic side of the aisles
in Congress bastardize those
wealthy individuals as the great
Satans of America.
1‘his, of course, is the party of
the Kennedy's and the Rocke
fellers
But the drums persist
Senate Minority Leader Tom
Daschle (D-S.D I said in a story
in the Saturday edition of The
Oregonian that Republicans
"have shown their true loyalties;
to the fortes of privilege and
power who need no help and
deserve no special favors "
Bang. bang. hang.
' The speaker s rhetoric can
not conceal the reality; Franklin
Roosevelt's hundred days were
for the people. These hundred
days are for the privileged." said
the Minority Leader of the
House. Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.J.
Thump, thump, thump.
We Americans ate repeatedly
told that the evil people in this
nation are the rich.
Why? Because they have more
money than most of the rest of
us.
It seems that we often forget
the rich don't always get rich
ten ause of some big inheritance
i heck they got by way of their
birth
A lot of it just came from
good, old fashioned, hard work
Names like Hill Gates, Henry
ford and Nam Walton prove just
that.
There are also many small
business owners who have laid
their life's savings just to start a
business. Though thev may not
Iw bringing home millions every
week, they often have become
successful enough to employ 20
employees and own a nice lioat
Yet they are the exi option to
the rule At least nine in 10
small businesses fail They are
among that small percentage
that actually had sue * ess
Obviously these people
weren't just lucky or born with
rich. They earned it
I'm not saving all these posi
tive things about the rich
because 1 am one of them.
1 come from a blue collar, sin
gle-income household. Money
was always scarce
Yet, 1 did know that an entre
preneur w ho had laid his money
on the line was employing my
dad. This business owner had a
huge house on a large piece of
real estate with all the trim
mings.
Hut this person was taking the
risks with his money at every
joli he did. My dad, as with any
other employee, simply had to
work at the job only with the
threat of job security hut not
every < ent he ow ned
As in this (.ase. and most oth
ers. the rich signed the pay
checks.
But even if some of the rich
did inherit their wealth, why
should we envy w hat they have?
Why should they have to have
someone else tell them what to
do with their own money? Whv
should some government have
the right to redistribute their
wealth?
Nevertheless, it seems many
Americans believe rich people
are a bottomless pit of money
that could run the country with
their combined earnings.
Much of our tax structure
( mors to just such an attitude,
and some of the rich in this
country- are getting tired of it.
A Nov. 21. ltt‘14 article in
Forbes explained how sortie of
the rich nre actually revoking
their citizenship just to escape
these burdensome taxes.
It explains, "Rich Americans
. anyone with on estate worth
$.1 million or more —pay 55 per
cent. A fairly stiff 37-percent
mnrginol rate kicks in for Amer
icans leaving as little as
$600,000 to their children. The
marginal rate, ranges upward
from there to 60 percent."
Although I wouldn't revoke
rny citizenship. I can still see
their point Why should people
who make more have to neces
sarily pay more?
Why should hard work be
rewarded with higher taxes?
One of the ways the rich are
supposedly I wring favored in the
tax- reduction package is with
the capital-gains tux cuts
Gephardt said Friday that the
average tax cut for the wealthy
would be much higher than for
some middle class income earn
ers.
So what?
Captial-gains taxes are one of
the stupidest taxes 1 know of
Ixecause they punish people who
make money taking risks in the
stock and bond markets among
other areas. If the rich are the
ones w ho urn afford to take the
risk, more power to them Much
of their investment spurs the
economy, anyway, which gets
back to most of us.
But the Democrats would
rather bang the drums of class
envy because the rich have more
money than the rest of us
Therefore, they should be pun
ished with higher taxes.
America isn't atiout envy. It's
about individuality, it's about
seeing what one wants and
going after it
it's not about playing those
drums instead
Brian Womack is a columnist for
the Emerald.