Page 4A
East Oregonian
Thursday, September 13, 2018
CHRISTOPHER RUSH
Publisher
KATHRYN B. BROWN
Owner
DANIEL WATTENBURGER
Managing Editor
Founded October 16, 1875
OTHER VIEWS
Legislative proposals
aren’t a state secret
The Oregonian
I
t seems self-evident that the entire
process of making new laws should
be open to the public. Legislating is
inherently of public interest — actions by
government to tax, mandate, restrict or
otherwise exert control over its constituents
should be something that those constituents
can weigh in on from the very start. But for
reasons that remain unclear, that’s not the
tack that Gov. Kate Brown’s administration
is taking.
Contrary to previous years, the state
recently denied a Portland attorney’s
request for documents showing the 234
proposals for bills that the governor’s office
is sending on for legislative consideration.
As the Capital Bureau’s Paris Achen
reported, attorney Gregory Chaimov has
routinely received copies of the documents
— in which state agencies outline the
problem they want to solve and their
proposed fix — since 2010. Chaimov uses
the information to advise and assist clients
who may be affected by such proposals.
This time, however, the Oregon
Department of Administrative Services
refused to release the forms, claiming
they were protected by attorney-client
privilege — an interpretation backed by
Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum.
The forms will be released only after the
Office of Legislative Counsel, which drafts
bills for consideration by the Legislature,
submits the written proposals to the
governor’s office for approval — by the end
of November, weeks after Brown’s tight
gubernatorial race with challenger Knute
Buehler is decided.
Legally, there are a couple problems
with the state’s position, according to
Chaimov’s attorney John DiLorenzo,
who is suing to force the state to release
the documents. Bill drafting services by
the Office of Legislative Counsel aren’t
legal services protected by attorney-client
privilege, DiLorenzo maintains. The
Legislative Counsel may only represent
the Legislature. Allowing the Legislative
Counsel to serve as the attorney for the state
agencies that make up the executive branch
would violate the Oregon Constitution’s
separation of powers clause, he told The
Oregonian/OregonLive Editorial Board.
Now it’s worth pointing out that
Chaimov is not just any Portland attorney.
He served as the legislative counsel from
1998 until 2004. So, he intimately knows
the role of the legislative counsel and whom
the office serves. It’s also worth noting
that the current legislative counsel, Dexter
Johnson, declined to comment on whether
he believes that drafting bills for executive
branch proposals is a service protected by
attorney-client privilege.
But there are other aspects that should
trouble Oregonians. As Achen wrote,
the forms now warn that “Although it is
expected that agencies will have discussed
legislative concept ideas with stakeholders,
agencies are directed to treat this document
as confidential and privileged and,
accordingly, not to share the text of this
EO file photo
Gov. Kate Brown signs House Bill 4023, which increases broadband for rural schools,
on April 27, 2018 at the Pendleton Technology and Trade Center.
form outside of state government before
legislation is drafted and finalized.”
In other words, some select members
of the public — those “stakeholders”
deemed relevant by state agencies — have
been privy to the legislative ideas that are
outlined in the documents that the state
refuses to disclose. That suggests those
concepts are not in fact confidential, a
critical component for attorney-client
privilege. And more important, there’s the
inherent unfairness of allowing favored
“stakeholders” to know what’s on deck
for the coming legislative session while
keeping others in the dark as long as
possible.
Department of Administrative Services
spokeswoman Liz Craig claims there’s no
change in policy, despite the fact that the
state never denied Chaimov access to the
documents in the past. She said the state
agencies wanted to bring their practices
in line with the Legislature, which has
the authority to exert privilege over its
work with Legislative Counsel — though
lawmakers often choose not to. But this is
not a compelling reason to hide documents,
especially when compared with the benefit
of telling the public what state agencies and
the governor are teeing up for 2019.
The motivation for the refusal to
disclose these forms may or may not be
the pending election. It may or may not
be a housekeeping move. But one thing
is clear: It’s another disappointing stand
by a governor who pledged transparency
from Day One. Brown should direct the
Department of Administrative Services
to release the documents and accept the
scrutiny.
OTHER VIEWS
I
When a foreign adversary meddled in an election
n the 1990s, a hostile foreign
staff at an event on the White
power meddled in our
House grounds. His memorable
presidential election. There were
explanation: “I see the White House
serious questions about whether one
is like a subway — you have to put
party’s candidate — the beneficiary
in coins to open the gates.”
— was complicit in the meddling, or
In May 1999, Chung testified
at least looked the other way while it
before the House Government
was going on. The candidate fiercely
Oversight Committee. He said
Byron
resisted the appointment of a special
that in 1996, during the Clinton
York
prosecutor, then known as an
re-election campaign, he met
Comment
independent counsel, to investigate.
with the head of Chinese military
Finally, amid only moderate media
intelligence in the basement of
interest and public concern, it all faded
a restaurant in Hong Kong. “We really
away.
like your president. We hope to see him
The country doing the meddling, of
re-elected,” the Chinese spy, Gen. Ji
course, was China, and the presidential
Shengde, told Chung, according to Chung’s
candidate was Bill Clinton, who was
testimony. Gen. Ji continued: “I will give
already in the White House and seeking
you 300,000 U.S. dollars. You can give it to
re-election in 1996.
the president and the Democratic Party.”
Looking back on press accounts from
“Chung’s testimony has provided
the era, it’s striking how brazen a number of investigators the first direct link between
the players were as they went about the task a senior Chinese government official
of funneling illegal foreign donations to
and illicit foreign contributions that were
the Clinton campaign and the Democratic
funneled into Clinton’s 1996 re-election
National Committee. The names have been
effort,” the Los Angeles Times reported. “It
mostly forgotten now — Charlie Trie, John
is the strongest evidence — in two years
Huang, Johnny Chung — but the record
of federal investigation — that the highest
remains.
levels of the Chinese government sought to
Chung, for example, who was born in
influence the U.S. election process.”
Taiwan and became a U.S. citizen, was a
In the great tradition of shady operators,
prolific Democratic fundraiser. Between
Chung ended up taking a lot of the money
1994 and 1996, he gave $366,000 to the
for himself. But some of the cash from the
DNC and visited the Clinton White House
head of Chinese military intelligence —
more than 50 times.
that is, the People’s Liberation Army —
In 1995, Chung gave a $50,000 check
made its way into the Clinton re-election
to first lady Hillary Clinton’s chief of
campaign and other Democratic efforts.
Earlier, Chung had testified before a
grand jury that he had also contributed
money that came from another officer in the
People’s Liberation Army and from the son
of China’s top military commander. Chung
pleaded guilty to bank fraud, tax evasion
and conspiracy in connection with some of
his illegal contributions. He was sentenced
to probation.
Then there was Charlie Trie, who raised
$1.2 million in foreign money for the
Clinton legal defense fund and the DNC. In
March 1996, Trie dropped off a donation of
$460,000 at the Washington offices of the
defense fund, with some of the money in
sequentially numbered money orders made
out in the same handwriting. He visited the
White House 22 times. He pleaded guilty
to violating federal election laws and was
sentenced to probation.
There was also John Huang, the
Democratic fundraiser who raised more
than a $1.5 million from illegal foreign
sources. He visited the White House 78
times. Huang was an agent for James Riady,
an Indonesian businessman with extensive
ties to China. The Senate Governmental
Affairs Committee found that Riady had
“a long-term relationship with a Chinese
intelligence agency.” He pleaded guilty
to campaign finance violations and was
sentenced to probation, plus a multimillion-
dollar fine.
As the news came out in the year after
the election — with Clinton safely back in
the White House — there were calls for an
independent counsel to investigate. (The old
independent counsel law was still in effect
then.) Then-attorney general Janet Reno
steadfastly refused. The Justice Department
dawdled for months, and the investigation
never reached the level it would have
reached had an independent counsel been
appointed. Republicans complained and
complained, but Reno would not budge.
The scandal was news at the time;
indeed, some print outlets, like the Los
Angeles Times, led the way in uncovering
it. The story received far less coverage
on television, where several news outlets
appeared distinctly uninterested. Overall, it
would probably be fair to call the coverage
moderate-to-restrained.
The rhetoric was restrained, too. To use
one measure, it did not lead to widespread
use of the word “treason” in the public
discussion of President Clinton.
There is simply no comparison between
the political conversation about the
Clinton foreign influence scandal in the
1990s and today’s conversation about
the Trump-Russia affair. Of course, the
circumstances and facts are different, but it
seems reasonable to say that for whatever
reason, Washington is far more upset about
Russia’s attempt to influence the election in
2016 than it was about China’s attempt to
do the same 20 years earlier.
■
Byron York is chief political
correspondent for The Washington
Examiner.
YOUR VIEWS
Learning about the
45-point rule in football
I would like to apologize to the coaches
and football team in Pilot Rock.
What I learned after my talk with the
athletic director is that there is a rule that
says nothing can happen until the score
reaches 45. Only after that can the game be
called. It is up to the non-scoring team to
call the game. If they want to continue to
play the clock does not stop until the end
of the game.
It makes sense. It was just painful to
watch. I will remember this in the future
and not feel bad when I see this happen
again.
Of course, I don’t want to see Pilot
Rock on the other side of the 45-point rule!
Risa Riggen
Pilot Rock
Phil Knight making move
on the Capitol in Salem
Phil Knight has already bought himself
a university — actually two of ’em of
late, if you count his financial holdings
of sort at OHSU. Now he’s out to buy a
governorship.
Each in the name, of course, of
promoting the “Just Do It” slogan.
Les Ruark
Arlington
CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVES
GOVERNOR
Kate Brown
160 State Capitol
Unsigned editorials are the opinion of the
East Oregonian editorial board. Other
columns, letters and cartoons on this page
express the opinions of the authors and
not necessarily that of the East Oregonian.
900 Court Street
Salem, OR 97301-4047
503-378-4582
The East Oregonian welcomes original letters of 400 words or less on public issues and public policies for publication in the
newspaper and on our website. The newspaper reserves the right to withhold letters that address concerns about individual
services and products or letters that infringe on the rights of private citizens. Letters must be signed by the author and include the
city of residence and a daytime phone number. The phone number will not be published. Unsigned letters will not be published.
Send letters to managing editor Daniel Wattenburger, 211 S.E. Byers Ave. Pendleton, OR 97801 or email editor@eastoregonian.com.