Seattle Firefighters Union Local 27 is likely to pay Republican consultant Bruce Boram to produce mail on behalf of mayoral candidate Joe Mallahan, the president of the firefighters union confirms.
Local 27 president Kenny Stuart would not directly confirm that his union, along with the Seattle Police Officers Guild, planned to hire Boram to do a mailer on behalf of Joe Mallahan (whom both groups plan to endorse later this week, as the Seattle Times noted on Friday), but said he sees “no reason why we would switch” from Boram’s company, Laurus Associates.
The firefighters and SPOG have put out two Boram-produced mailers so far this year: One on behalf of Nick Licata challenger Jessie Israel…
… and one for Position 4 candidate Sally Bagshaw.
“I have no reason to think we’re going to work with anybody else,” Stuart says. “What we are looking for (in an independent expenditure consultant) is that we are honest, straightforward, state our principles, and get our message across. We’ve been very happy with [Laurus].”
Boram has worked for the Washington State Republican Party, GOP Congressman Dave Reichert (R-8), and (infamously) against Democratic AG candidate Deborah Senn.
Mallahan spokeswoman Charla Neuman hadn’t heard anything about the probable independent expenditure, but that’s not surprising: Groups that do independent expenditures on behalf of candidates are prohibited by law from collaborating directly with the candidates.
Tweet
This is absurd. How does this matter. it’s an IE!
I have a few questions about this post. I hope someone from Publicola will address them.
First, why is it news? And can we expect Publicola to start reporting on all of the consultants for independent expenditures or political campaigns who have ever had a Republican client?
Also, why did the headline name Mallahan and not Bagshaw or Israel? Why didn’t it just say the Fire Fighters, since they are the ones that hired the firm? It seems incredibly misleading since I don’t believe the campaign can legally have any say in which consultant gets hired. Wouldn’t that be collaboration and isn’t that illegal? Even if I have that last part wrong, it clearly wasn’t Mallahan’s doing since the consultant was hired previously for two others jobs.
Look, I like Publicola. I like reading ECB’s pieces. But posts like this make me think less of the site as a whole because it is clearly a hatchet job against the Mallahan campaign disguised as investigative reporting.
@2,
Those are fair questions. Here are the answers:
1. Major union endorsements—the firefighters and police—in a mayor’s race are certainly news. The Seattle Times, The PI.com, and The Stranger all reported that news along with us late last week. We had a follow-up scoop here on some context, implications, and fallout from that initial story.
2. Yes, you should expect PubliCola to report on IEs. It’s nothing new. We did it all through the primary. For example, we reported on the big labor IE against Ross Hunter
http://publicola.net/?p=10981
& the lobor IE for the “Port Reform” slate.
http://publicola.net/?p=11366
3. The headline named Mallahan because he’s running for mayor, and he’s news. He’s also the reason the IE is planned. We didn’t name Bagshaw or Israel because we broke that story a month ago: http://publicola.net/?p=11432
4. Yes, the collaboration would be illegal. That’s why Erica wrote this in the post:
Those mailers are ugly.
Is it a scoop if no one cares?
Is “news” if the word “Republican” is in it?
That kind of is the focus of this story, as opposed to your other examples.
@ 6,
Correct Mr. Baker. Both are news: Union IEs and GOP IEs. And we write about both.
Did you ask and report on what Bagshaw and Israel thought about their supporters using a Republican adman?
If you use Israel as an example, obviously the impact is underwhelming.
Having the Firefighters & Police Unions is great for whoever has them—but I am reminded of Al Noel, who was a firefighter that Local 27 got solidly behind in his City Council race some 25 years ago. They must have put a yard sign on every block in the city, great job. Besides being a firefighter, Al was a great guy, but didn’t have much else going—-he got a solid 9% or so of the vote.
So it is problematic if Boram’s pieces will do much besides provide a nice income for Boram.
I really dislike this gotcha style reporting that you guys sometimes sink to. It reeks of trying to make Mallahan look bad when he has nothing to do with it. It is the same as when you reported the McGinn had ‘only missed three elections.’ It is terrible that he missed those elections (presidential primary notwithstanding)
Affiliating Mallahan with Republicans or somehow twisting the significance of missing elections to favor McGinn doesn’t really help make the case for McGinn, it instead erodes your authority when you are giving real reasons for supporting McGinn. Please use your influence wisely.
I DO completely agree that reporting IE’s is interesting and important in this election and applaud you for paying attention. However, this post is specious, speculative and mean-spirited.
An interesting question to look at would be what SIEU has to say about the fact that Murray took a lot of the same votes as Ross Hunter…
That e-e-evil Mr. Mallahan . . . WHAT will he do NEXT?
I have a few questions about this post. I hope someone from Publicola will address them.
First, why is it news? And can we expect Publicola to start reporting on all of the consultants for independent expenditures or political campaigns who have ever had a Republican client?
Also, why did the headline name Mallahan and not Bagshaw or Israel? Why didn't it just say the Fire Fighters, since they are the ones that hired the firm? It seems incredibly misleading since I don't believe the campaign can legally have any say in which consultant gets hired. Wouldn't that be collaboration and isn't that illegal? Even if I have that last part wrong, it clearly wasn't Mallahan's doing since the consultant was hired previously for two others jobs.
Look, I like Publicola. I like reading ECB's pieces. But posts like this make me think less of the site as a whole because it is clearly a hatchet job against the Mallahan campaign disguised as investigative reporting.