“You might want to call them special interests; I think they’re just special.” Kate Brown, 2008
THE BROWN EXAMPLE
Kate Brown says she wants to “lead by example”. Let’s look at the example she’s set over 20 years as a politician.
- As a candidate, Brown has raised and spent $2.7 million dollars.
- In 2004, Brown raised and spent $607,462 to run for re-election in her safe Democratic seat, where NO Republican had even filed. Her opponents, from the Libertarian Party and Constitution Party, raised no money.
- As head of the Senate Democratic Leadership Fund, she raised $3.85 million over eight years for her colleagues to spend.
- Total raised and spent during her career = $6.55 million
KATE BROWN 2012 vs 2008 – A DOUBLE STANDARD
“A few months ago, I asked Buehler to agree to limiting campaign spending to $1 million during this election. I think that’s a lot of money – certainly enough to conduct a campaign for Secretary of State.” Brown Fundraising Email, 9/20/12
- In 2008, she spent $1.196 million in her Secretary of State race to defeat a political unknown
- 52.8 percent of her donations came from special interests like labor unions, corporations, political action committees and other non-individual, non-political-party givers.
- Her top two special interest supporters were public sector unions followed by lawyers and lobbyists ($135K from OEA, almost $117K from lawyers and lobbyists)
- She received $65,000 from the national, George Soros-backed Secretary of State Project, the second largest single contribution to her campaign.
KATE BROWN ON SPENDING LIMITS
Over her 20 years in politics, Kate Brown has never advocated for spending caps. Until now, when her position is threatened.
“Brown’s challenge is transparently self-serving, even desperate. Would Brown, historically a very good fundraiser, have taken a vow of relative poverty if she, and not Buehler, enjoyed a huge advantage in the cash race? Doubtful.” Oregonian Editorial, 9/20/12
“Because Brown’s proposal is so clearly unfair to Buehler, it creates another problem. It deflects attention from a serious issue — campaign spending — and focuses it on the trivial one of who gets to spend the most between now and November.” Bend Bulletin Editorial, 6/30/12