OC Register gives Big Gift to Moorlach’s Congressional bid

OC Supervisor John Moorlach - Photo: Chris Prevatt

OC Supervisor John Moorlach – Photo: Chris Prevatt

Earlier this week, 2nd District Orange county Supervisor John Moorlach announced the launch of his bid to replace retiring 45th District Congressman John Campbell in the 2014 election. This story was appropriately covered by the OC Register’s Martin Wisckol here. On Wednesday, the publishers of the Register doubled down on their coverage by providing Mr. Moorlach with unprecedented space on their editorial pages to make his case. Moorlach’s guest editorial amounted to more than 800 words of free advertising for his campaign, in addition to the more than 400 words worth of “earned media” coverage Wisckol provided in his coverage of Moorlach’s announcement.

As most of our readers know, the Orange County Register has erected a pay wall, reserving the bulk of their media reports for the exclusive consumption of paid subscribers for a period of 30 days. The publishers do allow selected content to be viewed in its entirety immediately. In the case of Moorlach’s editorial, they made his full commentary available for immediate viewing by all visitors to the Register website. As far as we can tell, none of the other four candidates, state Sen. Mimi Walters, R-Irvine; Laguna Hills investor Pat Maciariello; and retired Marine Col. Greg Raths of Mission Viejo, have been provided equal time in the Register editorial pages.

money-handsWhile it is entirely appropriate for a major publication to issue an endorsement of a candidate in their editorial pages, from our perspective offering only one candidate the opportunity to state their case to their readers, free of cost, amounts to an in-kind contribution to that candidate’s campaign committee. The value of that contribution would be determined by the actual cost of both print and web-based advertising for such a promotion.

We wait with breathless anticipation to see if the Register extends the same promotional opportunities to the other three candidates in the 45th congressional race, or if Moorlach’s campaign reports the in-kind contribution on their first campaign finance report due next year.

  31 comments for “OC Register gives Big Gift to Moorlach’s Congressional bid

  1. Robert Lauten
    December 6, 2013 at 10:05 am

    The O.C. Register is repenting.
    In September of 1994 the O.C. Register and the Board of Supervisors joined others in mocking John Moorlach for his warnings about the leveraged speculation bets and the risk of an O.C. bankruptcy.
    In September their snide remark was “The Sky Is Not Going to Fall”.
    In December the “Sky Fell”.

  2. RHackett
    December 6, 2013 at 11:13 am

    When I saw I thought the same thing. Is every candidate for every office going to be allowed to have a guest 800 word Op Ed published?

    I know that federal campaign finance laws are pretty strict on what is allowed and has to be paid for by the campaigns.

  3. December 6, 2013 at 1:43 pm

    Do you guys have a problem with free political speech unless it is tightly regulated by the government?

    And don’t bother holding your breath: the OC Register had already published an onion column from another CD45 candidate, Pat Maciariello, a week ago:

    http://www.ocregister.com/articles/costs-539179-government-obamacare.html

    • December 6, 2013 at 7:22 pm

      Thanks for pointing out his letter to the editor. But his letter was about Obamacare, not his campaign. I guess if they provide each candidate the opportunity to publish a letter that’s cool. Hope they extend to offer to all of them.

    • Robert Lauten
      December 8, 2013 at 4:56 pm

      Junior,
      Robert Lauten is the LaRouchie. We want to reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act, the Bank Act of 1933. http://www.larouchepac.com
      Why do you believe that the Supervisor John Moorlach wants to repeal Dodd-Frank?
      FYI: I’ve posted articles about Dodd-Frank 11 entries down.

    • Robert Lauten
      December 9, 2013 at 8:57 am

      Voters in the 45th Congressional District can make reinstating the Glass-Steagall Act, – the Bank Act of 1933, (1933-1999) THE ISSUE.
      ( http://larouchepac.com/glass-steagall &
      82 minute video “The Takedown of Glass-Steagall” http://larouchepac.com/gsfilm )

      Retiring Congressman John Campbell is on the Financial Services and could take the Glass-Steagall issue off the table by cosponsoring HR 129. http://thomas.loc.gov

      State Senator Mimi Walters is on the Banking & Financial Institutions Committee and should cosponsor California’s resolution to reinstate Glass-Steagall (ACR 73).
      “In its preface, the resolution states that the “measure would urge the President and the Congress of the United States to enact federal legislation to protect the public interest by reviving the separation between commercial banking and speculative activity embodied in the Glass-Steagall Act.”
      In the following “Whereas” clauses, the resolution describes what Glass-Steagall did; that it was repealed in 1999, which allowed commercial banks to engage in “speculative activity [which] worked against the public interest by placing the commercial banks themselves in financial jeopardy and contributing to the Great Recession”; states that Dodd-Frank “does not provide the same level of protection…as the provisions of the Glass- Steagall Act”; and that the “public interest will continue to be at risk until commercial banks are prohibited from engaging in speculative activity again.”

      Candidate Pat Maciariello as an investment banking analyst at Deutsche Banc Alex, Brown (A Division of Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc), demand that he state his views on reinstating the Glass-Steagall Act 1933-1999.

      O.C. Supervisor John Moorlach warned us about Orange County’s leveraged bets on the movement of the interest rates. He predicted the 1994 bankruptcy. It’s rare to find a politician that’s connected to economic reality.

      John Moorlach should be our choice.

      Greg Raths is also a candidate. http://www.gregraths2014.com
      Their websites: http://www.politics1.com

  4. RHackett
    December 6, 2013 at 6:52 pm

    Matt,

    I have no problem with Johns’ Op Ed. I just wonder if it is legal under federal campaign finance laws.

    If not, he (or the OCR) should pay the price.

    Don’t like it? Change the law.

  5. Greg Diamond
    December 6, 2013 at 8:32 pm

    Probably not a violation. It would be considered newsworthy.

  6. Dan Chmielewski
    December 7, 2013 at 8:22 am

    I wish the Register would publish my letters to the editor. They never do.

    • December 7, 2013 at 9:35 am

      Maybe you should run for Congress or something?

  7. Matthew Cunningham
    December 7, 2013 at 12:51 pm

    But he’s identified as a candidate for Congress and he’s addressing the federal issue that is top-most in the minds of voters, so I think saying he';s writing about an issue and not his candidacy is a distinction without much difference.

    I think the OCR will be generous in extending this opportunity to all the candidates. They’ve been going in that direction since they abandoned their policy of not endorsing candidates.

  8. December 7, 2013 at 1:26 pm

    I think the 1st Amendment still allows free speech. Running for office doesn’t diminish are right to free political speech. I can’t imagine any requirement that publishing an op-ed is a reportable in-kind contribution would be found constitutional (absent a SCOTUS with a majority of Obama appointees, that is).

  9. December 7, 2013 at 1:27 pm

    That should read “our” not “are”

  10. Ltpar
    December 7, 2013 at 3:58 pm

    Just what the world needs, another out of work politican looking for a cushy job on the “musical office” circuit. In case anyone hasn’t noticed, the “good ol boy” network with the Republican or Democrat Party calling the shots is what has gotten us into the government crisis that exists in Washington D.C. We need to fire them all, send in some fresh blood, not move around more “good ol boys.” As far as this voter goes, I will not be voting for any of the recycled politicans running for higer office. Come on Tea Party, let’s get some qualified people on the ballot.

  11. Robert Lauten
    December 7, 2013 at 4:15 pm

    Junior –
    1) “Big Banks Own Dodd-Frank: Call It the ‘Wall Street Exemption Act”’
    September 5, 2013 • 9:50AM
    “Less than 20% of the global derivatives market will be regulated, limited, or affected in any way by Dodd-Frank.
    At least 80% of the $1.4 quadrillion market is “exempt”.
    http://larouchepac.com/node/28003

    2) “Dodd-Frank, Isn’t That Part of Goldman Sachs”?
    May 25, 2013 • 7:55AM
    “An extensive well-focused exposé in today’s New York Times “DealBook” column, “Banks’ Lobbyists Help in Drafting Financial Bills”, documents that Wall Street banks and swaps dealers are writing the Dodd-Frank rules”.
    http://larouchepac.com/node/26722

  12. Dan Chmielewski
    December 7, 2013 at 8:52 pm

    Patrick, it’s the “democratic” party not the “democrat” party. That term is considered a slur. Should you continue to use it, I will forever identify you as a supporter of teabaggers. Please look up the definition on urbandictionary.com if you are confused

    • Robert Lauten
      December 9, 2013 at 9:50 pm

      “Democratic” is used by California’s Secretary of State for voter registration statistics.
      “Democrat” in Nevada
      “Democrats” in Utah
      “Libertarian” in Utah (no “s”)

  13. RHackett
    December 8, 2013 at 6:03 am

    Matt,

    I hope you are correct in your statement that other candidates will be allowed the same courtesy. I would like to read what they have to say and their ideas.

    LtPar is correct. Moorlach has become yet another career politician who wants the voters to believe he is not a career politician. He decided to run for congress when he realized he had no chance of being governor. Personally I believe he has a better chance of taking Mansoor’s seat in the Assembly than beating Walters. She’s shown that she can campaign and win against formidable opponents. John hasn’t had a decent opponent since he ran against Bob Citron, and he lost.

    He’s now no different than other conservative gasbags like Tom McClintock or our very own Dana Rohrbacher. Who promised he would only serve three terms when he was elected waaay back in 1988.

  14. Ltpar
    December 8, 2013 at 9:56 am

    Dan, my apology, no slur intended to my few Progressive friends out there. In future ramblings, I will try and get my terms correct. Please feel free however, to refer to me as a tea drinker anytime. Make mine the Herbal Black Current variety.

  15. Ltpar
    December 8, 2013 at 10:08 am

    Once they enter the “pit of vipers” in Congress and get a taste of the double standards, lavish treatment by lobbyists and the power, most never want to give it up. Those who try and hold integrity and principles find themselves trying to swim up a waterfall. Most become weary of the losing effort and don’t run for re-election. Moral of the story is we end up with the people’s interests not being represented and the sad part of it is we keep electing the same people. “We have met the enemy and the enemy is us.”

  16. Ryan Cantor
    December 8, 2013 at 2:55 pm

    I never understood this.

    The Democratic party is made up of Democrats. One member of the Democratic party is called a Democrat.

    The Republican party is made up of Republicans. One member of the Republican party is called a Republican.

    If this is really a slur, the Democratic party ought to be made up of Democratics. One member of the Democratic party would then be called a Democratic.

    Problem solved.

    • December 8, 2013 at 9:03 pm

      http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/08/07/060807ta_talk_hertzberg

      There’s no great mystery about the motives behind this deliberate misnaming. “Democrat Party” is a slur, or intended to be—a handy way to express contempt. Aesthetic judgments are subjective, of course, but “Democrat Party” is jarring verging on ugly. It fairly screams “rat.” At a slightly higher level of sophistication, it’s an attempt to deny the enemy the positive connotations of its chosen appellation. During the Cold War, many people bridled at obvious misnomers like “German Democratic Republic,” and perhaps there are some members of the Republican Party (which, come to think of it, has been drifting toward monarchism of late) who genuinely regard the Democratic Party as undemocratic. Perhaps there are some who hope to induce it to go out of existence by refusing to call it by its name, à la terming Israel “the Zionist entity.” And no doubt there are plenty of others who say “Democrat Party” just to needle the other side while signalling solidarity with their own—the partisan equivalent of flashing a gang sign.

  17. Ryan Cantor
    December 8, 2013 at 11:23 pm

    OK, fantastic . . . it still doesn’t resolve the conjugation issue.

    Do you prefer “She is a Democratic”? Odd, but whatever floats your boat.

    Semantics I’m sure, but for some of us “Democrat Party” just means the party to which a Democrat belongs . . . because that’s just how the English language works.

    She sat down at a table of Germans. She was also German. They were a German party.

    No one is going to get all twisted because the folks seated at the table weren’t labeled the Germanic party . . .

    Anyway, it’s not as mean as you think it is.

  18. December 9, 2013 at 9:45 am

    Is Teabagger mean? Or do you prefer Tea Party Patriot?

  19. Ryan Cantor
    December 9, 2013 at 10:00 am

    You’d have to ask one.

    Tea-ic Party would not be correct.

  20. December 9, 2013 at 1:04 pm

    Ryan — you’re obtuse. Ask any Democrat and they will tell you references to the Democrat Party are considered a slur even if you want to get grammatical.

    from Wikipedia:

    “Democrat Party” is a political epithet used in the United States for the Democratic Party. The term has been used in negative or hostile fashion by conservative commentators and members of the Republican Party in party platforms, partisan speeches and press releases since 1940.[1]

    Multiple reasons are suggested for the use of the term. A 1984 New York Times article suggested Republicans began to use the term when Democrats used their own party name to imply “they are the only true adherents of democracy.”[2] Republicans “feared that ‘Democratic’ suggested Democrats [had] a monopoly on or are somehow the anointed custodians of the concept of democracy.”[3] New Yorker commentator Hendrik Hertzberg wrote, “There’s no great mystery about the motives behind this deliberate misnaming. ‘Democrat Party’ is a slur, or intended to be—a handy way to express contempt. Aesthetic judgments are subjective, of course, but ‘Democrat Party’ is jarring verging on ugly. It fairly screams ‘rat.'”[4] Political analyst Charlie Cook attributed modern use of the term to force of habit rather than a deliberate epithet by Republicans.[5] Ruth Marcus stated that Republicans likely only continue to employ the term because Democrats dislike it.[6] Marcus stated that disagreements over use of the term are “trivial”,[6] and Hertzberg calls use of the term “a minor irritation” and also “the partisan equivalent of flashing a gang sign.”[4]

    Similar two-word phrases using “Democrat” as an adjective have been deemed controversial when used as a substitute for “Democratic” (as in “Democrat idea”); National Public Radio has banned the use of “Democrat” as an adjective.[7] The term “Democrat Party” was in common use with no negative connotations by Democrats in some localities during the 1950s.[8] The Dictionary of American Regional English gives numerous examples of “Democrat” being used as an adjective in everyday speech, especially in the Northeast.[9]

  21. Ryan Cantor
    December 9, 2013 at 1:45 pm

    Obtuse?

    That’s hardly called for, sir. That’d be a perfect example of using a slur for slur’s sake. Even worse, you didn’t even use it correctly. (Assuming you’re right, I’m being obtuse. I’m not obtuse. If the later, then you’re just an asshole.)

    I’m fairly confident that most Democrats don’t give a rat’s patootie because the issue is completely immaterial.

    I’m fairly confident that the only Democrats who do give a rat’s patoot are those who crave partisanship because it forms part of their idendentic backbone.

    • December 9, 2013 at 1:55 pm

      I certainly did. It’s a slur and you keep arguing it’s not.

      ob·tuse (b-ts, -tys, b-)
      adj. ob·tus·er, ob·tus·est
      1.
      a. Lacking quickness of perception or intellect.

      b. Characterized by a lack of intelligence or sensitivity: an obtuse remark.

      so yes, I’ll be direct. You’re dumb

  22. Ryan Cantor
    December 9, 2013 at 2:12 pm

    Stay classy, Dan. I’m sure your family is really proud.

    • December 9, 2013 at 5:44 pm

      Yep, mother, wife, siblings and kids think I’m swell. And I’m the uncle who always has gum

Comments are closed.