Emilie Boyles: fraud

April 12, 2006 at 10:53 pm (Politics, Portland)

The other day I posted a little primer on Portland’s “voter owned elections.” Today, The Oregonian reports that City Auditor Gary Blackmer has found several, shall we say, irregularities in Emilie Boyles’ first campaign expenditures statement. Having spent over half of her money so far, the “alleged” transgressions include a payment of $12,500 to her 16-year-old daughter. I’m not saying the little girl isn’t helping mommy lick envelopes, but that extrapolates to a $50,000 annual salary. Compare that to the $90,000 salary of, you know, an actual Commissioner, and you see why the average taxpayer is a little bit wary of this scenario.

I am convinced that Ms. Boyles is a mole, contrived by opponents of publicly financed elections. No one could be as clueless as she is about basic ethics, while continuing to blame her woes on the program that has these supposed loopholes. But don’t take my word for it. Here’s a smattering of excerpts from a recent interview, and my smarmy interpretations:

WW: Your campaign stands for the idea that you’re more connected with the average Portlander, yet you’re the one charged with having supporters who claim not to even know you.

Emilie Boyles: It goes back to the cultural history of this particular group, and the fact that this is targeting me, that I’m a threat. If this weren’t a viable campaign, we wouldn’t be sitting here. [Translation: I don’t have an answer to that, so I will cite a non-existent conapiracy led by Erik Sten to discredit me, as though I haven’t done a great job of that myself.]

WW:…why hire her when it looks like you’re using public money to get $12,500 to your teen-age daughter?

Emilie Boyles: She needed a job…[No comment, that’s just too easy].

WW: Do you still believe in “voter-owned” elections?

Emilie Boyles: I believe in the concept. The biggest challenge is that it wasn’t thoroughly thought through by the people who crafted it.

WW: What do you mean?

Emilie Boyles: Things such as resources available for verification. They didn’t take a look at the difference between a seasoned politician and someone who’s not, and is new to those techniques. [Translation: I am too stupid to follow the rules, especially those that are derived from common sense (ie, don’t pay people to misprepresent themselves). Vote Boyles!]

WW: If it’s determined you violated the spirit of the law, do you think people should still vote for you?

Emilie Boyles: Yes, because I’m willing to take responsibility, and I’m also willing to say this is exactly why we need change in our government. [Which is precisely why I will blame The System for the blatant, massive fraud I have perpetuated throughout my campaign.]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: