By Jim Moore, KOIN political analyst, Pacific University professor
The highest profile race, aside from the US Senate showdown, is for Oregon Treasurer. Pitting Democrat Ben Westlund against Republican Allen Alley, this race has taken on the highest profile because the economy has become such a huge issue in 2008.
Westlund came into the race as the favorite. He has a statewide presence due to his very public history in the Oregon legislature, and due to his active exploration of a run for the governorship in late 2005 and into 2006. But that name recognition is not very deep. One reason he dropped his gubernatorial campaign was that he discovered the being well known in Salem does not translate into being well known to the state electorate.
Alley started as the underdog. His expertise is being an entrepreneur in the burgeoning high tech field. But his move to the Treasurer’s race hinged on Alley’s position as an aide and advisor to Governor Kulongoski. Alley’s work on economic development issues, combined with his experience creating and running businesses gave him the background to try for the office.
Two credible candidates. One office that voters do not pay that much attention to.
Then the economic tsunami hit. And the ads from Alley quickly adjusted to focus on his actual experience managing assets. Some are a bit disingenuous. Investing decisions are a lot different from finding investors and creating products. But Alley is making an emphatic case that his private sector expertise will serve Oregon well in the Treasurer’s office.
Westlund has continued to rely on name recognition (although, remember, he does not have a lot of it—just more than Alley). In addition, he is running a campaign based on his legislative achievements and proposals. Apparently, as Treasurer, Westlund will increase health care for all of us.
Past state treasurers have tended to come from the Westlund mold. Former legislators, people who have been in the public’s employ, people who understand how Salem works.
However, those treasurers have made some interesting decisions.
Oregon was in at the beginning as Wall Street investment bankers began to exercise their muscle in the 1980s. With new rules, a bit less oversight, and a new attitude about what was possible, the leveraged buyout craze in the 1980s was partly funded by Oregon’s investment fund.
In the early parts of this decade, the Treasurer’s office came under intense scrutiny as PERS and other investments lost billions of dollars. PERS was eventually reformed by the legislature.
These two episodes, separated by about 20 years, point out the Treasurer’s job.
In the 1980s the state made an active decision to participate in an unorthodox and relatively new financial investment. It paid off. But it was risky.
In the early 2000s the state was buffeted by economic tides that were global in nature. There were no choices the Treasurer could have made to prevent the losses in Oregon’s investments during that time. Evidence? 48 of the 50 states had losses about as big as Oregon’s (in proportion to the investments, not in absolute terms—California has a much bigger fund).
Alley’s ads seem to say that he would make decisions that would prevent the 2001–2003 downturn. He can’t.
Westlund’s ads seem to say that the Treasurer’s job is an extension of being a legislator. It isn’t.
What we really need to know is simple:
Are these candidates 1980s-style risk takers?
Or are they 2000s-style money mangers who recognize when the substantial assets of the state are just drops in a much larger economic pond?
Voters will chose between the two based on feelings about the economy (depressing), television ads (not incredibly informative), the Voters’ Pamphlet statements (a bit better than ads), and party identification (bad year to be a Republican).
And we really won’t know how either of them will actually do in the office until one of them holds the position.
