In some sense, Mike McGavick took his first political bribe before he even swung into full campaign mode earlier this year. McGavick resigned last year as the CEO of Safeco Insurance Company in order to challenge Maria Cantwell for her Senate seat. In the process, he walked off with $28 million in bonuses and stock options.

Think about it. McGavick—a former lobbyist for the insurance industry—is paid by the insurance company he heads some $28 million to quit his job and become a Senator. “Win-win,” right?

To you and me that kind of a deal has the stench of corruption, both because of the potential for back-room agreements and because of the way it cleverly bypasses campaign finance laws:

Technically, Safeco is constrained by the same campaign finance limits as you or I, but insurance industry lobbyist cum CEO cum senate candidate McGavick is free to spend as much on his own campaign as his new-found personal fortune affords him. How convenient.

But not everyone sees this as a political scandal. Take, for example, 27 year old Emma Schwartzman. Today she filed a lawsuit against McGavick over his “excessive” severance package.

To Ms. Schwartzman this is not about politics. Instead, it is about theft. And it’s about family honor. Specifically, it’s about McGavick stealing from Safeco—a company founded by her great, great grandfather—and its shareholders.

In her own words:

Our lawsuit alleges that Mike McGavick didn’t earn the $28 million, he knew he wasn’t entitled to it, but he took it anyway.

I have brought this lawsuit to protect the assets and integrity of Safeco Corporation—a company that is important to me, my family, and my community.

My great, great grandfather was a founder of General Insurance Company, which later became Safeco. My great grandmother sat on the board and was an adviser to the company in its early years—at a time when most women had little role in corporate affairs. I own original shares passed down to me from my great great grandfather.

I have always been proud of my family’s role in building Safeco into a major employer in our state and a trusted member of the business community.

But under Mike McGavick’s leadership, Safeco lost its ethical compass. His greed has diminished the value of my investment and, more importantly, the ethical values of this great company.

As expected, the McGavick campaign responded with charges of “Political Smear!”

This is a politically motivated character attack. The allies of the incumbent senator have found yet another avenue to continue their daily personal attacks on me. […] These allegations regarding my compensation are without merit and obviously politically inspired.

Are the charges politically inspired, or contractually inspired? Here is the rationale for the lawsuit given by Ms. Schwartzman’s lawyers:

When McGavick became Safeco’s CEO in 2001, he drove a hard bargain. In addition to an annual compensation package worth as much as eight million dollars, McGavick also bargained for a “golden parachute” provision. This meant that if McGavick were fired, he would receive a multi-million dollar termination payment.

But Mike McGavick did not get fired from Safeco; he voluntarily resigned. And his employment contract clearly stated that if he resigned he would forfeit his right to a big payout. He would forfeit all compensation, including bonuses and stock options, and would get only his last paycheck. These employment contracts are quoted in the complaint, included in your packets, and posted on our website.

Instead of resigning from Safeco with his final paycheck, as his contract clearly provided, McGavick walked away with $28 million.

This lawsuit will prove that this $28 million payment was improper and fraudulent on numerous counts, and McGavick acted dishonestly and unethically in bargaining for and receiving this payment.

Ouch!

Just how did the bribe severance agreement circumvent McGavick’s contract?

Fraud

Share:

• Tweet
• Email
• Print

Andrew at NPI just posted about an emergency rally for tomorrow to protest the flawed minimum wage bill:

HR 5970, which has passed the House and is now heading to the U.S. Senate, contains two cynical provisions inserted by Republicans serving their corporate masters:

• Permanent cuts to the estate tax for very wealthy estates – exempting up to $5 million per person or $10 million per couple
• Invalidation of state laws providing a minimum wage for restaurant and other tipped employees, a provision that will affect thousands of workers here in Washington

HR 5970 hurts the thousands of workers in our state who receive tips by invalidating our state law that sets the minimum hourly wage for tipped employees at the same minimum wage as all other employees. Washington is one of only seven states with such a law. Not surprisingly, though, Washington’s 3 Republicans – Dave Reichert, Doc Hastings, and Cathy McMorris – voted for HR 5970.

Reichert voted to hurt low wage employees in his district? Go figure.

The rally will be held at the Seattle Center tomorrow at 2:15 PM at the base of the Space Needle. Speakers will include Jay Inslee (the organizer) and Darcy Burner. (Note to Wingnuts: the Seattle Center is not in the 8th District. In fact, it is not in Inslee’s 1st District, either. But this isn’t a campaign event now, is it? The Seattle Center is a great place for people in the entire region to gather and protest.)

If you can make it tomorrow, please do! Either way, be sure to contact your Senators and express your concern about this cynical Republican stunt disguised as legislation.

Update: Those of you interested in an alternative to the low-wage-employee-hating Rep. Doc Hastings can tune in to KUOW 94.9 FM tomorrow at 9:00. Congressional candidate Richard Wright will be Steve Scheer’s guest on Weekday.

Update II: Correction…Richard Wright will be on KUOW 94.9 FM on Thursday, August 3rd at 9:00 AM.

The Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally meets tonight.

What do we really do each week at Drinking Liberally? Well, this week I suppose I’ll propose a toast to good health for Fidel Castro (better intestinal fortitude?)…while…um…burning an American flag…and…and…we’ll sing the national anthem—in Spanish—while smoking Cuban cigars. Yeah…that’s the kind of fun we have each week.

Won’t you join us?

We meet at the Montlake Ale House (2307 24th Avenue E). The fun begins at 8:00 p.m.

Drinking Liberally is hosted by Seattle bloggers Nick Beaudrot of Electoral Math and Thehim of Blog Reload. If you find yourself in the Tri-Cities area this evening, check out Drinking Liberally at the Atomic Ale in Richland. Jimmy has the details.

As far as I know I’ve never met Stefan Sharkansky. But he wrote a friendly email to me about a year ago pointing out, among other things, that we overlapped as undergraduate students at the University of Wisconsin in the mid-1980s. So, who knows, I might have had a beer with him on the Memorial Union terrace, played a pick-up raquette ball game with him, or worked with him on a team programming project for a computer science course. If so, I am sure I enjoyed his company—if we had discussed politics at all, we would have shared the common ground that neither of us had ever voted for a Republican for President.

So why am I seemingly sucking up to Stefan? Well, first because I feel a little bad that I never responded to his email last August. I was on the road in NY state that month, and had lousy Internet access. But, more importantly, I am about to gobble-up some of his bandwidth by linking to an audio file on his site. Sorry Stefan…when Goldy left me the keys to the blog, he didn’t give me file upload capability. In any case, there would have been all that trouble of asking permission to use the file….

What the hell is this all about, you ask? This Monday afternoon, Goldy and Stefan held a debate at Microsoft for the Microsoft PAC lunch. Stefan recorded and posted an audio file of the event. You can read his post about it here, or go directly to the audio here (15MB .WMA file).

I’ve listened to the debate and I must say that I sensed surprisingly little animosity between them. They laughed at each others jokes, they were not rude to each other, were pretty good about not interrupting each other, and they actually agreed on occasion. They produced an interesting debate over some issues like Darcy Burner and the 2004 election contest. The whole thing seemed shockingly civil! The debate is definitely worth a listen, whatever brand of politics you subscribe to.

In the late 1990s, Jay Leno suggested a hilarious practical joke in which he and David Letterman would swap places for a night (unannounced, of course). I once suggested something similar to Goldy—have Stefan post on Horsesass for a day and have Goldy post on Sound Politics for a day. My puckish suggestion may never happen, but after listening to these two rivals being civil in—and maybe even enjoying—their face-to-face interactions, it reminds me that the medium of blogs (and particularly blog comment threads) can sometimes act as an artificial barrier. Perhaps people who seem to hate each other in Goldy’s comment threads might find that they have common ground in their day-to-day concerns, and actually enjoy discussing topics like sports, microbrews or their favorite recipes. Hell…we might like some of the enemy!

Okay….enough of that feel-good shit. Back to the verbal daggers!

The Sierra Club held a press conference today on Mercer Island to endorse Darcy Burner. (Note to Wingnuts: Mercer Island really is in the 8th Congressional District.)

Daniel finds even more evidence that Darcy Burner’s opponent may be abusing his franking privilege.

Discuss.

By now you have heard about the shooting of innocent people last Friday in downtown Seattle by a Christian terrorist. And what I want to know is what are we going to do about the rise of Christian terrorism in this country?

Sure, the Seattle Times inadvertently report that Naveed Afzal Haq was a Muslim-American:

A Muslim-American man angry with Israel barged into the offices of the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle Friday afternoon and opened fire with a handgun, killing one woman and wounding five others before surrendering to police.

But now we know the cold, hard, and incontestable fact: Haq was a recent convert to Christianity:

He told friends he felt alienated from his own family, in part because his career had disappointed his father and also because he had disavowed Islam last year, converting to Christianity.

Haq had begun studying the Bible, attending weekly men’s spiritual group meetings, only to stop coming a few months after his baptism.
[…]
The group’s leader, Albert Montelongo, said Haq started studying the Bible and in December he underwent a water baptism at the non-denominational church, performed by Montelongo. He said Haq accepted his new faith, though he knew that he would also be offending his own family and its deeply rooted culture.

Whether Haq drew inspiration from online Crusadist preachers, or whether this act of terrorism was funded, organized, or propagated by a local Christian terrorist cell, something must be done.

Don’t misunderstand me, I not one of those eliminationist assholes who think that all Christians should be rounded up and gassed. Even so, how can we expect to live in a civil society with extremists going off and shooting innocent people in the name of Christ. I mean, can’t we just round up the suspicious ones and isolate them in fenced-in camps somewhere in rural New Mexico? We’ll call them “gated communities” so that everyone involved can feel a little more dignity about it. At the very least we should make them wear some type of identifiable mark or article of clothing.

Besides the heinous crimes of killing and injuring people, Haq also committed the crime of blasphemy when the recent convert to Christianity besmirched Islam during his rampage by claiming he was an angry Muslim. (In fact, he hasn’t been practicing Islam since 1994.) It’s always the new converts to a religion who are the most fanatical, but trying to pin this on his forsaken religion is beyond the pale….

Sure…there will be apologists who will point out that Mr. Haq suffered from bipolar disorder, that he had a previous arrest for anti-social behavior (exposing himself at a shopping mall), that he was well-educated but minimally employed at a Home Depot, that he felt isolated from his family after renouncing Islam, that he was lonely, that he badly wanted a romantic relationship, that he suffered discrimination as a brown-skinned person with a suspicious-sounding name in a lilly-white Pacific Northwest, or that all he desperately wanted was to “fit in.” Some have even suggested that his job led him to “go Depot.”

All of these are excuses made by touchie-feelie liberals who refuse to accept that America is under siege by Christian terrorists. The man knew exactly what he was doing—he trained in his violent idology and weapons for months before fulfilling his holy mission.

As you might expect, Jewish and Islamic groups were quick to condemn the violence against their people and their religions.

The Washington, D.C.-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, issued a statement calling the shootings a “senseless attack on a religious institution.”

“The American Muslim and Jewish communities must do whatever is within their power to prevent the current conflict in the Middle East from being transplanted to this country,” the council said.

And the Arab-American community also condemned the attack.

What I want to know is this: where is the outrage from Christian groups? These groups are complicit through their silence and inaction when one of their own goes on a killing spree against members of another religion.

How Haq is prosecuted—what punishment is sought, what excuses are made and accepted for his violence, and the outcome after all appeals are exhausted—will speak loudly to our society’s true tolerance for Christian terrorists in our midst.

N in Seattle took a look through candidate filing lists from the Secretary of State and King County today. As he expected, some of the usual suspects showed up—like perennial candidate Mike the Mover.

The real surprise is that Richard Pope turns up as a candidate! It really shouldn’t be a surprise, given that Mr. Pope, like Mike the Mover, is a perennial candidate. But I was surprised because Pope, when asked by Wayne in an HA comment thread if he was running against Chambers (last Friday at 12:47 pm) replied that he “won’t be travelling to Olympia today (i.e. Friday, July 28, 2006).”

Wayne astutely observed that “[y]ou can file on-line now, so you don’t have to go to Olympia. Not that I am trying to give you any ideas, but your non-denial was not necessarily a denial.”

Another way to interpret Richard’s statement is that he had already gone to Olympia (i.e. Thursday, July 28, 2006) and filed. I would be shocked, shocked(!!), I tell you, if Richard had intentionally mislead all of his friends here.

In any event, Richard Pope is running for Position No.2 in King County District Court’s Northeast Electoral District against incumbent Mary Ann Ottinger.

Judge Ottinger received some media attention recently because she was censured by the State Supreme Court:

The state Supreme Court censured a King County district court judge and suspended her without pay for 30 days.

The court’s unanimous order, disciplining Judge Mary Ann Ottinger of Issaquah, came on the recommendation of the state Commission on Judicial Conduct. In May, the commission found a pattern of improper conduct by Ottinger concerning defendants’ rights to be advised of their legal rights.

Why was Pope being so coy about his candidacy last Friday a few hours before the deadline to file? It could be that Wayne’s comment did set off a light bulb in Pope’s head, and he filed over the internet at the last minute. But I suspect that Pope had already filed. He believed that this race would be a cakewalk and didn’t want anyone else to get the same idea. Given Ottinger’s recent bad publicity, Pope felt the race would be his for the taking if he were Ottinger’s only opponent.

In the end, it is not clear how important Ottinger’s censure will be to the outcome of the election. Her violations happened several years ago, and the Commission said that since 2005, Ottinger has run a “model courtroom.” She just needed a little remedial training.

Unfortunately for Richard, a third candidate, Frank V. LaSalata, also filed for this position. There is good news and bad news for Richard Pope about this other opponent: If, as N in Seattle points out, this person is the very same Frank V. LaSalata, it means that both of Richard’s opponents have prior judicial experience. The good new for Richard is that Judge LaSalata also committed errors in discharging his duties as Judge.

Perhaps Richard’s chances will improve if he can get another endorsement like this from Goldy :

For Position 4, I’m standing by my man: perennial candidate and HA regular Richard Pope. Sure, Richard’s a little nutty, and he’s probably unqualified for the job, but he’s got a couple good points to make about the Port being a drain on taxpayers, and what the hell… he doesn’t stand a chance of winning anyway. If you really don’t want to throw away your vote, Jack Jolley’s your man… but I’m voting for Richard.

My question for Richard is this: will you follow McGavick’s lead and promise to run a positive campaign?

I mean, you won’t be going all negative on your opponents now, will you?

Goldy started something of a theme with The Aristocrats, also known as The Greatest Dirty Joke Ever Told. Every comedian tells a slightly different version….

Now, political blogger Dan Conley offers a new Bush-themed twist on this classic joke: The Aristocrat.

Note: Expect language and concepts compatible with a title like “the greatest dirty joke ever told.”

(Source: TG Political Wire.)

Here is your chance to fling some poo. Need some topics to vent about? How about these:

• There was senseless, tragic violence in downtown Seattle today. Daniel and Switzerblog offer some analyses.
• The Boy Scouts of America will be forced to turn over files with information about alleged sexual abuse of Washington state boys.
• Michael “Heckofa job Brownie” Brown—the former FEMA director who was toppled by our very own Goldy—is bound and determined to clear up his “good name.” How does he go about this noble task? He begins by giving an interview to Playboy (excerpts available here), in which he calls U.S. Rep. Gene Taylor (D – MS) “a little twerp” and says “he can just bite me, for all I care.” I wonder how that disaster management consulting business of his is doing?
• Dave Neiwert’s book, Strawberry Days: How Internment Destroyed a Japanese American Community has been selected for the next book salon discussion at Firedoglake. The first of two online discussions will be held on Sunday.
• Natasha, photo blogging from Costa Rica, is pretty bugged.
• My Friday night multimedia extravaganza is up.
• As pointed out by MountOlympus, Mike Webb is out of control. So much so that Michael Hood at blatherWatch has gotten a restraining order against him. (I am happy to report that, despite Goldy’s invitation, I’ve gotten no death threats yet.)
• Democrats across the country are hosting “Democratic Reunion” events today (Saturday) in celebration of 100 days to the fall election. As part of it, Darcy Burner will attend a canvassing event in Bellevue, Wash. (Note to Wingnuts: Bellevue is in the 8th district.)

Where does Mike!™ McGavick stand on CAFE standards? Last month, Mike!™ was caught telling a little white lie about both his and Senator Cantwell’s positions on CAFE standards.

In doing so, Mike!™ signaled that he is, apparently, for increased CAFE standards.

But on July 7th during his Open Mike!™ event in Forks, McGavick did a little McFlip-flop on CAFE standards:

Government can put more pressure on Detroit and Tokyo and the other auto manufacturers to raise up the average efficiency of our cars and to make them able to use alternative fuels. The only thing there is we shouldn’t have politicians setting what the number is.

So… Mike!™ was for increased CAFE standards before he was against them.

But then while doing an Open Mike!™ event in Moses Lake on July 22, McGavick was recorded as saying:

But what should the government do beyond investing? It should make sure that Big Oil-first of all we got to get rid of these royalty tax breaks to Big Oil, it makes no sense at all. Put that money into the research and development of these other fuels, and we should make sure Big Oil cannot prevent alternative fuels from getting to market. Right? They’ve got a big infrastructure advantage. They can’t use that to prevent these alternative fuels from being accessed by us, and we should jack up CAFE standards on the auto industry, make their cars more efficient and flexible for different kinds of fuels.

So… Mike!™ was for increased CAFE standards before he was against them, before he was for them.

Stay tuned. It’s no wonder that the Democrats send a guy around to video tape each of his Open Mike!™ events!

Speaking of Mike!™ and flip-flops, the Seattle Times published his position on Social Security. As Joshua Marshall at Talking Points Memo points out “[h]e actually manages to flip-flop within the same statement:”

[McGavick] does not support privatization or a phasing-out of Social Security….He would give younger workers the option of placing their benefits in voluntary personal accounts controlled by the federal government. This would help restore confidence in the system and ensure its solvency.

WTF? Did somebody forget to tell Mike!™ that a mic was on? (Hat tip: Thehim.)

The Secretary of State’s (SOS) office announced today that Lyin’ Eyman’s most recent $30 car tab initiative (or YATDCT—“Yet Another Thirty Dollar Car Tab” initiative) failed the random signature test.

In order to qualify for the ballot, 224,880 valid signatures from registered voters are needed. The SOS office recently documented that Eyman turned in only 266,006 signatures prior to validation.

The embarrassingly low number of signature prompted Eyman to launch into an attack on the SOS office, claiming that the office had lost signatures. Furthermore, Eyman claimed that the SOS office provided him with a receipt for 300,353 signatures on the very day that signatures were turned in. In the end, Eyman’s “evidence” amounted to little more than this scrap of paper.

The SOS office describes the “receipt incident” this way:

On July 7, 2006, the deadline for submitting signatures, the sponsors of I-917 returned and submitted additional petitions to the Elections Division.

After submitting the petitions at the Elections Division offices, Mr. Eyman immediately went to the Capitol Building to hold a press conference in the lobby of the Office of Secretary of State to announce the submission of petitions on I-917.

At that press conference, and while election workers were counting the pages on this initiative a few blocks away, Mr. Eyman presented to the receptionist at the front desk a piece of notebook paper with the number 300,353 handwritten on it and requested that the receptionist date stamp the notebook paper as received by the Office of Secretary of State.

The receptionist did date stamp the notebook paper but because the cameras did not capture that event, Mr. Eyman asked the receptionist to stamp the paper a second time so the cameras could capture the event.

Rather than submitting the document to the receptionist after the stamping process, Mr. Eyman took the document back and turned to the press to announce that the Office of Secretary of State had just verified receipt of 300,353

At the time of the press conference, the Elections Division was in the process of counting the pages on I-917 at the Elections Division. The Office of Secretary of State did not know at that time how many pages or signatures were being submitted that day.

Uh-huh. Who would have guessed…Eyman lying about that original receipt?

The low number of signatures means that, at most, 15.46% of the signatures can be invalid. The SOS office did an initial estimate of invalid signatures using the ‘”random sample” process authorized by state law:’

Election officials examined 10,819 ( or a 4% sample) on I-917. From that inspection, it was determined that the measure had an invalidation rate, including duplicates, of 17.96%.

State law requires that the OSOS now conduct a full check of every signature submitted for Initiative 917. The full check will begin immediately following the completion of the random check of Initiatives 920, 933, and 937.

How likely is it that the full check will result in enough signatures to qualify? Not very. If we can assume that signatures were truely selected at random, a standard statistical test puts the odds at well under 100,000 to 1 that the true signature error rate is less than 15.46%.

Better luck next year, Timmy.

Update: HomerTheBrave has an even better receipt from the Secretary of State’s office.