So much for faith in Democracy

Oregon Secretary of State Shemia Fagan stacks new Elections Director's conflict of interest atop her own.

Up until two years ago, Molly Woon worked for the Democratic Party of Oregon. Now she’s in charge of an investigation that could lead to criminal charges against her former coworkers. (Photo courtesy Corvallis Advocate)

Late last month, Oregon Secretary of State Shemia Fagan appointed veteran Democratic political operative Molly Woon as permanent Director of the Elections Division, which oversees the state’s elections and polices its campaign finance system. Woon replaced Deborah Scroggin, the career elections official whom Fagan asked to resign after Scroggin refused to bend the rules by publishing the voter pamphlet statement of a Democratic candidate submitted after the deadline.

The shift in Elections Division leadership from career elections professional to career political professional appears likely to correct Fagan’s primary complaint about Scroggin - that she insisted on applying election rules even-handedly to all candidates without regard to politics. Fagan may also believe it will help her dispose, as cleanly as possible, of the Elections Division’s pending investigation into possible criminal referrals arising from the misreporting by the Democratic Party of Oregon (DPO) of a $500,000 donation from an associate of Sam Bankman-Fried, who is the subject of federal charges for fraud relating to his now-bankrupt crypto currency company, FTX.

About a month ago, I called that investigation Oregon Democrats’ ticking timebomb. Well, the timebomb is still ticking as the investigation enters its third month. And now it’s Woon’s to manage.

The good news for the DPO* is that Woon used to work for there! I’m not kidding. Until she went to work for Fagan’s Secretary of State’s office in 2021, Woon was the Deputy Director of the Oregon Democratic Party. Fagan’s office has confirmed that Woon is indeed in charge of the investigation of her former employer, has not recused herself, and has Fagan’s full trust. Fagan’s spokesman told The Oregonian:

Molly has not worked at the (Democratic Party of Oregon) for more than two years, and she had no involvement in the DPO when this donation was made, when it was reported to the Elections Division, or any DPO matters during the 2022 election cycle. As such, she has no conflict of interest. Molly is fully capable of being objective and fair with regards to the DPO in her new role.

Got that? Woon has no conflict of interest investigating her former employer, the Democratic Party of Oregon, on behalf of her boss, Democrat Shemia Fagan (to whom the DPO has given over $400,000 in contributions over the years) who gave Woon her current job after forcing out her predecessor for being inadequately enthusiastic about bending election rules to benefit a Democratic candidate for Congress. It’s really quite simple.

Fagan’s contention is true in a strictly legal sense: Oregon’s ethics laws largely confine punishable conflicts of interest to situations in which a public official benefits financially from decisions they make on the job. No one is suggesting Woon has that kind of conflict of interest.

In all but that strictly legal sense, however, Woon has a conflict of interest the size of Mt. Hood. She has spent much of her professional career working for candidates and causes supported by the DPO; she worked for the DPO. Based on employment background, Woon is perhaps the most conflicted person Fagan could have appointed other than someone who currently works at the DPO.

Her conflict is made worse by Fagan’s own conflict arising from her aforementioned receipt of over $400,000 in campaign donations from the DPO, and the fact that the DPO exists to benefit Democratic office holders and candidates. Like Fagan. (I went into some detail about Fagan’s conflict of interest regarding the $500,000 crypto investigation in that timebomb piece I mentioned earlier).

Maybe Woon and Fagan will make me look dumb(er) by issuing a scathing criminal referral, including DPO officials, to the Attorney General. Color me skeptical. More likely, the result of the investigation will be an exoneration of DPO officials. Even if such an exoneration were merited by the facts - and it may be - and even if Woon is “objective and fair” with regard to the investigation - she may be - Fagan has badly tainted the credibility of such a potential finding by piling Woon’s raging conflict of interest on top of her own. No one except Democratic partisans will accept exoneration as legitimate.

Fagan says she wants to restore our faith in Democracy. She should stop doing things to undermine it.

*Even so, the DPO has, since the investigation began, spent tens of thousands of dollars with law firms, including the Washington, DC firm of Sandler Reiff Lamb Rosenstein & Birkenstock PC (Of course Birkenstock), which specializes in campaign finance and government ethics law, among other things.