PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

A story in the Washington Post a couple days ago caught my eye because it recounted information about how a lobbyist in New York misused his position, blurring the line, if not erasing it, between political contributions and lobbying.

The tale reminded me of a case more than 30 years ago when I worked as a lobbyist briefly for what then was a major company in Oregon, Tektronix. I was assigned to go to California to lobby for the company at the legislature in Sacramento.

There, I was stunned to learn that, to get a meeting with a key legislator, I was expected to deposit money at the front desk in a jar in his office. And, not just a pittance! A $5,000 check.

I didn’t do it, nor did I get the meeting.

Talk about pay for play!

In New York, the tale the lobbyist told, according to the Post, “included six-figure campaign contributions to the governor there, Andrew Cuomo, made from a company with business before the state, that were purposefully divided up to hide their origin.

“There were private plane trips, courtesy of the lobbyist’s clients, for Cuomo days before his first election — not to mention a deep-sea fishing expedition for his campaign manager.”

The lobbyist said he raised “a considerable amount” of money for Cuomo in 2010 and then volunteered in the 2014 campaign headquarters while raising still more money — all as he tried to secure state actions benefiting his clients.

And, be sure of this – the lobbyist wanted a return for his “investment.”

The Post suggests that the broader story being painted is an enduring pay-to-play culture in New York, where money and friends buy access and power.

All of this leads me to comment about Oregon.

I don’t mean to paint things as lily-white, for who knows what’s in the minds of legislators or lobbyists as they deal with policy and politics here. But the fact is that, in Oregon, during my 40 years of lobbying the Oregon legislature, I was never asked to buy a meeting.

To be specific:

1. I never had to pay to arrange a meeting with a legislator.
2. When I provided a political contribution to a legislator running for office (and, by the way, contributions are not allowed while the legislature is in session, only when individuals are on the campaign trail), I never expected anything in return and told the legislator as much.
3. Well, to clarify, I may have wanted consideration of a view I was expressing on behalf of a client, but never an action. My view was that legislators should consider what I had to say for a client, then make up their own mind about what actions to take, if any.
4. The political contributions I organized on behalf of clients were based on the quality and sincerity of a legislator I wanted my clients to support, plus his or her willingness to consider the views of those affected by legislative decisions. Not party affiliation. Not a commitment in advance for a legislative action.
5. Further, as one lobbyist, if I was following the campaign trail to organize political contributions, I always separated that process from meetings on policy issues. The separate meetings represented one way to create a bright line between money and action.

This paints a very different picture for Oregon than for either California or New York.

Now, lest I be viewed as some sort of polly-anna, let me admit that political contributions may play a role in Oregon, but usually in the aggregate, not contribution-by-contribution.

My hope remains that all of us expect the best reasoned decisions to carry the day at the Capitol, not the transfer of money.