Forward Oregon

Steve Novick says that he doesn’t look like the typical Washington politician, and says he won’t act like one either. However, Novick’s campaign is starting to pile up a list of ethical problems that raise serious questions about this claim. First, it was attempting to use right wing talking points by distributing an article criticizing Jeff Merkley’s opposition to homophobic judicial nominee Leslie Southwick. Then it was Kimmergate in which a paid Novick staffer acted unethically in an attempt to endorse her boss. The Novick campaign refused to comment or speak out on the situation, tarring Novick himself.

Now, Henry Kraemer the Deputy Outreach Coordinator for Steve Novick was caught placing nefarious edits on Jeff Merkley’s Wikipedia page.

Ben at Witigonan, has the story:

Take a minute to look at Merkley’s Wikipedia edit history page; user HenryK2687 (his birthday is May 26, 1987) has been quite busy there. Indeed, his edits took the base, added in more text about Saddam and President Bush, and omitted reference to the praise of our troops in one broad stroke. These actions have been undone, called a “conflict of interest” and had to be cleaned up to reflect an “even keel.” If this is the same “Henry” who tried to out the author of Beaver Boundary in a BlueOregon thread, and if he’s working for Steve Novick’s campaign, then we have a big problem.

The edits that Henry made to Jeff Merkley’s Wikipedia page are outrageous and unethical. The fact that he changed the section in question and omitted major details leaves little question as to his agenda: he’s a Novick partisan, through and through. In that capacity, it’s straight-up shenanigans to do what he did. And, sadly, this has been done before.

In comments to Ben’s post, Kraemer confessed to being the source of the edits. He says that he acted on his own. Just as with the Kimmerly situation, the Novick campaign has failed to comment. It is obviously up to Novick how he manages his staff. But the history of this kind of behavior is grounds for dismissal for other campaigns. The blog Politics and Technologydiscussed the 2006 Wikipedia scandals saying:

Here’s the deal — while [Wikipedia]’s a tempting target, it really doesn’t matter. Do undecided voters visit the Wikipedia sites of candidates? No. All this “warfare” is akin to the lawn-sign wars engaged in by the interns. It’s certainly not a prize worth getting fired over. It’s not even worth the chance of a negative headline in your candidate’s race that makes a campaign manager look like an immature twit.

Daily Kos’ resident legal expert Adam B said this about Wikipedia editing at an ethics in blogging conference:

Given the traceability of IP addresses and the tenacity of online readers (and site owners), there is very little to separate the ethical from the effective in online politics. By that, I just mean this: you will get caught. Whether it’s concern trolls and shills getting outed or Wikipedia mischief traced back to its house.gov source, it’s actually a lot harder to get away with unethical behavior here than it is when a campaign floods a talk radio show or letters-to-the-editor page with the concerns of “ordinary citizens”.

This is another incident in what is becoming a trail of poor ethical decisions by the Novick campaign. It also displays an inability for them to address glaring weaknesses in their operation. We cannot afford to send a campaign with serious ethical problems and the inability to learn from their mistakes against Gordon Smith.

Blogged with Flock

Tags: OR-Sen, Steve Novick, Henry Kraemer, Jeff Merkley, Wikipedia, Ethics