Marc: Why Isn’t Hoffman Transparent?

31 comments on this post so far. Add yours!

• 

  moscow_minidoka on April 19 at 10:30 a.m.

  Hoffman is a grade A hypocrite, and his operation of the Idaho Reporter is entirely unethical. He should concentrate on his lobbying efforts, or (gasp!) run for elected office. I’m sure his Paymasters and Overlords would still write checks for Rep. Hoffman.

• 

  Cindy_H on April 19 at 10:35 a.m.

  Because transparency is not Wayne’s superpower.

• 

  moscow_minidoka on April 19 at 10:40 a.m.

  To answer the question, although I loathe Hoffman, his “freedom foundation,” and his “news organization,” I don’t think he has any obligation to be transparent. He’s arguing that gov’t needs to be transparent, not private entities.

  His lack of transparency doesn’t bother me. His lack of ethics certainly does.

• 

  Charles_Dixon on April 19 at 10:42 a.m.

  I think every donation that is political in nature should be fully revealed to the public, whether that is directly to a candidate’s campaign or through some 503(c) or other such organization. But, if the law doesn’t require it then the argument isn’t with the organization but the lawmakers who continue to allow the anonymity.

  People should comply with the law, whether they’re private individuals or public officials. Public officials are typically required by law to have greater transparency than private individuals or entities. If Hoffman isn’t breaking the law then his lack of transparency wouldn’t be on the same level as lawmakers or public officials who are breaking the law through a lack of transparency.

• 

  Phaedrus on April 19 at 10:46 a.m.

  is it fair? No.

  is it legal? Yes

  Wayne is the classic hypocrite, holding others to standards he either can not, or will not apply to himself (or those he seeks to protect). Typical of the politics that most Americans despise.

• 

  Ender on April 19 at 10:54 a.m.

  The difference between Hoffman’s money is that it is entirely private; there are no taxpayers funds used in the operation of his enterprise.

  Governments, on the other hand, have the duty and responsibility to be open and honest about their accounting and use of public dollars. There is a vast difference between the two.

• 

  spokelooneh on April 19 at 10:54 a.m.

  Con men are not usually transparent. Duh.

• 

  scootermom on April 19 at 11:18 a.m.

  Candidates and Political Action Committees are required, by Idaho law, to report the identity of their donors. People should know who’s financially supporting what candidates and what policies.

  Charitable foundations are not required to reveal the identity of their donors. Supposedly, charitites are not engaged in public policy advocacy.

  Since Hoffman is up to his ears in public policy advocacy, I think hiding behind his foundation is dishonest.

• 

  WayneH on April 19 at 11:42 a.m.

  Ender is exactly right. Moscow_Minidoka … I wonder what I did to offend you.

• 

  Sisyphus on April 19 at 11:58 a.m.

  LOL. Its very interesting and highly ironic that a guy seeking to influence the creation and destruction of laws seems to think that the absence of a law requiring him to be transparent absolves him from any obligation to be transparent, all the while chiding lawmakers for failing to be transparent. You don’t see the hypocrisy Wayne? Funny how you always seem to know exactly where the line is and consistently flirt with crossing it. Its highly suspicious.

  Idaho has some of the loosest laws in the nation on ethics in government. I don’t trust anyone who comes anywhere close to crossing them. You have the power to solve this right now. Disclose.

• 

  fortboise on April 19 at 12:13 p.m.

  What I thought was most interesting was the Steve Symms connection that Johnson reported. After 3 terms as an ineffective member of the U.S. Senate, Symms parlayed his “experience” into a partnership with Parry, Romani, and DeConcini, making a “full-service government relations firm” of D.C. lobbyists. That’s one cut above Wall Street banker, but just barely.

  And now here he is with an interest in the glorious Idaho Freedom Foundation. It’s all for our own good, no doubt, but we know who gets top billing before anything trickles down our way.

• 

  Charles_Dixon on April 19 at 1:19 p.m.

  “Its very interesting and highly ironic that a guy seeking to influence the creation and destruction of laws seems to think that the absence of a law requiring him to be transparent absolves him from any obligation to be transparent, all the while chiding lawmakers for failing to be transparent.”

  This coming from an anonymous poster who runs an anonymous political blog with other anonymous people. Agree with him or not, at least we know who Wayne Hoffman is.

• 

  Sisyphus on April 19 at 1:45 p.m.

  Why yes we do Chuckles, if that is your real name. Wayne’s track record speaks volumes. Hence the criticism.

• 

  Phaedrus on April 19 at 2:17 p.m.

  Chuckles, at least Sisyphus isn’t prowling the halls of the Legislature and testifying for, or against legislation, financed by secret donors. Would you feel as charitable towards a lobbyist behaving as Wayne is if he was a liberal?

• 

  WayneH on April 19 at 3:43 p.m.

  “Funny how you always seem to know exactly where the line is and consistently flirt with crossing it. Its highly suspicious.”

  Back in the 1950s, the state of Alabama sought to get the NAACP to disclose the names of its members and financial supporters, with the ultimate objective to drive the organization and its civil rights efforts out of business and out of the state. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the government had no business demanding from the organization the names of its contributors and members.

  This same case protects IFF as it did the NAACP. There’s nothing “suspicious” at all. People who give to organizations like mine are entitled to their privacy.

  Finally, it is funny how I haven’t before now heard any demands for United Vision for Idaho or Idaho Community Action Network or similar groups to disclose their donors. Aren’t you concerned about them, or just me?

• 

  Charles_Dixon on April 19 at 3:44 p.m.

  I’m hardly defending Hoffman here. I don’t know him and I haven’t followed what has been going on with him in the Legislature. My comment wasn’t meant to support him.

  I get bugged by conservative groups who hide behind anonymous donors as much as those on the left. I remember when self-proclaimed super-conservative Laird Maxwell funded a last-minute smear campaign against then Chief Justice Linda Copple Trout in 2002 with $75,000 in donations from an anonymous source. Campaign laws didn’t require him to disclose the source of the money, and the source was never revealed. That bothered me considerably. Any group that tries to influence politics or the outcome of races anonymously on that scale bothers me.

  I hardly think what I do influences anything other than to bug a few anonymous posters on this blog.

• 

  Sisyphus on April 19 at 4:07 p.m.

  YHGTBFKM. Wayne you’re comparing your organization to the NAACP at a time of massive hostility, championing civil rights when to do so meant economic recrimination or death. In blinding contrast you live in solid red Idaho arguing about its particular shade of crimson. You have a history and reputation in politics and presumably you are getting your funding from the same contacts you made while in politics. And presumably you’re lining your pocket through these enterprises along the way. Am I missing any dots here? For what noble cause do you fight, I mean, other than firing legislators with brain cancer or dying wives? Comparing your efforts with those seeking freedom for all is beyond the pale.

  Wayne does UVI or ICAN operate a news outlet they assert is neutral and unbiased?

• 

  Cindy_H on April 19 at 4:14 p.m.

  I am distraught because I knew what every single one of Sis’s acronyms meant.
  When you can understand lawyer lingo, you have been compromised :-(

• 

  WayneH on April 19 at 5:20 p.m.

  I was merely explaining to you the legal basis for the names of donors to be constitutionally protected.

  I have no idea what you’re talking about re: “You have a history … dots here?” You’ll have to be specific. Very difficult to argue with general statements.

  My effort is to support free markets, limited government, low taxes, etc., to educate the public about the principles that made our country great and to provide information and research to the public and policymakers.

  And by the way, if I recall correctly, you were upset about IFF’s creation long before we created a news product. So, I ask you again, where’s your outrage that you don’t know who is funding UVI and ICAN? Hmm? oh, that’s right. You’re only upset whent it’s a conservative group involved.

• 

  Phaedrus on April 19 at 5:59 p.m.

  Wayne rationalizations are fine, but they don’t get rid of the hypocrisy of “protecting” the identities of your investors while demanding transparency from others. Must make life easier having to independent sets of moral values.

• 

  WayneH on April 19 at 7:16 p.m.

  The difference is, if you don’t support the Idaho Freedom Foundation, IFF can’t come and take away your house or send you to jail. The government, however, can. Because the government has the power to come into my life and take my money without my approval, I get to know how that governnent spends my money. Simple as that.

• 

  sue on April 19 at 8:32 p.m.

  Um, Wayne, I have no fear of the government taking away my house, or putting me in jail. Do you lie away nights worrying about that boogey man? I fear not being able to get affordable health care when it’s needed for me or my family members. I fear an economic catastrophe brougt on by greedy bankers, that will bring financial hardships to all of us. I’ve just never had that same fear of the government which after all, is just us.

• 

  Phaedrus on April 19 at 8:48 p.m.

  Hypocrite.

• 

  Chris on April 20 at 7:06 a.m.

  While I’d like to see Hoffman disclose his deep-pocketed out-of-state backers who are influencing Idaho laws I don’t think he should be forced to.

  On the other hand I think it’s highly improper of the Idaho Press-Tribune and the Idaho Statesman to give Hoffman space in the paper to promote an agenda funded by out-of-staters.

  Readers have a right to know who is financing Hoffman’s writing. And for the papers to continue to promote the IFF without any disclosure of its true motives and/or backing is absurd at best and consciously dishonest at best.

• 

  Chris on April 20 at 7:08 a.m.

  …it’s early in the morning, here’s the last sentence again.

  “And for the papers to continue to promote the IFF without any disclosure of its true motives and/or backing is absurd at best and consciously dishonest at worst.”

• 

  DFO on April 20 at 8:02 a.m.

  It’s past time to quit the personal attacks against Wayne Hoffman. If you guys — the usual suspects — want to attack the ideas circulated by the Idaho Freedom Foundation, that’s fine. You want to slime Hoffman personally, you’re going to start getting deleted and mebbe end up in the cooler. Do you get the picture?

• 

  moscow_minidoka on April 20 at 8:18 a.m.

  @DFO: “Why isn’t Hoffman transparent?” Seems to me that you asked a question about Hoffman PERSONALLY - but we can’t answer that question without being deleted?

  Hoffman’s a big boy with deep pockets - he can take the heat - he loves the attention.

  I apologize for crossing the line, which was unintentional. Hoffman makes my blood boil, and the IdahoReporter violates every tenet of journalistic ethics I was ever taught.

  So, how about I revise my deleted statement:

  1. Idaho Freedom Foundation represents the “all government is bad” mindset among some Idahoans, and as such does not serve the interests of most Idahoans.
  2. IdahoReporter has no legitimacy as a news organization because it is owned by the IFF, which is an advocacy organization.
  3. Wayne Hoffman is a real peach of a man, and quite handsome to boot. And I wish I was as tall as him.

• 

  Phaedrus on April 20 at 9:32 a.m.

  Wayne Hoffman, a real peach of a man and quite handsome to boot., defends the hypocritical practices of the IFF.

• 

  WayneH on April 20 at 9:49 a.m.

  Here’s an idea: If you don’t like the reporting done by IdahoReporter.com don’t read it. If you don’t like the public policy work being done by Idaho Freedom Foundation, don’t donate. If you don’t like the tools available for your use at IdahoVotes.org, don’t use it. If you don’t like the transparency data available at OurIdaho.com, don’t look at it.

  I don’t see the need to get worked up over the work we’re doing at IFF or any of our other websites. Go find something else to entertain yourselves. It’s not worth getting worked up over. Those that support us will continue to do so. Those that don’t won’t. It’s not a big deal, in my book, anyway. There are a lot of groups out there that I don’t like. I don’t donate money to them. i don’t blog about them. I don’t get worked up over them. Life is good.

• 

  Smacky on April 20 at 10:14 a.m.

  That’s quite a kumbaya moment, Wayne. I wonder if the government feels the same way about your unwanted scrutiny.

  Look the other way, nothing to see here….

• 

  OrangeTV on April 20 at 12:09 p.m.

  Wayne Hoffman ate my Buick.

« Back to Huckleberries Online

• ›Scanner traffic