Daily Kos blogger Camden Town picked up on yesterday's story here on Blogtown about Oregonian general ad sales manager Debi Walery, who happens to sit on the board of the Northwest Grocer's Association—which paid for the "No on 66/67" ad on the front of the paper last week. In my post, I asked readers if they thought the connection was ethical. Town responds:

Well, I may be biased, but I'll go out on a limb and say: No, I don't think our newly-discovered connection is ethical. As an advertising manager, Walery may stand to profit materially from higher ad revenues at her workplace. As a member of a non-profit board of directors, she shares specific authority with other directors to spend the non-profit's money, and it's difficult to imagine that the decision by the NWGA to inquire about the purchase of spadeas was entirely coincidental. Counting the two 'No' spadeas and the one 'Yes' spadea that the Orangeonian published, the paper collected about $65,000 in ad revenues thanks to that yet-unexplained, amazing coincidence. If Walery gets commission or bonuses based on the ad revenue she brings to the paper, she's surely due enough to buy a pleasant vacation.

And no one would ever, ever have known about it.

That's unethical.

I scoured this morning's edition of The Orangeonian for any comment on yesterday's discovery of Walery or Spadea-gate and found only a pouty, defiant repudiation of Oregon's lawmakers, apparently for adopting last year's budget. Sounds like someone got an early start on the sauce last night, and didn't quit until quite late.

Thanks for the validation, national politics blogger. Drop me a line and maybe we can love each other.