December 12, 2004
(Updated) Stanford (And Others) Distorting 'Clean Money' Proposal
Is It Ignorance Or Intention?
Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.
It began with the tag-team slamming provided by Portland Tribune columnists Phil Stanford and Promise King, who both came down hard on the Gary Blackmer/Erik Sten Clean Money campaign finance reform proposal in the same recent edition, has continued in each of Stanford's columns since, and has been picked up by Jack Bogdanski as well.
Critics of the proposal are lining up, taking aim, and firing away. But curiously, most especially when it comes to Stanford and Bogdanski (and some of his readers), these critics seem satisfied to ignore the experience of other localities with similar campaign finance laws in order to hammer away with their assertions of inevitable abuse.
The central premise of current criticisms appears to be that the system will be abused -- or, further, that the potential for abuse is inherent in the Clean Money approach itself.
Problem is, there doesn't appear to have been those sorts of abuses in other places using such a system. Which would seem to suggest that these critics must somehow believe that our pristine Bull Run water supply is somehow tainted with some mysterious substance which will make Portlanders abuse the Clean Money system in ways apparently unimagined by people elsewhere in the country.
That seems rather unlikely. And in fact if you read through what Stanford, Bogdanski, and Bogdanski's readers are saying, the real threat of abuse stems not from people seeking to get ahold of some free cash, but from people who would abuse the system specifically in order to try to tear the system apart because they don't support the idea.
Of course, if the rules for such campaign systems enacted in other jurisdictions are any indication of what we'd have here, such people would find themselves running afoul of the law itself, and likely would find the repercussions not particularly enjoyable. But we suppose they are free to try and take that chance if it's that important to them.
Systems in place, for example, in Arizona and Maine place a requirement of "reasonableness" on use of Clean Money campaign funds. We think it's fairly safe to say that were Stanford to set up a campaign headquarters in Hawaii, or Bogdanksi in the Carribean, that likely would not be considered an especially reasonable use of their public campaign funds.
But the killer is that even if not one of these critics was interested in how similar systems have operated in other places, you'd think that at least Stanford -- as an actual professional who gets paid for this sort of thing -- might bother to actually know what's in the Clean Money proposal.
The topic at hand being the perfect case in point, because the local Clean Money proposal indeed would include its own set of administrative rules which would preclude such an abusive use of the public campaign funds provided to candidates, under penalty of law.
We'll leave it to Stanford to decide whether he wants his defense to be that he hasn't even read the Clean Money proposal, or that he's read it and is perfectly comfortable with knowingly misrepresenting it to his readers.
One last thing. In one of his recent bits about the Clean Money proposal, Stanford counters an assertion he says was presented to him by Sten, that the columnist is part of an "orchestrated effort" to sink the proposal.
Now, we'll admit that we found it a little peculiar that both Stanford and King suddenly both wrote about the proposal in the same edition. But we can accept that there are reasonable explanations for that. What's fairly evident at this point, however, is that the Tribune itself has some sort of editorial or financial interest in undermining the Clean Money proposal by advancing Stanford's mischaracterizations of it.
We won't argue that someone at the Tribune handed down marching orders to Stanford, King, or anyone else. But what we will argue is that when offered an opportunity, the paper took advantage of it.
Meaning: It's no accident that Stanford's latest column was given placement on the front page, above the fold. That was an intentional and very deliberate choice.
Whether this move to champion these distortions of the proposal is an editorial decision from publisher Dwight Jaynes or managing editor Conniee Pickett, or a financial decision from Dr. Robert B. Pamplin Jr. (one of the richest men in Portland and frequent high-contributor to local campaigns) is something we suppose is left for speculation.
But whatever the individual motivations of Stanford and King, the Tribune institution itself has obviously decided it has a mission to scuttle the Clean Money proposal. In and of itself, we don't have any objection to an editorial mission against a government proposal. We would be rather hypocritical if we raised an objection to that.
But what's gone beyond the pale here is that the paper is pushing what are either ignorant or intentional distortions of this particular proposal as part of that editorial mission, and hiding whatever its own motivations might be.
"Journalism's first obligation is to the truth," wrote Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel in their book The Elements of Journalism. In fact, that made it the very first such element in their list. And that's an obligation to try to present truth as near as can be determined, in order to enable a public discussion that leads the community towards truth.
Stanford and the Tribune appear to have decided that when it comes to an attempt to reform campaign finance in Portland, the truth is a luxury which doesn't serve their own interests, whatever those interests may be.
Update
Over at BlueOregon, Kari Chisholm has issued a challenge to Phil Stanford: If, following the rules in the proposal as the guidelines, Stanford can raise $7500 in $5 contributions by March 15 for charity -- simulating the process for an average candidate in a Clean Money election -- Chisolm will buy him a steak dinner.
Posted at 01:02 PM | PermalinkComments (26) | TrackBacks (1)
More In Media, Metro-Area Politics
Trackbacks (1)
-
Phil Stanford, You Lose on 16 Mar 2005
Well, the ides of March have come and gone - and unless Tribune columnist Phil Stanford has real big surprise up his sleeve, he's missed the deadline for a free dinner and drinks on me at Morton's. Last fall, Stanford
Comments (26)
Jack Bog on 12 Dec 2004
Oh, please.
Michael on 13 Dec 2004
I can't wait until the first skinhead runs,
not that I approve of their ideas, but the
reaction will be dandy.
Justin on 13 Dec 2004
Well B!x, you certainly took a beating over on bojack's comment board. So, I guess I understand your frusteration.
And after rethinking the issue, you're probably right, people won't abuse the plan. Finding 1000 people to donate $5 is tough, and the type of person who can get a 1000 people to donate $5 won't want to run a fraudulent baseless campaign.
That being said, I don't want to spend more city money so people can run "clean campaigns." I'm really quite content with these so called "dirty campaigns."
If an elected official is truly in the pockets of corporations and developers, and is placing their priorities over that of the people, I stronly believe that the Citizens of Portland will elect another representative.
The One True b!X on 13 Dec 2004
That being said, I don't want to spend more city money so people can run "clean campaigns." I'm really quite content with these so called "dirty campaigns."
For the record, I don't have an issue with the fact that there's that sort of opposition to the proposal. I have an issue with the fact that some prominent critics are writing deceptive things about the proposal, and may be neglecting to do any homework on the issue while they do so.
The One True b!X on 13 Dec 2004
And I don't see a beating over there in Jack's thread. I notice just now that Scott, at least, finally just up and admitted that he was part of a "Portland is bad" contingent and that's why he assumed there'd be abuse here.
That doesn't sound like me being beaten up, it sounds like me being proven right.
MarkDaMan on 13 Dec 2004
I think Tom Potter's recent success will be an example to many people considering a run for local office in the future, and they will try to emulate what he accomplished during his campaign. Without further regulations, or city money, the man pulled off a huge defeat and redefined money in politics at the local level. Part of the reason for his success was his decision to limit donations to an unbelievably small number and it gave him instant credibility.
There should be some sort of limits to donations during local or statewide campaigns, but I also agree with Justin above, if someone wants to inject their campaign with thousands of dollars of influence from special interests, they are only alienating the voter...as was Francesconi's poor fortune. If we are to have campaign reform it should start at the state legislature and be a state wide system instead of trying to figure out the multitude of rules for each city, county and even statewide...but then again, expecting anything of serious issue to get through this legistlature might be wishful thinking on my part.
MarkDaMan on 13 Dec 2004
As for the Tribune's biasness...Does it really surprise anyone that the conservative learning Pamplin would use the Tribune as a voicepiece now that there is an issue that could affect his ability to spread his influence? From my point of view it appears that not only does Pamplin throw his money at local leaders to sway public opinion, but now he's taking his views, and influence, right to the people on the street and masks it in a local rag he passes off as a high quality, researched and truthful, news spread. Just seems like more dirty conservative tricks trying to infiltrate our local liberalness.
Justin on 13 Dec 2004
B!x - You do seem to be changing people's minds thats for sure.
Jonathan on 13 Dec 2004
"...if someone wants to inject their campaign with thousands of dollars of influence from special interests, they are only alienating the voter...as was Francesconi's poor fortune."
I think that's an incorrect analysis of what happened to Francesconi. His negatives were not created by having special interest money (everyone does, in every case except Tom Potter), as much as they were from having SO MUCH money.
As for the idea that we don't need reform because Tom Potter proved it can be done without regulation, remember that he came in with somewhat unique name familiarty and background that most candidates could not duplicate.
The One True b!X on 13 Dec 2004
And for what it's worth, I don't have any particular objection to the Council referring this to the voters rather than voting on it themselves. As long as the ensuing debate sticks to reality.
allehseya on 13 Dec 2004
I am truly shocked that there arent more people commending Blackmer and Sten for their efforts.
If it becomes the pattern that councilmen get precious little in the form pf citizens contributing constructive feedback when they request it (re: their proposals, upcoming vote topics, etc.) -- then those same citizens shouldnt complain in the event that they are no longer engaged in public policy dialogue.
MarkDaMan -- for whatever it's worth -- some info you may be interested in quoting if youre going to make the argument you started in comment #7.
The R.B. Pamplin Corp. (publishers of the Tribune) ranked first among Oregon companies in soft-money contributions to the national Republican Party in 2001-2002, with donations of $150,000, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. In 1999-2000, the company ranked second, with contributions of $135,000.
ron on 14 Dec 2004
picking nits . . .
2.10.220(A) contains a requirement for the payment of interest for dollars returned because someone changed their mind. This is particularly odd. Suppose someone qualifies, then accepts the money but does not spend anything whatsoever, they would have to pay a fictitious interest rate rather than the real rate of return they might have obtained from a bank deposit. The disparity between the rate set in the code and the real rate obtained would act as a perverse penalty for having gotten cold feet in midstream. Suppose poor slob candidate backs out, will the government set upon that waffly guy for collections for the penalty rate for changing their mind. Damn, I suppose they had better spend it with wanton abandon to avoid the penalty; surely The Oregonain will make them an offer to recieve all the money so that the campaign mind-changer doesn't get fined.
Here is something particularly weird:
2.02.040 Applicability of State Law; Limitations.
"A. The provisions of this title and the City Charter shall prevail over any conflicting provisions of state law relating to the exercise of initiative and referendum powers and matters subject to legislation by the City."
This is evidence that the proposed code has not been reviewed by an attorney, or at least not a competent one. That sound’s like it was drafted by Diane Linn’s attorney.
This code suffers from a similar flaw to that of state laws pertaining to elections, granting only other candidates a right to challenge a certification.
2.10.170 . . . "A candidate who has been refused certification or an opponent of a candidate who has been granted certification under Section 2.10.080 may challenge a certification decision" . . .
I guess I would have to run a campaign just for the sole purpose of preserving the right to whine and moan about certification anomalies. But if I am not there within the three days of the certification, and start a campaign later, then I’m out of luck anyway. I better hop to it and be the first to file.
ron on 14 Dec 2004
Truth as to one’s opinion is inherently unassailable. It is remedied only through more speech, with another inherently unassailable opinion.
Can we assume that the money that clean-money-candidates get will be predominantly used to buy media time in TV print and radio? If so could we then look upon the clean money campaign as an effort to offer an additional public forum that is only slightly different than say handing someone a ten-dollar megaphone within the Pioneer Courthouse Square? Suppose that Portland simply purchased the TV and radio time and the print space directly and then rationed access to it through minimum signatures rather than through dollars. Could the speech of The Oregonian, the editorial endorsement stuff, be prohibited except where they too are required to obtain signatures in like manner to everyone else and that their speech must be placed alongside the other stuff from candidates? (No.) The media outlets, after all, are the megaphones for modern campaigns and the owners of the outlets themselves have made liberal use it, directly supporting or opposing particular candidates, for reasons known only to them. Could The Oregonian, for example, be prohibited from objecting to the inclusion of stuff that the editors would otherwise find unfit to print? (Future inevitability.)
B!x, would you like to force the Portland Tribune to accept an add from a clean money candidate that they refused to print? What if all the local media refused, en mass, to accept any of the money from clean money candidates for fear that they might have to cede their editorial authority because the money derived from the government? The cost of reaching the eyeballs and the ears of voters with political propaganda is really the issue here is it not? And the media seem to do as they please. How much money will it take to appease them to carry some else’s message that is contrary to their own message? I for one do not think that the free press needs their own version of a public works project.
Would it be an abuse of the dollars if I were to use it to start an alternative paper? What if I collected 5 dollars for the campaign and 5 dollars for a subscription to the new paper? My 10K could go a long way to keeping the paper alive until the next round. (I could sock away the advertising revenue.) Would it make any difference if the new paper was declared a non-profit? Would it make any difference if the paper had a narrow focus or covered multiple issues? Would it matter if the paper accepted non-political adds or not? Does the mere acceptance of non-political adds magically convert a political party newsletter (or PAC propaganda paper) into a wholly and completely different non-political commercial beast that is untouchable by the state laws pertaining to PAC’s, even as to editorials? Do you honestly think that some screwball could not design a way to take advantage of the system, legally? Perhaps it was designed for screwballs from the start, which is not inherently wrong. The more speech the better, I suppose; but only so long as The Oregonian does not get more profits from which to further engage in speech that is exempted from the heightened requirements for PACs.
(Gee, I do wonder if the mailing list I might develop has commercial value or just political value? The line is real blurry here between editorials, paid inclusion and alternative news start-ups with a rather narrow focus, like so narrow it serves but one or two campaigns. What if I name it Clean Money News? Hey, you could even do it yourself. The real beneficiaries are the news folks anyway, and you are the happy pawn unless you too can squeeze a buck out of it.)
Erik Sten on 14 Dec 2004
I think it is great that the proposal is causing this much discussion. Legal language can always be improved, and is never immune from a malicious attack. Nonetheless, the vast majority of abuse proposed by the opponents of this idea will be easy to stop, if indeed they are actually serious about putting their own names on the ballot and do the substantial work to get there.
Most people I know agree with me that money is out of control in the American political system. Unless you believe that change will come from the federal government, we need to try reforms locally in order to change the system and perfect the best approach.
There is no perfect system. But don't let the perfect be the enemy of the improved to paraphrase an old cliche. I think it was Barney Frank who said something along the lines of: politics is the only institution in which large amounts of money change hands and everyone claims there is no effect.
Experience in other jurisdictions show much better participation, marginal abuse, increased public confidence and more unlikely candidates winning.
Those are good results in my book. I would strongly encourge interested readers to take a look at the City Club panel on this topic of serveral weeks ago. We brought a conservative from Arizona who has won in a clean money system, and a progressive who works nationally on election reform. It was a provocative discussion and their views are worth your time.
On with the debate.
allehseya on 14 Dec 2004
"The disparity between the rate set in the code and the real rate obtained would act as a perverse penalty for having gotten cold feet in midstream."
Perhaps intentionally so -- towards obtaining only the serious-minded 'candidates'-- and from not looking at the City as a bank if ones credit is bad enough to *not* qualify for a bank loan?
"Can we assume that the money that clean-money-candidates get will be predominantly used to buy media time in TV print and radio?"
I dont think that we can. A friend of mine ran for City Council a while back and his approach wouldve been heavily focused on the grass roots approach (special events, internet, neighborhood block parties, independent publishing and distribution of promotional items) This does make me wonder, though, how Sten and Blackmer would respond to your hypothetical(s) below:
"Would it be an abuse of the dollars if I were to use it to start an alternative paper?Would it make any difference if the new paper was declared a non-profit? Would it make any difference if the paper had a narrow focus or covered multiple issues? Would it matter if the paper accepted non-political adds or not? Does the mere acceptance of non-political adds magically convert a political party newsletter (or PAC propaganda paper) into a wholly and completely different non-political commercial beast that is untouchable by the state laws pertaining to PAC’s, even as to editorials?
Valid questions when it is, in fact, cheaper to start your own grass-roots publication where you have total control of the content than it is to pay the print advertising fees for the duration of the campaign...add to that the fact that not every candidate will be clamouring for The Mercury's hipper-than-thou endorsement or will want to contribute to Clear Channel via advertising.
"I would strongly encourge interested readers to take a look at the City Club panel on this topic of serveral weeks ago.
Do you have a handy link to it?
Kari Chisholm on 14 Dec 2004
FWIW, I still haven't gotten an answer from Phil Stanford. It's pretty simple really -- despite all the other questions, let's answer this one: is it easy or is it hard to gather 1500 checks of $5 each for a campaign. Phil has until March 15 (a proxy for filing day) to pull together that many checks for 1000 Friends of Oregon. If he can do it, I'll cry uncle and buy him dinner and drinks at Morton's.
If not, I think it's proof that the proposal isn't that easy.
There may be other issues (which I've shared with Erik & Gary) but this one is a red herring.
ron on 15 Dec 2004
Kari, if you offered Phil a 100 dollars for each 5 dollar donation he obtained then it would more closely correspond to so-called clean money proposal. Your proposal is roughly the same as saying that you would match each 5 dollar donation with one shinny penny. That’s funny.
The incentive of getting more for ones efforts direct from the government than one expends trying to obtain them is the driving force behind most lobbying efforts. The clean money proposal does not halt the graft but rather enshrines it as a legitimate tool so long as the recipient gives up certain civil rights.
It uses the same old rights versus privilege dichotomy in new clothing. Shall I rename civil rights as civil privileges? I am a true believer that there are certain inalienable rights, civil rights, that are not within the power of the government to convert to a privilege. The clean money proposal, while seemingly offering a band aid for the poor to impose costs on the less poor also legitimizes government demands that hinge on discretionary acts of someone like an auditor. I would prefer that my rights are protected by a constitution with sweeping free speech rights that are universally recognized by judges regardless of their political stripe. The discretionary act of a government official, albeit by a legislatively recognized benevolent person, is so far removed from realm of protection of liberties that I could scream in anguish.
I pity the well meaning folks who find comfort in illusory gains in individual liberty by a fleeting grab of money from someone that perhaps has more money that they have today. The grab, if it is OK in the arena of elections and overcomes free speech objections then surely it means that one can grab for the sake of grabbing and for no other reason. Usually there is a legitimate public purpose behind any government action.
The casual nature of the rebuttal by allehseya to my complaint about a penalty for merely changing ones’ mind is a horrible reminder of the risk of leaving ones’ free speech rights in the hands of individuals rather than in constitutional limits upon government intrusion. As to the risk of a penalty allehseya wrote:
“Perhaps intentionally so -- towards obtaining only the serious-minded 'candidates'-- and from not looking at the City as a bank if ones credit is bad enough to *not* qualify for a bank loan?”
I can find no allowable constraint on free speech in the US or state constitution that can even remotely come close to using the seriousness of a candidate as a criteria to impose a penalty nor the presumption, perhaps as a matter of law, that the harm that justifies the penalty is the risk that one might use the advanced money as a de facto loan. The risk of misuse of the money can alternatively be addressed by requiring a separate account and by having penalties only for particular expenditures and which can be discovered by a requirement that the books be open for inspection. The 12 percent interest penalty is certainly not, in the words common to free speech cases, the “least restrictive means.” It is a penalty that on its face violates free speech rights. The fact that such a penalty can even be considered in discussion of the clean money proposal, targeted at enhancing free speech in the election process the through delivery of public money, illustrates the very risk of an actual reduction of free speech rights. The seemingly flippant attitude toward that risk is the most distressing of all.
My point about the direct purchase of add space or TV time by the government is also directed at limiting the opportunities by certain folks to entertain the notion of building an entire regime of penalties for arguable misuse of the public funds that find their way into private hands.
I suppose only a true believer in free speech would spot such flaws, or even care. It is just all too cumbersome to explore the risks that get in the way of the effort to grab public money.
allehseya on 15 Dec 2004
Re: posts 12 and 17 --- for the sake of clarity:
In the Table of Draft Policy elements, it clearly states that the “Candidates who receive clean money funds are personally liable for repayment if they choose to withdraw from the system but still remain a candidate.”
To further clarify, Chapter 2.10 of the Clean Campaign Finance Fund Draft Code states in its definitions that:
"Certified Candidate" means a candidate for nomination or election to City office who chooses to participate in the Clean Campaign Finance Fund and who is certified as a Clean Campaign Finance Fund candidate under Section 2.10.080."
Now, Ron refers to section 2.10.220 Withdrawal of Certified Candidate; Repayment of Funds. in his critique (post 12). The section proposes:
A certified candidate may withdraw as a certified candidate by filing a written statement of withdrawal with the Auditor. At the time the statement of withdrawal is filed, the candidate shall also deliver to the Auditor an amount of money equal to all monies distributed to the candidate from the Clean Campaign Finance Fund after the date the candidate was certified, plus interest of the total amount of monies received at a rate of 12 percent per annum.
Note that the definitions outlined above are responding to a scenario where we have someone who is running for office, decides to abide by the Clean Campaign Finance Fund guidelines, receives money and then decides to withdraw from the Clean Campaign Finance system but still remain a candidate. One assumes, in this scenario, that the candidate (still running for office, mind you) is getting campaign money from *some* source.
Since Ron appears to be fond of playing with hypothetical scenarios to explore the potential merits / shortcomings of the proposed draft, lets just say – for the sake of hypothetical argument -- that the candidate in question is dirt poor with a horrendous credit rating and has precious few resources towards financing his / her campaign. The candidate can’t get a loan from the bank to finance their campaign. They do, however, become eligible for Clean Campaign Finance monies, and thusly, our imaginary candidate makes it successfully through the initial campaign hurdles. Enter into this scenario Joe Billionaire -- offering to pick up our high-profile candidate through some good ole ‘constitutional’ corporate financing. Our candidate (for whatever reason) decides to withdraw as a certified candidate from the Clean Campaign Finance Funds program and continues to run for office with other (not so clean?) monies instead.
Question: should there be any penalty for withdrawal?
Ron: I considered the possibility that the high interest rate was intentionally placed in the draft as part of such a penalty so as to potentially avoid the above scenario when I initially responded to your comment:
"The disparity between the rate set in the code and the real rate obtained would act as a perverse penalty for having gotten cold feet in midstream."
by posing my own question:
“Perhaps intentionally so -- towards obtaining only the serious-minded 'candidates'-- and from not looking at the City as a bank if ones credit is bad enough to *not* qualify for a bank loan?”
I did not endorse the penalty, I did not endorse the draft -- I merely posed the question while considering hypothetical scenarios. You take me grossly out of context by rendering my question a "rebuttal" while using it to illustrate "a horrible reminder of the risk of leaving ones’ free speech rights in the hands of individuals rather than in constitutional limits upon government intrusion."
I suggest that you wait for my de-facto stance on the issues / policies explored and voiced in this forum before you take a hypothetical question of mine, deem it a rebuttal -- much less apply it to serve a broader discussion of civil liberties and free speech.
ron on 16 Dec 2004
Thank you for the clarification of my error that the candidate continued to run rather than ending their campaign. If I merely convert the change of heart to one of getting cold feet only as to acceptance of the clean money, and without getting a billionaire backer, then the bulk of the remaining argument still holds.
I do like to pose hypothetical fact situations. Sometimes there is not a large set of court opinions from which to guide the inquiry into potential shortcomings; particularly with a new law such as this. I might actually support the concept and goal of clean money but retain certain objections and seek clarification. Posing rhetorical questions and playing devil’s advocate is just a tool to illuminate issues.
New question then: Why would someone who gives up their campaign be treated differently than someone who simply gives up the clean money for their continuing campaign? This would be a penalty for converting from the use of public money to the use of private money, or no money at all. It would act as a penalty on the alternate private contributor, if there be one, and would be an impermissible burden on their free speech rights. (I will leave aside the issue of the naming of the proposal as Clean Money as if it were a truism, for that name is itself suspect. Private money is the spring from which the public money is derived and thus could hardly be any dirtier than public money.)
Scott-in-Japan on 16 Dec 2004
b!X - Just so I can be a hypocrite (cheers!), can YOU cite the work in question?
You keep mentioning The Proposal at bojack.org and here, but haven't provided anything more than a description. Has the City Council put one out yet?
The One True b!X on 16 Dec 2004
I've linked to it above. "Clean Money" takes you to the proposal. If you do a search here from the Archives page for "clean money" you'll find the other items I've written about it as well.
Scott-in-Japan (an *ss) on 16 Dec 2004
b!X - I went back and found a link to actual proposal through the top of your article. My apoligies.
Having read the proposal, why not have a test to run for office? The proposal mentions non-fund-raising skills (problem-solving, ...) as being important for office. For the sake of argument, why not make office holders pass a test?
Scott-in-Japan (a smart cookie) on 16 Dec 2004
b!X - Wait a minute, Vera Katz spent less the Sir Earl when she won her first term. This puts a big (logical) hole into the boat of "More Money = More Votes". In Engineering (and Math and Logic) classes this observation would lead someone to question Sten's overall proposition ("You need money to win").
Vera had less money, but won. Ergo, something other than money put Vera over the top.
And this puts aside the real issue: Political Office is a JOB. If someone wants to switch careers - good luck, because your old boss ain't taking you back. If you make the leap to Mayor, then fail to get re-elected...your old job is gone. Starting over is hard, and that's why a lot of folks don't run.
Sure, the cost of running full-time is tough/expensive if you let it. But Sten won by campaining from the front of a $50 International Harvester Panel-van (true story).
Ironically, the cry of "Elections are Expensive" are being driven by the Budget Election King.
allehseya on 17 Dec 2004
New question then: Why would someone who gives up their campaign be treated differently than someone who simply gives up the clean money for their continuing campaign?
Maybe (this is just conjecture on my part) – because by choosing to stay in the race, they have broken a legal agreement regarding the manner in which they do so?
It (the 12% interest rate for the withdrawing candidate) would act as a penalty on the alternate private contributor, if there be one, and would be an impermissible burden on their free speech rights.
I suspect (but am not sure) that the Draft takes into consideration Oregon state laws. Most states provide them, stating that you cannot lend money at an interest rate in excess of a certain statutory maximum. This is called a "usury limit."
While playing devils advocate with you in researching your concerns (and I’m not even sure that the research applies), I have stumbled upon the following:
The usury limit (set by state law) is referred to as the general usury limit – and is the rate that can be charged by one person or corporation to another, in other words, if you lend your next door neighbor $ 100.00, the rate stated is the limit. To charge more you must get a banking, pawnbroking, or whatever license. This also means that special kinds of loans, like those from pawnbrokers or small loan companies are not stated.
In some states we also have a "legal rate." In such states, as a general rule, if you have a contractual obligation that provides simply for interest without a specific term, or "interest at the highest legal rate" then the "legal rate" is what applies. In other instances we have stated a "judgment rate." That's the rate that final judgments bear. In states without a usury limit, there still may be a federally imposed limit because at certain astronomical rates of interest "loan sharking" will be inferred by the federal government.
What are the statutory maximum rates that might apply in our discussion?
OREGON, the legal rate is 9%, the judgment rate is 9% or the contract rate, if lawful, whichever is higher. The general usury rate for loans below $ 50,000 is 12% or 5% above the discount rate for commercial paper.
disclaimer: once again – I’m not even sure that this information applies, but I’m having fun using it to argue that if the city can legally state in the contract that the money is to be treated as a ‘loan’ should the candidate withdraw but still run for office – then the 12% interest rate is within the statutory maximum set by the state of Oregon — if this website is accurate:
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/ban02.htm
allehseya on 17 Dec 2004
. . . and Ron?
I was just wondering; why do you assume that the 12% interest rate for the withdrawing candidate would "act as a penalty on the alternate private contributor?
Remember:
In the Table of Draft Policy elements, it clearly states that the “Candidates who receive clean money funds are personally liable for repayment if they choose to withdraw from the system but still remain a candidate.”
JonMCLF on 17 Dec 2004
Hi,
I'm writing from the 'other' Portland here, where we have this system.
I just wanted to put my two cents in to alleviate some of the concerns and rebut some criticisms.
1 - There is the idea that 'Wackjobs' will run and waste public funds. Hasn't happened here. We have had an increase in the number of candidates, but it's mostly challenges to incumbents in the primary or a case where one party couldn't recruit a candidate before but now they can. What we have found is that we do have people running who would not have run if they had to raise money traditionally - because they didn't have access to it. So we have social workers, nurses, non-profit organization directors, etc. running for office instead of the usual lawyers and businessmen. That means we have a broader perspective - and a more representative perspective - in the legislature than we used to. This shows that it's not impossible to collect the contributions necessary to qualify, but also not so easy that every Tom Dick and Sally can or will run.
2 - This has become the regular order of business now. This year, 78% of all candidates for state office ran with the "clean option", and about 60% of the races in the general election were "clean" vs. "clean". We ended up with about 77% of the entire legislature having taken no money from any special interests. This is changing the dynamic in the capitol. Lobbyists from PACs are ignored, while grassroots organizations are listened to. Since we started using this system, we have passed the most comprehensive health care reform in the nation (Dirigo Health), some of the toughest air pollution controls in the nation, and much stronger mercury disposal laws. Is it a coincidence that we passed these after most of the legislators no longer took money from the insurance companies and the big polluters? I think not.
3 - There have not been abuses of the system. It's in our statute that the public funds can only be used for campaign related expenses, and we have a strong Ethics Commission that will enforce it if necessary.
As a person who believes that we the voters should own our government instead of whoever can give the biggest checks, I am quite happy with our system in Maine.
--Jon