April 05, 2005
Council Should Refer 'Voter-Owned Elections' To Voters
Adopting It Themselves Is The Wrong Move
While we disagree with Jack Bogdanski's opposition to the Clean Money/Voter-Owned Elections proposal from Auditor Gary Blackmer and Commissioner Erik Sten, we agree with his process position: City Council should refer the measure to Portland voters rather than approving it themselves.
We do continue to find it odd that Bogdanski, probably moreso than any other blogger in town, on the one hand goes out of his way to mention the amount of campaign contributions which flow to candidates and who made them, but on the other hand seems to find no real benefit to taking those contributions out of the loop altogether.
But that disagreement on the proposal itself won't stop us from saying that he's right on the matter of how the proposal should be considered.
At the very least, the insinuations (made both by Bogdanski and Tribune columnist Phil Stanford) that this is all timing out perfectly for future Sten campaigns need to be addressed whether Sten might like to do so or not. Meaning: Even looking at it simply from a matter of politics, this proposal needs to be divorced from any potential future political aspirations of those bringing it forward.
There's only one real way to do that, and that's for City Council to refer the matter to the ballot. If nothing else, it would seem to make philosophical sense for Voter-Owned Elections to be decided by the voters themselves.
The proposal will have its first hearing before Council this Thursday at 2:00 PM.
Comments (45)
The One True b!X on 05 Apr 2005
I should have added a note mentioning that the systems in Maine and Arizona -- often cited by proponents of the local proposal, myself included -- were themselves adopted by voters and not by their respective state legislatures.
Chris Smith on 05 Apr 2005
In most jurisdictions, this reform has been adopted by voters because the elected officials were unwilling to do so. I find it refreshing that our elected officials are open to reforming their own election process.
[Full disclosure - I chair the City Club committee advocating for this proposal. More info a http://www.pdxcityclub.org/elections]
Jack Bog on 05 Apr 2005
I never said there is "no real benefit." I have said that the benefits are greatly outweighed by the costs. This is not a valid expenditure of general fund money.
There has been federal Presidential campaign financing for quite some time. I don't see it as providing much benefit. And judging from how few taxpayers opt to designate $3 of their taxes toward it, it doesn't seem very popular.
Amanda on 05 Apr 2005
There's another way that the proposal could be divorced from the "political aspirations of those bringing it forward" - by which I presume you mean Erik Sten, Sam Adams, and Tom Potter, the three who've said they support it. Amend it so incumbents aren't eligible for campaign funds. Incumbents are already well known and can create options for media exposure, plus they should be able to run on their record.
Of course, removing funding for incumbents would allow Big Money donors back into the equation.... is that desirable?
The Council votes on a $2.4 billion budget, including $276.8m in General Fund allocations. Why put this piece to the voters, and not the other decisions on slicing that pie? How is it different from choosing to spend $1.8m on jail cells for meth addicts, or $17m on a new computer system in the Finance office?
The One True b!X on 05 Apr 2005
Of course, removing funding for incumbents would allow Big Money donors back into the equation.... is that desirable?
No. Hence we come back to the premise of simply referring the thing to the voters.
As for why this is different: It's a controversial proposal related to the very structures of government/elections, rather than just a random example of everyday public policy issues (such as jail cells or computer systems).
Combine the "meta" nature of the issue with the controversy, and it needs to be referred.
Marshall Runkel on 05 Apr 2005
The proposal contains language suggesting that the system be referred to voters in November 2010, after voters have participated in three primary and two general election cycles. At that point, voters will be able make a choice based on the actual impact, operations and cost of the system.
The wide ranging debate about the proposal that has occurred here and in other forums points out the range opinions and predictions that people have about the proposal. Erik Sten and Gary Blackmer settled on the proposed enactment/referral strategy because it would give voters a chance to make a choice about the system based on its actual performance.
Under the current campaign finance system, incumbents have won 119 of the last 121 City elections.
Dan Petegorsky on 05 Apr 2005
Two points on this thread:
1) I don't understand the argument about divorcing this from Erik Sten's aspirations. If this goes through, Sten (along with Dan Saltzman) would be the first incumbent to face challengers who have access to public funding. (At least one challenger has already filed.)
Sten clearly has a greater ability to raise money than privately than most who would challenge him.
In some ways it would actually be easier for him to run on private funds, since he could very likely raise more than he needed from fewer sources than the 1,000 $5 contributors he would need to qualify for public funding.
2) I'm baffled by the referral argument. If the Council - under the leadership of a mayor who was elected precisely because he thumbed his nose at big money - is poised to do the right thing and enact the most sweeping municipal clean money system in the country, why in God's name would supporters of the system want to throw it onto the ballot, where big money players could easily overwhelm them with unlimited spending on bogus and misleading ads to defeat it? Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory....
The One True b!X on 05 Apr 2005
Over in the parallel thread at Jack's blog, Alan DeWitt has the explanation for why there's at least an appearance of impropriety in the Council passing this themselves:
Jack Bog on 05 Apr 2005
it would give voters a chance to make a choice about the system based on its actual performance
What's the public going to "learn"? That we spent $3.4 million, and we wish we had it back? It's not like we are going to think that The Usual Real Estate Suspects have been reduced to an appropriate level of influence.
Especially given the supposedly wonderful experiences of Maine and Arizona, I think the public is in a perfect position to hear the debate and have its say on this right now. And I suspect it will.
Jack Bog on 05 Apr 2005
it would actually be easier for him to run on private funds, since he could very likely raise more than he needed from fewer sources than the 1,000 $5 contributors he would need to qualify for public funding.
No it wouldn't. He can get the 1,000 checks in an hour from the unions. But to get $200,000 out of Homer Williams and Crew, now that takes endless hours on the phone, and not on City Hall time. Just ask Francesconi.
Paul on 05 Apr 2005
If we presume that the base case has a electoral system corrupted by big money, and that money is involved in all levels of elections (School Board seat = 20K). Then why put reform into the black box that has been designated broken?
Madelyn Elder on 05 Apr 2005
"No it wouldn't. He can get the 1,000 checks in an hour from the unions."
Unions get it coming and going--you don't like it when we spend money on campaigns, and you don't like it when we have grassroots people out in the streets campaigning. Let me tell you the process my local has for contributions. First, we have to have people voluntarily give to our PAC--at least 10% of the membership. The money's not out of the Union treasury. Then we vote on it in our Legislative committee after a lot of discussion and interviews with the candidates. Then we take a vote at the Executive Board. Then we advertise it in the Union newsletter. Then we vote at the Membership meeting. It takes discussion, thought and debate. In order to get 1,000 union members to write $5 checks, there still has to be campaigning, meeting with people and most of all getting their buy-in for the candidate.
Chris Smith on 05 Apr 2005
It's important to understand the case for adoption is not based on cleaning up corruption, although there is an argument for reducing voter cynicism about the role of money.
The real case is to get more candidates into races and to get the candidates to spend their talking to voters instead of dialing for dollars.
Alan DeWitt on 05 Apr 2005
Thanks for the mention, b!x. But what I'd really like to get out there is my proposed modification inspired by Amanda's comment above. I hate to quote myself, but I guess I should offer to save folks a click-through:
Unless I'm missing something, that cuts the decision down to whether or not this is a wise use of limited resources. I happen to think it might be, but as I've noted elsewhere I don't live in Portland so y'all might not want my advice on how to spend your money. :-)Paul: Yes. Well stated, at least for us engineering types. The City Council apparently has the authority to do this. What remains to be seen is if they think it's a good enough idea to gamble (or throw away) their political futures by passing it. I don't think that's too much to ask of a politician. (Although it is probably too much to expect.)
Jack Bog on 06 Apr 2005
I'm not anti-union. I believe strongly in unions. I was just saying that they can bundle checks like nobody's business. Between them and the kids over at OSPIRG, Sten would have his 1,000 checks in two days.
Tommy on 06 Apr 2005
I doubt it would be that easy to get 1000 checks, but you still miss the point. Once Sten opted in to the system, his opponents would have equal resources, which gives them a fighting chance.
My understanding of the proposal is that if there are no qualifying opponents, the incumbent can't draw the funds. Am I wrong about that? If so, it's an easy fix. Clearly an incumbent should not get funds if they are practically unopposed. I think that's what it says now. Anyone actually read it?
Incumbents have been elected before and have a huge advantage. It makes no difference if Sten saves time getting grass-roots support, which is still an unproven guess. Under this system, as I see it, the overwhelming advantage of the incumbent, due to their unmatched ability to bring in huge checks, is equalized.
I haven't heard a rational argument yet that incumbents are better off in this system, only that it rubs some the wrong way that incumbents would be willing to try it.
I'd be very surprised to see a third-party analysis that concludes that the rest of the country's politicians are irrational in their avoidance of real campaign reform.
Just because you don't like some of these guys doesn't make it an incumbent protection system.
Jon in Maine on 06 Apr 2005
I don't know how valuable this information is, but...
The only reason the voters had to pass Clean Elections here in Maine is that the legislature failed to act on dozens of campaign finance reform proposals that had been proposed over the years beforehand. It's refreshing that Portland OR councilmembers are willing to do this.
And second, to the point about helping incumbents or not - this system encourages fair competition. We have had numerous incumbents who ran traditional lose to Clean Election challengers here in Maine. There was only one this past year because 78% of all candidates used it, so there were very few Clean v. Traditional races. What that means is that in the races where you have Clean v. Clean, both candidates have the same amount of money - so the campaign becomes much more about qualifications, ideas, values, and how efficient you can run a good campaign (which we like in our legislators) instead of who can send the most mailings out, run the most radio and tv ads and otherwise drill it into people's heads that you should be elected.
So it does increase competition, which is why most legislatures don't want to pass it themselves. I'm impressed that Portland's councilmembers have the ethics to do it themselves.
--jon
panchopdx on 06 Apr 2005
Marshall Runkell wrote:
"Under the current campaign finance system, incumbents have won 119 of the last 121 City elections."
We could easily change that by introducing an eight year service limit for commissioners. It would guarantee competitive elections for an open seat every other election, and it's costfree to implement.
How about the City take a poll and measure the support of publicly funded elections vis-a-vis term limits for commissioners?
Anyone want to bet which reform would garner more popular support?
The One True b!X on 06 Apr 2005
Ick. Term limits.
Ick.
Paul on 06 Apr 2005
Double ick on term limits.
Jack Bog on 06 Apr 2005
You're right. Let's have a third term for Bush.
The One True b!X on 06 Apr 2005
There's a qualitative difference between the sheer power of the presidency and lesser (especially local) offices.
Some of us are capable of drawing distinctions.
torridjoe on 06 Apr 2005
The concept of term limits suggests that all politicians, good or bad, become stale after a while and need a "finish ruling by" date. I would prefer that the decision on term limits be merit-based rather than calendar-based. If citizens see fit to elect Bud Clark 10 times in a row, so be it. We WANT the good ones to stick around--term limits are only something people support for bad politicians.
Paul on 06 Apr 2005
The brief foray into term limits in the legislature illustrated the risk we run with placing limits. For a state so dedicated to citizen legislators, councils, and commissions if we won't pay the big bucks, we can't make it hard for citizens to run their government. It is not a part time occupation.
William on 06 Apr 2005
Some of us are capable of drawing distinctions.
b!X, while I have some ideas in my head about the distinctions, I am curious what your reasons are. Why should sheer power dictate limits? Senators, for instance, don't have term limits...
The One True b!X on 06 Apr 2005
Senator's aren't presidents.
(Yes, I'm being flip, but consistent.)
M on 06 Apr 2005
If I can offer an amendment to "Ick, term limits," how about, "Yay, institutional memory?" Do you not value institutional memory very highly, Jack?
Alan DeWitt on 06 Apr 2005
William: Presidents are in a position to make a play for dictatorship. City councilmen and Senators generally are not. Difference enough?
Paul Gronke on 06 Apr 2005
It's naive to suggest that an established politician with ties to large and well-organized groups would not be benefitted, at least initially, under this system. That goes for every city council member.
It's also not credible to claim that voters need to see the system in action for four years in order to judge its effectiveness. On what grounds will they make this decision? The public doesn't have much interest in these sorts of procedural reforms. I think the advocates are fully confident that once this is in place, then the voters will simply vote "yea" and get on with their lives.
Chris, I continue to be unconvinced by the kind of arguments being made by advocates, and in your City Club report.
The most commonly made argument is that this reform will somehow restore the public's faith in government and increase public participation. Do we even have any evidence, not just anecdotes please, that this is a problem?
My honest worry is that this is just another good-government effort, very popular in Portland, that flies in the face of ongoing budgetary and economic problems. Expending valuable political capital and public funds at this time on this problem worries me a great deal.
Ultimately, I don't think this will change much in Portland. I'm in favor because I think a federal public finance system is badly needed.
But for PDX, I'm a lot more interested in abolishing our antiquated commissioner form of government and establishing electoral districts rather than at-large seats for the council. Until that happens, we'll continue to have a council that, in all candor, looks very homogeneous on age, gender, race, social class, and political grounds. This reform won't change that.
paul gronke on 06 Apr 2005
sorry 'bout that. it didn't take my html too well.
The One True b!X on 06 Apr 2005
sorry 'bout that. it didn't take my html too well.
Fixed.
Jack Bog on 06 Apr 2005
Do you not value institutional memory very highly, Jack?
In this case, it's Erik's memories of Vera. No thanks.
Chris Smith on 06 Apr 2005
I haven't seen any evidence that serious candidates for office in Portland are dissuaded by cost.
I personally know several people who did not run against Randy Leonard because they felt they could not come near his fundraising.
I have seen no evidence that candidates in Portland don't spend a lot of time in face to face contacts with voters and are constantly "dialing for dollars."
Jim F. had to borrow an office from a law firm across the street from City Hall to dial for dollars. Tom Potter was out talking to voters.
I have heard personally from more than one sitting commissioner that more than 50% of their campaign time was spent dialing.
Chris Smith on 06 Apr 2005
Sorry, the first and third lines of the last post should have been quoted in italics to refer to Paul's post.
The One True b!X on 06 Apr 2005
I'll fix it. For anal geek reasons I won't go into, I use <em> instead of <i> here, heh.
Cate Rhodes on 06 Apr 2005
It shouldn't be surprising that the first full public funding system took a vote of the people. In my home state of North Carolina, however, the legislature adopted this reform option for judicial races. The 2004 elections under this reform went great.
The One True b!X on 07 Apr 2005
But for PDX, I'm a lot more interested in abolishing our antiquated commissioner form of government and establishing electoral districts rather than at-large seats for the council.
I fully expect this to come up during public testimony and is one of the things I'm going to be paying the most attention to, since I continue to support the commission form.
So keep an eye out, because it's likely that I'll be starting up that conversation in the wake of the campaign finance reform hearing.
Belinda on 07 Apr 2005
I have a question about the publically owned campaign proposal. Can a candidate spend money to get the initial 1,000 signatures and $5 contributions?
panchopdx on 07 Apr 2005
Diverting public funds for private political speech.
Triple ick.
Jon in Maine on 07 Apr 2005
I have a question about the publically owned campaign proposal. Can a candidate spend money to get the initial 1,000 signatures and $5 contributions?
I don't know about your proposal, but in Maine there is an allowance for "seed money" which can only come from private citizens (no PACs or corporations) and no larger than $100. They also are limited in total amount depending on whether it is House or Senate. This is the only private money candidates are allowed to raise and it's very limited in size and source.
Marshall Runkel on 07 Apr 2005
Belinda asks,"Can a candidate spend money to get the initial 1,000 signatures and $5 contributions?"
Short answer, yes.
Long answer, see section 2.10.050 of the proposed code, link above, Seed Money, Prior Campaign Debt, In-Kind Contributions, and Volunteer Work-Hours. Candidates can accept seed money contributions during the exploratory and qualifying periods of the campaign cycle. Seed money contributions are limited to $100. The total of seed money contributions can not exceed ten percent of the primary election spending limit. That means aggregate seed money contributions would be limited to $15,000 for City Council/Auditor and $20,000 for Mayoral races.
Chris Smith on 07 Apr 2005
I haven't seen any reports online on what happened today, so here goes:
Commissioner Dan Saltzman was not present (I understand he was home with the flu), but he did send in an amendment limiting administrative costs to 10% of system costs. This level of engagement is possibly a sign that he intends to vote for the system.
All four other commissioners signaled their support for the proposal, although Commissioner Leonard conditioned his support on the $1.3M cost being prioritized in the budget process. Since the other three commissioners were more strongly in support, one would assume this will survive the budget process, eventually garnering Randy's vote.
None of the commissioners expressed any interest in referring this to the voters for adoption, and the Mayor indicated that since he had promised in his campaign to support this, he felt the voters who supported him had voted for it already. At least one commissioner asked why we would take a measure designed to blunt the effect of big money into a political process that was susceptible to big money.
The Mayor also committed that he would not take public financing in his next campaign, so that he would not benefit from the ordinance he was voting for. None of the other commissioners made this commitment.
The vast majority of testimony was in support (including yours truly on behalf of City Club), including a panel of out-of-town experts. Several business groups (PBA, Contractors, Realtors) expressed concern about whether this was a budget priority and asked to have the measure referred to voters. One citizen activist expressed concern that the City might sell off suplus property, including playing fields, to fund the system.
Second reading (the final vote) is tentatively scheduled for May 11 or 12 after the budget process is complete.
Bruce Anderholt on 10 Apr 2005
In response to Amanda #4:
A completely new entitlement that puts public dollars into private campaign bank accounts (incumbent or challenger) is very different from buying office supplies or computers for use by city employees in the workplace. The self serving benefit of "pickpocketing the taxpayer for campaign contributions" is obvious.
More importantly, fundraising is an arduous and (sometimes) humiliating process for political newcomers and incumbents alike.
Do you think that when Sam Adams, Erik Sten, or Randy Leonard run for Mayor that $400,000 to $600,000 (per election cycle) worth of public funds won't make life easier. All they have to do is gather $5,000 in $5 increment. That's just one or two direct mailings to their previous donors for an incumbent.
The only way to pass the smell test is to exempt all current City Commissioners for (at least) the next election cycle, irrespective of the office they seek. Even if they referred it to the voters, they should not be permitted to further leverage the advantage of incumbency.
paul gronke on 10 Apr 2005
Chris,
Were the potential opponents to Leonard *serious* contenders?
When Francesconi was "dialing for dollars," does that count as campaigning? When Potter is washing dogs at the Lab, is that the kind of policy contact you mean?
Yes, I'm being glib here, but you're drawing bright lines here that I just don't see.
I support public financing because I think it needs to be adopted at the Federal level. But I don't think it is going to change anything in Portland.
And I would delay adoption until we are not in the midst of a city budget crisis and a looming PPS budget meltdown. Sorry, I just can't get excited about spending a few million dollars on publicly financed elections when we are 12 short months away from a tremendous school crisis.
I'll be at City Club this Friday watching my president, Chris. We should say hello.
Chris Smith on 12 Apr 2005
Paul,
They were people who I think would have a shot at getting 1000 $5 contributions, and they were people whom I would seriously consider voting for.
Clearly what Jim was doing is campaigning, I just don't think it did much to help voters make a choice - I take that back - I think it's exactly what made voters choose Tom instead!
Unfortunately I'll be at a seminar at PSU on Friday. We'll have to meet some other time - I'll look forward to it.