May 19, 2005
Oh Yeah, Voter-Owned Elections Was Adopted By Council
Yes, There Was Other News Yesterday
We missed the start of the agenda item, as we kept checking in on the live video feed, but early yesterday City Council adopted the Sten/Blackmer plan for publicly-financed campaigns by the expected vote of four to one.
When we joined the feed in progress, Commissioner Sam Adams was finishing up his pre-vote statement saying something about the proposal being good for the future of Portland. At least, we're fairly sure that's what he said -- by the time we got to typing some notes, Adams had voted in favor of the proposal and things had moved on to Commissioner Randy Leonard.
Leonard said that he had had two main concerns with the proposal: First, that candidates not be able to use the system to band together in a coordinated campaign against another candidate. As he normally points out (although we don't beleive he did so today), he doesn't consider the point an academic one, since a loose coalition of candidates ran against him in the last primary campaign for his Council seat.
Second, he said that he wanted to guarantee that the system would be referred to Portland voters. "Unfortunately." he said today, "it appears from the City Attorney's office that that's not possible to mandate." All the current Council could do, he explained, was recommend to a future Council to make such a referral. "But that's what it is," he said. "A recommendation."
Saying that he had learned in politics to not support something unless it's all in writing, Leonard said that he could not support the proposal in light of being unable to guarantee a referral to Portland voters. Leonard added that if it were to be part of such a referral campaign, "they [the voters], like myself would learn a lot about what the proposal really does". He said that he "would be happy to explain what this proposal does".
While crediting the "excellent work" done on the proposal, Leonard voted against its passage based upon the above reasons.
"When I first heard about this idea last year," said Commissioner Dan Saltzman, "I have to admit I was skeptical." He said that he had raised questions about the use of resources, and about the potential for abuse. "I've become convinced," Saltzman explained, "that it is a good idea and a wise use of public resources."
Saying that he had come to understand that the current system of funding campaigns "serves to exclude" a large number of Portland's citizens, including potential minority candidates, and that it was "unfair and counterproductive" to limit the system to those who can raise large sums of money, Saltzman called the proposal "the right thing to do, and it's in our community's best interests".
Saltzman said that the Code that had come before Council had addressed the concerns he had raised earlier on in the process, and considered his amendment to direct the City Auditor to come back to Council at a later date with a referral to the voters sufficient.
He added, before voting to adopt the plan, that although he is satisfied that the plan is a "good idea" and has proper safeguards in place: "I've personally decided against using it for my own re-election campaign." He said that while the plan is needed for those who currently are excluded from the process, "I clearly am not excluded."
Commissioner Erik Sten said that while he recognized that "there is disagreement as to whether this will work" he had also "yet to come up with anybody ... who defends our current system" -- including "large doners".
"This is something that's worth trying," Sten said, "and then once people understand it they will keep it or reject it, and that will be their choice, ultimately." He also said of the discussion of the proposal that because it's "tied to the power structure" the debate "often becomes about issues that are to the side of what's actually being discussed".
Finally, Mayor Tom Potter admitted that he had been able to run a campaign "about reaching out to people and doing a grassroots campaign" but that he considered himself to be "an anomaly".
"This will give people who don't have access to the big money," he said, "opportunity to compete side by side with incumbents." Referencing an Oregonian/KATU poll which showed 56% of respondents opposed to the plan, Potter added: "This isn't just about polls, this is about good government."
Comments (27)
panchopdx on 19 May 2005
Commissioner Erik Sten said that while he recognized that "there is disagreement as to whether this will work" he had also "yet to come up with anybody ... who defends our current system"
Our current system being the same sort of political fundraising occuring in every other major city in America.
While I highly doubt Erik couldn't find anyone to defend a system of voluntary campaign contributions (was he really looking) that's not the issue.
The real question is whether the new concept is something the people would favor over the (undefended) status quo.
I asked around my circle of friends and I have yet to come up with anyone who defends Erik Sten. But at least we'll get the opportunity in an upcoming election to consider a Sten alternative.
Kari Chisholm on 19 May 2005
I think it's important to note that by voting for this plan - and then pledging not to use it - these commissioners have done an extraordinary thing: They have effectively pledged to limit their own spending to the limits in the measure - since any challenger participating would get a dollar-for-dollar match if the commissioner went over the cap.
So, they've limited their own ability to compete without getting any of the benefits of the measure - the ability to dispense with fundraising in exchange for more voter contact.
(Of course, I believe that they should use the new system in their campaigns, because it's a good thing - but not using it is rather noble. They're empowering their opponents and putting themselves at risk.)
The One True b!X on 19 May 2005
My understanding that the plan as originally written wasn't a dollar-for-dollar match, but simply some additional funds to help offset the larger funds of the non-participating candidate(s). Did that get changed? It would surprise me if it had, for budgetary reasons.
Dave Lister on 19 May 2005
Kari,
I have a different opinion. An even money race is exactly what the incumbents want because it clinches their victory. It isn't noble at all; it's a slick piece of political maneuvering.
torridjoe on 19 May 2005
Dave--
how so? An even money race IMO likely means that each qualifying candidate will be seen by the media as "serious" in each phase for which they qualify.
Dave Lister on 19 May 2005
TorridJoe,
Any pollster or political analyst will tell you that the incumbent has a tremendous edge going in due to name familiarity. A challenger needs significantly more funding to get their message out. The other thing people are forgetting, when they talk about the "Potter anomoly", was the "Go Potter Pac". Even though Potter limited contributions to his campaign, the PAC was raising and spending money to get him elected. Even though it wasn't his campaign you need to add their expenditures in with his campaign's to get a true handle on how much was spent in his election effort.
Dave Lister on 19 May 2005
Come to think of it, the "Go Potter Pac" is a perfect example of how this finance reform can be thrwarted. A candidate limits his campaign's expenditures to the amount of public funding available, but other people spend their money on his or her behalf outside of the campaign. Is that scenario addressed in this ordinance? I'm curious.
The One True b!X on 19 May 2005
As far as I know, independent expenditures are factored into the formula to provide participating candidates with matching funds.
Again, as far as I know, it doesn't amount to a dollar-for-dollar match, and those matching funds, I believe, are capped at a certain percentage or amount and would have to be divided between or amongst all the participating candidates running against whoever also has the support of independent expenditures.
Dave Lister on 19 May 2005
Interesting. Let me pose this question. If I, as an independent citizen, chose to run, at my own expense, full page ads every Sunday in the Oregonian for six months urging people to vote for a particular candidate, who says I have to disclose that expenditure to anyone? I'm just buying an ad. Who says the Oregonian has to disclose to anyone what I paid for the ad? It's my money and it's their newspaper. Or, better yet, instead of the ad saying "Vote For" someone, it says "Don't Vote For" someone. I'm not sure there's any legal requirement of disclosure, particular if I did not attempt to take a tax deduction on it.
brett on 19 May 2005
I'm disgusted that taxpayer dollars are being used to fund campaigns. I guess all the city's other problems have been solved, since the City Council thinks it necessary to take my money and put in in their campaign coffers. I guess that means that we have enough parks, schools, police, and other services. And this after a mayoral election in which the moneyed candidate was defeated by the small-donations candidate.
I hope this is eventually referred to the voters, as Saltzman suggests. Democracy at gunpoint doesn't sit well with those looking down the barrel.
Dave Lister on 19 May 2005
I'm with you, Brett. And according to Hibbit's poll, so is fifty six percent of the electorate. But they did it anyway.
Dave J. on 19 May 2005
I'd like to ask the following question(s) of the members of the council who voted in favor of this measure:
It appears, through your vote for this measure, that you believe that money corrupts all political campaigns, and that candidates and voters are susceptible to being influenced by the actions of wealthy donors. Given that, how do you explain your own election? Was it a fluke, or were voters unduly influenced to vote for you?
doretta on 19 May 2005
In order to not aid the mythologizing process, please do add in the money spent by the ill-conceived GoPotterGo PAC. It was clearly a nonfactor in the election.
Potter campaign expenditure total: $155, 623.60
GoPotterGo expenditure total: $26,776.06
2004 final C&Es
Karin on 19 May 2005
When people use the argument against publicly funded campaigns because of the so-called misallocation of the taxpayer’s money (i.e. politicians instead of police), I believe they are missing the point.
The assumption is that big contributions influence elected officials and that influence leads to the taxpayer’s money being allocated based on the priorities of the big money contributor, not the priorities of the larger community. (This can be read as waste by many.) Therefore, if the candidates are “influenced” only by the larger community (believed possible through publicly funded campaigns), the politicians will make decisions based on the priorities of the public-at-large. In other words, the elected officials will spend money more inline with the wishes of the voters, rather than just a few big spenders, or, even more simply said, less waste.
Kari Chisholm on 19 May 2005
Dave, you wrote, If I, as an independent citizen, chose to run, at my own expense, full page ads every Sunday in the Oregonian for six months urging people to vote for a particular candidate, who says I have to disclose that expenditure to anyone?
State law and local ordinance says you have to. (And before you go screaming "Free Speech!" note that C&E reporting has held up nicely under constitutional scrutiny.)
Kari Chisholm on 19 May 2005
As to the dollar-for-dollar match question... Last I checked, the proposal was still a perfect match, up to a capped threshold.
The One True b!X on 19 May 2005
As to the dollar-for-dollar match question... Last I checked, the proposal was still a perfect match, up to a capped threshold.
Erm, which makes it not a dollar-for-dollar match because the non-participant can raise money beyond that cap.
Dave Lister on 19 May 2005
Kari,
You mean someone who isn't a candidate but paid for ads they bought themselves has to file C & E's? I'm talking about an individual, not a Pac, not a candidate and not an organization. Just a person. And I'm not screaming free speech, I'm just seeking an education on this.
Chris Smith on 19 May 2005
Dave,
Yes, state law and Portland ordinance would require you to report it if you did an independent ad.
Also, for those asking about the matching provisions: if a competing privately-funded candidate goes over the amount a publicly funded candidate would receive, or if an independent expenditure is made, an amount equal to those amounts is split among ALL the publicly funded candidates in the race.
However, such matches are limited to 2x the original amount of public funding, so the public purse does not have unlimited liability.
All of these scenarios were evaluated by Auditor Blackmer when he produced his $1.3M estimate (the middle of a high/med/low spread he developed - that guy is good with numbers). In the event that the costs exceed the cap in the ordinance, then the Citizens Commission established to oversee the system would have to make a recommendation on how to allocate the funding available.
brett on 19 May 2005
Only in Portland would someone defend public financing of election campaigns by suggesting that it would result in less waste. Karin, I am certainly not missing the point. The point is that the initiative itself is waste. Local governments in the Portland area are so strapped for cash that the county instituted a special income tax, imposed on everyone who enjoys the arguable privilege of living in Multnomah County. Apparently the city, by contrast, has so much money that it can afford to finance political campaigns to the tune of $200,000 a head.
I am suggesting that there are better uses for this money. Hell, I would rather see this money flushed down a toilet (and later appear in Newsweek) than see it used as a political slush fund.
Look at our neighbor to the north -- public money designed to be used to convince Quebec to remain in Canada ended up in the pockets of the ruling party's leaders and their political-consultant cronies. Do you really think it can't happen here?
This is creeping socialism, pure and simple. I hope the Councilpersons who voted for it pay the price at the polls, although I fear that creeping socialism is exactly what the average Portlander wants. Until it's too late.
brett on 19 May 2005
I just noticed the title of this entry. I have not been following the debate on this blog, so I hadn't previously noticed that particular cynically euphemistic and spectacularly inaccurate label for the program. The Ministry of Truth would be proud.
Ownership comes with a measure of control, and an expectation of some attendant benefit. The proper term for a situation in which your money is taken from you by force, and used to support programs to which you are vehemently opposed, all the while under the rubric of democracy, is theft.
activist kaza on 19 May 2005
Gee Brett, I guess that's why they called them "thieves in the temple". By your definition, any government (supported by any taxes) is bad. So I guess you are an anarchist, then?
PS better campaign finance controls are coming, state-wide (watch for the petitions)...and they don't involve public financing.
Dave J. on 19 May 2005
I wouldn't go so far as Brett and say that this is "creeping socialism," but I do wonder if this is the right idea for Portland right NOW. We aren't exactly swimming in money, you know.
Even worse, it is things like that that directly play into the hands of people who are aggressively anti school-funding. The mantra of those folks is "oh, they have the money, they're just not spending it right." That was their mantra when the iTax came up (both times), and fortunately the tax was passed, both times.
But as someone who agrees with proponents of the local tax, I get frustrated when those same folks engage in what I think is pretty risky politics by making a high-profile gift of money to politicians. Yes, we can argue until we are blue in the face about the advantages of incumbency, and we can debate the minutae of campaign finance reform, but my fear is that Sten et al. have really done a disservice to the people who are out there all the time begging for new revenue streams for the schools.
Because I can already guarantee that opponents of new school funding are going to be using this little gimmick as item #1 in their campaign ads. "Eric Sten says we have no money for schools, and he wants to raise YOUR taxes. So why did Eric Sten pass a measure that will give millions of taxpayer dollars for political campaigns, WITHOUT your approval? Vote no on Measure XX."
I can hear it now.
brett on 19 May 2005
It's a compelling argument, and the redeeming irony of the situation is that the argument will be paid for by Sten's program.
tomhiggins on 19 May 2005
I would love to have the election process be fair and accessable to all who had the good intent to run for public office. Problem is the whole thing is now mucked and mired with over priced flaks, media outletes that can raise the cashito bar higher at will, and all the while the people seem to support those methods which do indeed show flash over substance.
Yes there are excpections, more so in Portland than I had ever seen back east, but the systemic problem of the whole election process and the circus that goes with it does indeed favor the cash rich.
So is it the local govs burden to bandaid the process by dumping cash around to level the playing feild, money that is being taken out of a budget that routinley sees schools being threatend with closure and other services being cut?
I dont fault Sten for his intent, it is a worthy thing to try and level out the playing field in order to get some fresh blood into the process. But now is not the time. When is a good time? I dont know, I wish I did.
Its a tangled tale but it will probably come down to getting more biz into the city to gnerate more of a tax base, not by squezing those here out with more but getting more to come in and make a biz flurish that can pay its share of the revenues to the city coffers. If its about raising property tax then I am afraid things wont be of the happy ending variety.
Its tangled for sure and I wish I had more concrete ideas to toss into the mix, or any at all other than this... can we get this on the next ballot measure so I can vote on it?
-tom
TimNE on 19 May 2005
>has so much money that it can afford to finance political campaigns to the tune of $200,000 a head.
if you bothered to actually look at the city budget, you may come to relaize that this is probably not the best place to pick fights on trimming the budget. There are a lot of other larger ticket items where tax payers are getting screwed. PDC is one that has recently recieved headlines.
Ah brett, the token conservative of these comments always screaming "socialism is coming!" whever a progressive idea comes up. But brett is a moderate. He once voted for Democrates. But where is his outrage when it comes to corporations sucking at the taxpayers tit?
I do not know all the details of this proposal, but the city council, particularly Saltzman, can hardly be considered pushing "creeping socialism". I realy can't see Leonard signing off on "creeping socialism" (god forbid!) either. What a load.
If the council think it could work, why not spend a misicule fraction of the city's budget to let them try? Utlimtley if they are making a political mistake and voters really do hate it, then they will pay the price. It is nice to see some politician do something that may possibly (if you trust a poll) have over 50% oposition in the city and MAY POSSIBLY help fix the problem. It's a risk, but as any good capitalist knows, there are no rewards without risk. Either way my property taxes aren't going up or down as a result of this measure, so how much should I really care?
torridjoe on 19 May 2005
1.3 million a year isn't going to do bupkus for schools or almost any other program of note (something like Buckman pool, on the other hand...)
Nothing is free. If you think it doesn't cost you far more taxpayer money--or result in greater perceived misallocations--to have politicians campaigning for office 1/3 of the way through the term they already have, or seeing to it that projects grease the wheels for well-heeled donors, then I suggest you don't have a true picture of what those things cost the electorate.
The public wants officials responsive to their requests, rather than those who have bought the closest access. I personally think that for their occassional human faults, it is remarkable that City Councilmembers make themselves available and accountable in forums like this. Public financing changes the rules of accountabilit and enhances the connection. Now EVERY candidate will have to do what Potter did, get face time with people on an individual level.