May 07, 2005
Public Campaign Financing And The 'Incumbent Question'
Avoid The Appearance Of Impropriety
In advance of this Wednesday's second reading of the Sten/Blackmer Clean Money/Voter-Owned Elections proposal, Friday's Oregonian included an article which looked at the Incumbent Question.
Portland City Council members like the idea of offering City Hall candidates public money for their political campaigns -- but they're a lot less certain about whether they should accept the help themselves.
The council is scheduled to vote next week on a public campaign-financing plan that would begin in the 2006 elections. But Commissioner Dan Saltzman is floating the idea of banning sitting City Council members from accepting public money until voters weigh in. The public financing proposal would become law for next year's election without voter approval, but it could be reviewed by voters in 2010.
"That would let people know that this isn't just an incumbent protection act," he said.
According to the article, Saltzman and Mayor Potter have already pledged not to participate in the program if it is adopted by City Council, Commissioner Adams is examining running a Potter-style campaign, and Commissioner Leonard wasn't available for comment at the time.
The position of the proposal's sponsor, Commissioner Erik Sten, comes across as at least a little murky in the article. While he says that he would run a Potter-style campaign, that statement comes with the caveat of "if the election were held today". Meanwhile, the other sponsor of the measure, City Auditor Gary Blackmer explicitly didn't rule out participating in the program.
We've already ended up on the losing side of the debate over whether or not this proposal should be referred directly to the voters without first being adopted by Council itself for a trial period. While we support the proposal, we were one of the very few such supporters who thought it best to not have Council adopt it themselves.
In fact, part of our reasoning (although by no means the whole of it) was the Incumbent Question, so we'll turn now to that.
One of the things the proposal seeks to address is the appearance of impropreity (in addition to the possible actual impropriety) of the current method of funding candidates. By that very ethical math, then, it seems a no-brainer that Saltzman's proposal makes sense (and just how often do we find ourselves agreeing with him?)
In order to avoid the appearance of impropriety generated by sitting elected officials voting to give themselves public campaign financing dollars, all six of our current elected City officials need to publicly pledge that they will not participate in the program until and unless it is approved by voters.
Further, even if it looks ahead of time as if Saltzman doesn't have the votes to have his amendment to the proposal adopted into the final product, he should introduce it and force a public debate on the issue.
Comments (10)
Jack Bog on 07 May 2005
It's a waste of tax dollars, no matter which politician the money is handed to. There are so many other pressing needs in this city besides this. Fix the d*mn Buckman Pool with this money. Require real-time campaign finance disclosure, and put the data out there in a format that's easy to process. That's reform enough for this budget.
BTW, b!X, did you know that the comments box now looks gigantic, and the preview capitalizes and bolds every word? An artsy touch?
The One True b!X on 07 May 2005
Hrm. That's weird. It doesn't do that in any of the browsers I have here.
Chris Smith on 08 May 2005
Since the motivation behined Voter Owned Elections is to break the link between campaigns and highly concentrated groups of contributors, it makes no sense from a policy point of view to exempt a class of potential candidates from facing the political choice of whether to give up 'business as usual'. The amendment mentioned would in fact give permission for current incumbents to continue using the current system without fear of criticism. A very bad idea!
Whether incumbents may elect at their own option to pass up public funding is another question. But unless they emulate Mayor Potter and adopt their own voluntary limitations roughly comparable to the limits they would be under if they opted in, I think their motivations will be questioned...
Bob R. on 08 May 2005
B!x -
The comments box looks huge in MSIE, but ONLY when there are NO COMMENTS. As soon as someone enters a comment, everything looks fine. See if you can spot it in a post that still has no comments.
- Bob R.
The One True b!X on 08 May 2005
Yeah I still don't see it here. But that bit of info should give me a hint of where to look for what's happening in the page's code, when I'm more caffeinated a little more coherent.
The One True b!X on 08 May 2005
The comment box issue should be fixed, thanks to Bob's tip on where to look.
The One True b!X on 08 May 2005
The amendment mentioned would in fact give permission for current incumbents to continue using the current system without fear of criticism.
I don't buy the "without fear of criticism" part, because at this point there's clearly a pressure for them to commit to a Potter-style campaign.
Whether supporters of the measure like it or not, the idea of incumbents voting to give themselves public funds is going to stink to high heaven. That's the political reality. So prevent them from being able to take it until the voters weigh in, and push them to commit to running Potter-style campaigns in the meantime.
If they don't do the latter, they'd only be "without fear of criticism" if they aren't very bright, because there would definitely be criticism.
Chris Smith on 08 May 2005
I fear that you underestimate just how unique Tom Potter's campaign was.
ron ledbury on 08 May 2005
I just can't wait to see how someone will rebut the propriety of placing a provision within an initiative that reimburses the initiative sponsor for their efforts to obtain signatures and advertise for the passage of the initiative.
If the public buys it does that make it OK?
wally on 09 May 2005
Jack Bog says:
It's a waste of tax dollars, no matter which politician the money is handed to.
What are the projected costs, exactly? There is some sort of cap, right?
I was a little confused when I read the ordinance. Does it require full disclosure about donations from both those running with public dollars and those who don't?