You guys arent any Joe Shmoe.

You have forums and readers and therefore the wage is all tainted.

Each of you should find a Mr Annonymous -- and you shouldnt plug him / her in your paper or blog. Let them figure out how to get media on their side if this is really going to be the "average joe" wager.

Not allowing someone to discuss a candidacy in an opinio column contradicts the spirit of clean elections. Surely you don't mean to suggest that only insiders with access to your expertise can run or office?

Kari, I don't see a geographical limit anywhere in the proposal. The only problem with Phil's proposal, as far as I can see, is that you can't spend freely. So to return the $128.33 on the $5 "investment", you'd have to hire 1500 campaign workers and pay them $128 to stand around for an hour (for example). But is there anything illegal about this?

More to the point of the proposal, I suppose I'd like to know what is the problem that this proposal is supposed to fix. An underfunded candidate just won City Council (Adams) and Mayor (Potter). Portland has a history of very active citizens, and involved and energetic community groups, and very high levels of voter participation. If it ain't broken ...

I think Blackmer has better evidence on some of these points; I'd be pleased to see some of that here. The proposal claims at various points without documentation that:

• Council and mayoral decisions are overly influenced by large campaign contributors, to the detriment of the mass public
• That we have fewer competitive elections than would be ideal
• That candidates in Portland elections have insufficient personal contact with potential voters
• Clean money jurisdictions see a general increase in the number of serious candidates competing for office.
• "Research indicates that at least some of these candidates came from historically under-represented communities." (what research?)
• large campaign contributions create the appearance (emphasis added) of a conflict of interest
  

I am inclined to want to reduce the impact of big money in politics, but this proposal seems to me to be ill-timed politically, given the budgetary situation. If we're going to institute this just because the voters erroneously perceive a conflict of interest, then that is not a very convincing argument.

=====
Side note: this urban myth is promoted throughout Oregon, but has no basis in fact: Since 1996 voters have used the mail ballot to select candidates in Portland and throughout Oregon, increasing voter participation rates. All the scholarly evidence to date indicates that Oregon's vote by mail system has not increased participation; what it does it retain frequent voters in low intensity contests.

Lord, people! There's a lot of misinformation on this thread. For example, what True B!X inferred is true. Adams was extremely well financed, particularly for the primary. His problem was coming across as the person with an entitlement complex he is, just like Francesconi. Adams was able to humble himself and soften his image in the long run. The large gay turnout helped him, too. Perhaps the Prof should become a student again. Oregon has one of the highest voter participation proportions in the country. It was around 82 percent for the last time around. Washington isn't far behind. Though they don't have a vote by mail statute, most voters do. All this information is freely available . Beats me why people would have an inacccurate impression and then pass it on.

1000 Friends of Oregon has enough money and they can raise plenty more. Why don't you make the Dougy Center the recipient instead? M.

Why couldn't Phil just tell the 1500 five dollar givers that he will give the five bucks back after he gets the 200K? Also wouldn't it be easy for 1000 Freinds of Oregon or any similar organization (say a union) to cough up 1500 individual five dollar donors, requiring their candiate of choice to do no work at finding the 1500 folks? Phil is right. This campaign funding plan is silly.

Mac Diva,

Oregon has always been a high turnout state, even before VBM. There is a cause and effect problem here.

Jeff, Yes, links: Berinsky, Adam, Nancy Burns, and Michael Traugott. 2001. “Who Votes By Mail? A Dynamic Model of the Individual-Level Consequences of Voting-By-Mail Systems.” Public Opinion Quarterly 65: 178-97.

Hamner, Michael J. and Michael W. Traugott. Forthcoming (2004). “The Impact of Voting By Mail on Voter Behavior.” American Politics Research.

Karp, Jeffrey A. and Susan A. Banducci. 2000. “Going postal: How all-mail elections influence turnout.” Political Behavior 22(3): 223-239.

You may need a college affiliation to get these; email me and I can send you the PDFs.

b!x, I stand corrected on Adams vs. Fish. I just checked their expenditures; pretty close race financially, a lot closer than I'd expected. Perceptions are funny, eh?

My main questions remain unanswered. I know this sounds good in a progressive, populist sort of way.

But what problem is this proposal supposed to fix?

And isn't this a politically inauspicious time to be pushing a proposal for public funding of elections to the tune of 1.3 million? Do we have better things to do with public funds at this particular time?

If this proposal has such widespread public support, I'd say refer it to the voters. I'm not a huge fan of initiatives and referrals, but this sort of fundamental change to the elections process does strike me as the sort of issue that is best left to the voters, and not to incumbent politicians who could very likely benefit from the very system they are proposing.

"But what problem is this proposal supposed to fix?"

Inequity of access. If Potter hadn't come along with his name recognition, Jim "dialing for dollars" F. would be our mayor, no contest. No one else could compete against the Francesconi steamroller. Kari's example of James Posey is an excellent one. You can't just say, well anyone is free to go out and do what Potter did. Potter is a special case due to his high profile service to Portland (and Francesconi made some spectacularly bad mistakes).

As I see it, the clean money proposal is a public investment that will ensure access to public office for serious, worthy, but un-"connected" candidates.

I want to see if Stanford takes the bet. Go Kari!!

The problem with this idiotic idea is not that any Joe could get the $5 donations. The problem is that such a structure heavily favors organized interest groups (such as unions, or any ideological political organization) who can easily and cheaply communicate with their members.

Think how easy it would be to create mischief in such a system. Here's a scenario:

Oregon Right To Life, with tens of thousands of members, many of them in Portland, sends out an e-mail to their members saying "Please write $5 checks to the following ten people, and mail them to us."

You think they would have much trouble getting 1500 of their very motivated single issue activists to write $50 in checks?

So, they have just qualified 10 people for a city commission race. Now, nine of them spend their money on behalf of the tenth - they consolidate the $200K they each have into a $2 million campaign on behalf of one candidate.

All with public money.

Who here thinks that Oregon Right to Life, Oregonians in Action, Citizens for Sound Economy, or even the Republican party itself would have a hard time finding the requisite number of motivated activists to write ten $5 checks?

It is stunning that the geniuses proposing this stupid idea can't think down the path enough to see now easy it would be for interest groups to game their "Clean Money."

I guess we shouldn't be surprised, though. Eric Sten couldn't see that he was wasting $20 mil or so on a failed billing software that could have been done locally for about $400K. Why would we expect he could think through this?

If you want to instantly allow candidates from conservative activist groups to become competitive in city races, by all means pass this scheme. And we conservatives will thank you.

Let the gaming of Clean Money begin!

Whatever safeguards are created, I guarantee you there will be someone (or some group) stepping up to expose this boondoggle for what it is.

I hope the council approves it (without a public vote - because it would lose) so that we can all witness the spectacular intellectual bankruptcy of this idea.

Someone once observed that the only way to prevent money from influencing politics is to stop politicians from trying to influence the flow of money.

Recognizing that maxim is never an option for the big government set, so an endless stream of campaign finance regulations are proposed every year to "protect the public interest".

Public financing is not any different. In order to prevent people from gaming it, they'll have to attach so many rules that common folks won't be able to use it - further professionalizing politics.

When the whole scheme flops, the "enlightened" folks who proposed this will undoubtedly blame mankind's evil nature for not embracing their brilliant plan (like the bitter communists I run into from time to time).

It seems a lot of the criticisms of this proposal are based on conjecture that isn't borne out by reality.

I'm in the 'other' Portland where we have Clean Elections. And it has done a lot of good, and there aren't the problems people are saying will happen.

I'll take a few of the ones mentioned above, such as "That candidates in Portland elections have insufficient personal contact with potential voters"

Well, candidates themselves say this was the case in Maine. When you have to spend so much time raising money, you have less time with voters. That has changed here.

"Clean money jurisdictions see a general increase in the number of serious candidates competing for office."

Indeed they do. In Maine, we have had about a 20 - 30% increase in the number of candidates since before the system was implemented. However, we are not seeing the "wackjobs" predicted by some of you Oregonians. We see more contested primaries, fewer uncontested general election campaigns, and some three-way general election races. This has given the voters more choice, but I can't say that any of these candidates represent any extreme point of view. We haven't had skinheads or clowns using the system. It's hard enough so you have to be serious about using it, but easy enough to increase competition.

"Research indicates that at least some of these candidates came from historically under-represented communities."

While we have very little ethnic diversity in Maine (we are the whitest state in the nation) I can tell you that the backgrounds of candidates has changed significantly since we have instituted this system.

It used to be that mainly lawyers and businessmen would be our candidates, because that's who had connections to money. You probably see the same in your Portland. However, now people who would not have run traditionally, like social workers and teachers are running and winning with public financing. This can only be good for our system, as it makes the perspective in the capitol more representative of the people. Our new Senate President is a children's librarian at her other job. What are the backgrounds of your Mayor and your State Senate President?

"Public financing is not any different. In order to prevent people from gaming it, they'll have to attach so many rules that common folks won't be able to use it - further professionalizing politics."

The opposite has happened here. Sure there are a lot of rules, but 'common folks' are using the system much more effectively than they ever could with the traditional system.

"But what problem is this proposal supposed to fix? And isn't this a politically inauspicious time to be pushing a proposal for public funding of elections to the tune of 1.3 million? Do we have better things to do with public funds at this particular time?"

You'd be surprised and how much of your tax dollars go to support the efforts of the big campaign contributors. Tax breaks for corporations, development contracts, etc. It's likely that a public financing system will lead to a savings for the average taxpayer.

The problem now is who your elected officials listen to. Is it who has the deepest pockets, or you? Hands up - who has talked to their city council member this month? The wealthy campaign contributors have.

Now that we have public financing in Maine, our legislators no longer listen so much to the insurance companies, and that is why we passed Dirigo Health - the most comprehensive health care reform in the nation.

So that's a little food for thought. It's good to have this debate, but some of the criticisms are just grasping at straws.

--Jon

First, thanks for the space for this debate to occur.

On the allied campaign front, state law now requires candidates to spend campaign cash on their own campaigns. Raising money for one candidate while intending to support another constitutes fraud. The final language for Portland's proposed system will make this requirement explicitly clear.

Independent expenditures are covered in Auditor Blackmer's report. I encourage everybody to read it. (http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=50302) If nothing else comes of this debate, I hope people in Portland gain a greater appreciation for their incredibly competent and thorough Auditor.

Despite everybody's best efforts, problems with the system will inevitably emerge. A citizen commission will be empanelled to arbitrate problems as they emerge and recommend improvements to the system on an ongoing basis.

As a staffer for Erik Sten, I would enthusiastically accept any constructive criticism of the proposal and also be happy to answer any substantive questions about it. Call (503 823 3597), write or post. I'd also be interested in collecting names of people who would be willing to serve on the citizens commission.

Thanks again for opportunity to have this debate here.

You don't think it will be easy to manipulate their campaign messages to have nine candidates supporting one without committing fraud?

It's simple. Candidate 1 takes a position on issue X before anyone else does, thus associating his name ID with position X (think Saxton and PERS in 2002). Then candidates 2-10 bombard the airwaves in support of position X without trying so hard to establish name ID.

Go ahead and trip over yourself coming up with a bunch of rules regulating the way candidates can talk about issues.

It won't make a difference, because it really doesn't even matter if candidate 1 wins or not. Consider the Right to Life example from Rob Kremer above, that organization would probably consider $2 million worth of pro-life commercials (showing abortion photos and remorseful young women) running in Portland to be worth the effort of prodding their members to enable the campaigns. Even if their candidates lose spectacularly, they can rationalize that they might have prevented a few abortions.

And, BTW, I have read the whole proposal (linked on b!x's site - thanks!) and came up with a half dozen different ways to (legally) game it. I won't share the rest of them, because if this passes I'm going to spend the next election cycle inspiring others to do just that.

So I hope you guys get this stupid thing passed.

This will be an amusing civics lesson.

Kari,

Maybe the reason Stanford won't take the bet is that there isn't anything in it for him.

A steak dinner in exchange for raising $1500 in $5 increments over the next 4 months?

Reminds me of the way Cartman wins at "Ro-sham-bo" on Southpark:

"First I kick you in the nuts, then you kick me, we go back and forth until someone quits."

Cartman always kicks first then concedes.

Now if you offered Stanford $200k, I'm sure he'd take you up on it.

Kari states: “Marshall says "Raising money for one candidate while intending to support another constitutes fraud." But using the money to attack another candidate is clearly allowed.

For that you must blame the FCC who claims that it’s allowed on the basis of free speech. In any event, this concern is touched upon in the section of the Draft regarding general issues surrounding Campaign Financing:

“One means of limiting spending that has been discussed is the provision of free or reduced cost radio and television advertising. The granting of licenses to broadcast in communities also includes requirements to include programming on local interest issues. The Federal Communications Commission defines and regulates these requirements, whereas local communities have greater influence through cable television franchises. Efforts are underway in some local jurisdictions to mandate free airtime to municipal candidates, with production assistance from the local cable TV studio.”

To quote Eric Sten, ”There is no perfect system. But don't let the perfect be the enemy of the improved to paraphrase an old cliche.”

On that note, PanchoPdx – you are a perfect example of what stands in the way of improvement when you boast:

“And, BTW, I have read the whole proposal (linked on b!x's site - thanks!) and came up with a half dozen different ways to (legally) game it. I won't share the rest of them, because if this passes I'm going to spend the next election cycle inspiring others to do just that.”

Here’s another cliché that I think applies to those of you possessing a similar mindset to PanchoPdx: “if you’re not a part of the solution – then you’re part of the problem.”

The best, most recent example of the teaming up to take down an incumbent strategy happened this spring when a group of neighborhood activists organized a coordinated effort to defeat Randy Leonard. The best performing candidate of that group, Mark Lakeman, received 9,743 votes, 8.38% of votes cast for the position. One other candidate, Frank Dixon, received over 9,000 votes, 9100 votes and 7.83% of votes cast to be exact.

The financial model that Auditor Blackmer assembled to predict costs for the system assumes that Frank Dixon and Mark Lakeman would have qualified for public funding.

My understanding is that the reason that so many people ran is that opponents of Commissioner Leonard could not agree to rally behind one candidate. If that's true, why would candidates who really wanted to win cooperate to help their competition?

Representations to the effect that people would be willing to spend enormous amounts of time and energy away from family, friends and jobs in an effort that is guaranteed to produce nothing except negative press attention for deliberately subverting an election reform effort while wasting tax payer dollars aren't convincing me.

The much more likely scenario is that smart, hard working candidates who can't take six months off work and raise the minimum $200,000 ante to run a credible city race now, will be able to qualify for the new system. That's what's happened in Arizona and Maine.

Again, I'm very interested in any ideas to improve the current proposal. So as you are imagining ways to undermine the system, please also spend some time thinking about potential antidotes.

Merry weekend to all and to all a good afternoon.

(sigh) I must be daft.

Kari, first you say “But using the money to attack another candidate is clearly allowed.” Upon reading that, I assumed that you were against negative advertising being utilized to attack other candidates and for having it allowed within the Draft.

However, then you respond to my comment with: “The FCC is not to blame for allowing negative campaigning. The First Amendment is. I don't believe there's a single person - not even you, allehseya - that would argue that our Constitution does (or should) prohibit criticizing an elected official or a candidate.” --- Which leads me to question my earlier assumption that you are against negative campaign advertising.

Before I even get started on how the First Amendment itself is abused by the FCC to justify it’s (de)regulation of media – (for purposes of our discussion – in particular campaign advertising policies in media) – blah, blah, blah. . . . (I will spare you The Rant). . . .

I should clarify that there is a difference (in my mind) between what is implied by "criticizing” versus ”attacking" -- so I guess I’m confused by your choice of using them interchangeably as a basis for your argument.

--- In fact, I’m so daft that I’m not really following the argument well at all (I'm sorry).

Would you clarify your stance a bit more -- including what you propose towards resolving the issue you have? I promise to spare you The Rant if you do (heh).

Oh. And by the way, thank you for correcting me by pointing out “Erik (with a K, dammit)”.

My apologies, Commissioner Erik Sten -- for any disrespect my negligence may have implied.

Allehseya,

I am part of the solution, as long as you define the solution as preventing the City Council from adopting more harebrained ideas at the expense of the taxpayers.

BTW, your post sounds a lot like the (bitter communist) griping about the inherent weakness of mankind that I predicted earlier in this thread.

PanchoPdx,

While overlooking how you apply 'tone' to my post, I couldnt help but notice the contradictions inherent within yours:

On one hand, you state: "I have read the whole proposal (linked on b!x's site - thanks!) and came up with a half dozen different ways to (legally) game it. I won't share the rest of them, because if this passes I'm going to spend the next election cycle inspiring others to do just that.

So I hope you guys get this stupid thing passed.

On the other hand, you boast:

"I am part of the solution, as long as you define the solution as preventing the City Council from adopting more harebrained ideas at the expense of the taxpayers."

Which is it? Do you hope it passes (so you can game it) or do you truly want to prevent City Council from adopting an idea at the expense of taxpayers?

If it is in fact, the latter -- I suggest you share your schemes so as to avoid wasting the taxpayers dollars.

Clarity: In my eagerness to go back under the Clear BLUE sky (what a beautiful day!).... I didnt clarify --

If it is in fact, the latter -- I suggest you share your schemes so as to avoid wasting the taxpayers dollars.... before it passes

Who knows, Pancho -- you might contribute to something you actually approve of.

allehseya,

I answer to Erik or Eric. You are making sense to me.

Cheers,

Erik

<h1></h1>

Kari, Five'll get you ten Phil ignores your baiting and never answers. How about it -- wager on? He and I can have drinks on your nickel and toast to the better part of valor.

<h1></h1>

No contradictions Allehseya.

This idea is so monumentally stupid that I want it to get passed just so we can watch it fail spectacularly. If it takes wasting $10 million in public money to wake up Portland voters to the fact that this city is being run by fools, so be it.

The bigger this thing blows up, the better.

And there is no reason for me to share my schemes before it passes unless I know that doing so will actually prevent it from passing altogether.

Imagine if the Republicans in Congress thought it would be a good idea for the Patriot Act to allow all local police officers to have complete access to all email traffic records from all ISP's without warrant or even reasonable suspicion.

Pretty scary huh?

Now imagine you hated the idea so much that you believed that the people would revolt if it was fully implemented and vote them all out in 2006.

Would you want to water it down so that maybe it only applied to the ISP's serving college campuses, or would you want it designed to piss off as many people as possible?

The idea of forcibly redistributing wealth from private citizens to support political candidates is rotten to the core. Morally bankrupt and fiscally stupid. I don't want to do anything to ameliorate it's wastefulness, because at the end of the day a less wasteful proposal is still immoral. I just want to stop it altogether.

So, yes Allehseya, I am thinking of the taxpayer when I tell you that if this passes I'm going to help as many people game it (legally) as possible. I'm thinking of the taxpayer who does not want to be forced to subsidize political speech he finds repugnant.

Once Portland voters spend a month watching nonstop political commericials advertising strippers, used car salesmen, street preachers, fraternity rush chairmen, NAMBLA recruiters, all the geeks on public access tv and the Mayor of Dignity Village on every cable channel, maybe the wrongfulness of this scheme will become clear to the voters.

Oregon's free speech provision, Article 1 Section 8 (the one that the fundies are always trying to amend to outlaw strip bars) also protects the right of individuals to speak politically through campaign donations.

The limits for giving to federal candidates fall under the purview of federal law.

Under both Oregon and US Consititution, campaign donations are protected political speech. However, in Oregon the protection is closer to a bright line kind of right, while at the federal level there is some sort of (mushy) balancing of interests involved. That's why no one knew whether McCain/Feingold would be upheld (and now that most of it was upheld, no one is sure how long that it will last with three possible new appointments coming under Bush).

Regardless, the limitation that Kari proposes will probably pass legal muster if it is voluntary (i.e. the candidates decide to reject checks from people who have already donated to others) AND it does not prevent people from making multiple donations.

But this "solution" will require a lot of tracking by candidates and the City to work.

If only one donation can count for Clean Money, how will the City know which one? You can't penalize someone for writing two checks, since their ability to donate is constitutionally protected in Oregon.

What if someone meets Candidate A one week, likes him and writes a $5 check, then meets Candidate B the next week and LOVES her writing another $5 check?

Does the last expression of support count?

Or is it first in time, first in line?

Can someone rescind their earlier donation even if the check has been cashed already?

What if the checks are written on the same day?

Should fundraisers be required to disclose all the donation rules to prospective donors?

Go ahead and come up with more rules to protect your giveaway of public funds. At the end of the day it will become too difficult for anyone but a professional politician to navigate them and you'll be right back where you started.

I have a better idea. Let's follow the lead of the Oregonian's editorial board last week ("three terms as Mayor is one term too many") and give them reasonable term limits (two terms as a commissioner and two terms as Mayor). After that we trade four (commissioners) for eight councilors (plus one mayor) and start electing them by region so we get real people from different Portland neighborhoods. Hire a professional city manager, dissolve the PDC, make the city work for its residents.

We'll never get rid of the "evil influence" of money in city elections, but we'll make it more difficult for a couple of puppet masters to hold most of the strings.

It won't cost millions of dollars every two years and we won't have to make Portlanders subsidize political speech they find abhorent.

To paint or not to paint . . . that is the question.

”I have a better idea…” Well, Pancho – at least it’s better than your other ‘idea’ of a solution.

A lot of thoughts and questions have occurred to me while reading this on-going thread – but -- they'll have to wait. I need to get back to my canvas and finish this painting if I have any hopes of it being dry and ‘fixed’ by the time it’s unwrapped . . .

. . . but I do want to remind people that this Draft we discuss here, that we critique and attack is not written in stone. Like the painting that I have to return to, it’s a work in progress. Unfinished. Malleable: and as such, ripe with potential.

Unlike me, the creators of this work, dare two things: They reveal the work-in-progress to your ever-critical gaze in its incomplete stage. And braver still, they place the paintbrush in your hands, entrusting the work in progress to your unique touch. In this way, you are invited to become co-creators in a collaborative work.

So when you hear yourself think ‘yes . . ’But, the Clean Money system can be better than it is currently constructed.’ My only advise from one artist to another is, well: paint!

(cheers)

Hello!?! The only way to reduce the influence of money in politics ("Clean Money") is to reduce the amount of money that flows through government. But we are not talking about that.

The Orwellian use of the name "Clean Money" cannot disguise the ugly truth about this ill-conceived proposal. To co-mingle tax money (not paid voluntarily) with politcal subsidies (determined by rule-makers), is really about turning Clean Money into Dirty Money.

What? How could that be? The idea of a public subsidy to fund a political campaign is predicated upon a repugnant violation of property rights. No matter what the courts or elitocracy say - it is wrongful for government to take money from individuals to propogate opinions with which they disagree. That is the inescapable reality of public finance of political campaigns. Thos. Jefferson called it "sinful and tyrannical". Look it up. Oh that's right. He's poltically incorrect.

How about Clean Billing from the Water Dept.?

Pancho, count me in.

The point is that tax dollars should not be influencing elections. There is little difference between the Clean Money giveaway of public funds and the Federal Drug Czar spending your tax dollars to try to defeat medical marijuana initiatives in all over the country.

In fact its much worse.

Bweeep. Bweeep. Bweeep. Conflict of Interest Alert.

I do not understand how City Officials can spend public time on this Free Money scheme. Is there some public health and safety threat from our current election laws that is being invoked to justify it? Why, then?

It would be one thing if the people had already signed tens of thousands of initiative petitions for Free Money. Then, the City Commission, in recognition of the public outcry represented by the signatures, could have "taken it from here" and given the people a chance (election) to adopt the measure as drafted by chief petitioners. They could have saved the people of Portland from having to run Sec. of State Bradbury's take-no-prisoners, signature disqualification gauntlet by simply referring the Free Money initiative to the ballot. Then there would have been an ounce of legitimacy to public officials' involvement in this.

As it is, however, the whole mess screams of conflict of interest. Mr. Sten and Mr. Blackmer, the progenitors of the Free Money scheme, would presumably run for election under these new rules? No way.

Ethical solution: Mr. Sten and Mr. Blackmer ought to immediately announce that upon enactment of Free Money, they will resign from office.

Further, they should account for their errors of judgement in taking an active interest and spending public dollars on this obvious conflict of interest and immediately suspend further activity.

Wake up to this reality. Even people who are not "conservatives" believe that there are still quite a few things - including elections - that are simply too important to be left to politicians.

"Wake up to this reality. Even people who are not "conservatives" believe that there are still quite a few things - including elections - that are simply too important to be left to politicians."

Right, elections should be left in the hands of those who control them now - the campaign contributors.

Because all campaign contributors give solely out of altruistic reasons and care only about the good of society.

And they should be the ones who can determine who can raise enough funds to run for office.

With a clean elections system, you might have community leaders with no ties to big business run for office - and maybe even win!! They should be kept where they are now - feeling they don't have the financial resources to run for office.

So yes, let's make sure that the Enrons and Halliburtons keep control of the federal government and local construction firms, bankers, real estate developers and media companies keep control of elections at the local level.

God forbid they lose their power!

--jon :|

Jon,

Three points to consider:

a. Gov't should be as neutral as possible in the election process and elections should be left in the hands of the voters. Putting rule-making politicians between the campaign spending $$ and the political candidates is a step in the wrong direction. Voluntary disclosure of donors will Clean politicians' Money for those to whom it is important.

b. Looked at it from a public choice theory perspective, it makes sense that lobbyists' power stems from the vast sums of $$ flowing through gov't. While corporate interests are obvious, most lobbyists are actually public spending agencies themselves. As long as we reprocess increasing amounts of privately-created wealth through the collective, the recipient interests will ramp up expenses to politicians and others to secure that flow. It's just a cost of doing business. Money does not corrupt politics. Politics corrupts money. Reducing the size, scope and power of gov't is the ONLY way to reduce the influence of money in politics. Look at McCain Feingold and the 527s - that really worked as advertised (not).

c. There is a proper role for gov't and that is determined by constitutional law. Staying within that, not finding ways to expand it without changing the constitution (or charter), ought to be our elected officials' charge. Changes to the arrangements, like the Free Money scheme, ought to be brought forward for popular approval by non-politicians ... either grass roots activists or retired officials, who would stand to gain ZERO from adoption of the new rules.

Ramon

Or, they have to give up on the idea that the Council adopts it themselves and refer it to the voters instead.

I second that motion. (lets paint)

My Concerns:

1. Candidates backed by healthy, well-financed organizations will have the easiest time raising the "entry-fee". Then there's no guarantee that those organizations won't spend their own money backing their candidate.

2. The grass-roots Portland organization with the most successful history of sending its best folks on to public office is the NA system. – Yes, our friend in the "other" Portland, one of our greatest Mayors was a pub-owner, a bar-keep. He came out of "nowhere" (not really, he came out of the neighborhood association system) to challenge an incumbent considered so well-connected, so powerful, that no one with any "political" sense, would run against him. Bud beat him, handily, in the primary.

Margaret Strachan, Charlie Hales and many others also ran for Commisioner and won coming out of the NA system.

That was both before "clean money" and before the recent erosion of NA and coalition finances. In fact, the experience cited by the "other Portland" correspondent sound strikingly similar to the early days of Portland's NA system - when citizen involvement in city governance was first formalized and financed by Portland.

And, here's an interesting question - who would have won, Potter or Francesconi, had they both been using "clean money"? What was it that made Potter so compelling a candidate to the average Joe? It's early days yet, but if Potter proves to be one of our greater Mayors, you gotta ask - what was the clue we voters saw that led us to elect him?

1. I am concerned about WHERE that $ 1.3 million will come from. I've played the city budget game too often these recent years not to be worried about this. You know the line "well, do you think spending $350,000 on, oh, say, citizen involvement, is as critical a need as police or fire?" "Where", oh gentle innocent citizen at a budget workshop, "would you chose to cut?" I know lots of folks within the NA system are hoping this measure will provide for greater political participation. That would be a good outcome. But if its net effect is to take from the NA's budget, or possible future increases (I know, I know, now I'm REALLY dreaming...) if it further reduces the financial and therefor organizational strength of the NA's – that 1.3 million is almost the entire annual budget for 7 Coalitions and 95 NA's – we could find ourselves LESS represented then ever.

I also can't help remembering that "public financing" of the presidential campaigns was ALSO intended to make big-money donors less of a factor. That's sure worked well...