A little sunshine in Portland
By Liz Callison of Portland, Oregon. Liz describes herself as an environmental activist and is an elected director-at-large for the West Multnomah Soil and Water Conservation District Board.
Both nationally and locally, people are concerned about the effects of big money on politics. Right now in Portland, for example, an individual can give a large campaign donation to a public official, then walk into a city council meeting the same day asking for approval of a multimillion-dollar public works or consulting contract, to purchase public lands or approval of a land development project or tax abatement. The press never bother to report any of it.
A Contributions Disclosure Initiative, filed last week in Portland, is intended to address the question of undue influence by large contributors on decisions which are supposed to be made in the public interest.
In the tradition of sunshine laws, it will require Portland officials to state for the record any large contributor to his or her campaign, prior to participating in a decision involving that contributor.
This Initiative has already been endorsed by the Northwest Progressive Community coalition and the Eastside Democratic Club, and is now before the Multnomah County Democratic Party for consideration.
It was filed as a non-partisan City Charter Amendment. Under the Amendment, a "large contribution" means $1000 or more in aggregate donated to a single official since his first campaign for that specific office. Decisions covered under the Amendment include, among others:
- Tax abatements, public works contracts over $50,000 in value, urban renewal districts intended to increase land values, as some others.
- Decisions requiring this declaration would have to be included on the "regular agenda" not the "consent agenda" of the governing entity (since consent agenda items are adopted in a block without discussion).
- There will be minimal or no cost to the public because the responsibility for disclosure falls on the politician and the contributor.
- The "contributor" includes individual corporations, or persons and their households or businesses.
The City requires approximately 27,000 signatures to place the Initiative on the May 2006 ballot.
|
April 03, 2005
Posted in guest column. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Apr 4, '05
Liz - Did no one on City Council want to sponsor this as a law, or at least a referral to the voters? The Salem City Council sponsored a similar measure, which voters passed by a two-to-one margin, in May 2003 (I think). Did you ask Sam Adams about this?
Apr 4, '05
Right now in Portland, for example, an individual can give a large campaign donation to a public official, then walk into a city council meeting the same day asking for approval of a multimillion-dollar public works or consulting contract, to purchase public lands or approval of a land development project or tax abatement. The press never bother to report any of it.
You got that right...just look at the South Waterfront project and Randy Leonard.
9:58 p.m.
Apr 4, '05
Liz,
Well-intentioned yet off target. We don't need this layer of government to re-report information that has already been disclosed once. We need media that will both detect when an elected official is making a decision that may be skewed by a contribution and report on it. It is the job of the press to report and the public to pay attention. This "sunshine" won't help (and this is coming from a tremendous advocate for prompt and full disclosure as the best method of campaign finance).
Also, don't you think that this will push the electeds to pay too much attention to their contributor list, in order to be in compliance with the law? Currently, I'd hope that $1000 checks are the last thing on their mind when making big decisions. This law would bring it to the forefront and keep it there, always. Some politicians (Tip O'Neil for instance) never even look at where their political money comes from.
If I still thought it mattered, I'd stick around long enough at the County Party meeting to have my opinion shouted down.
11:35 p.m.
Apr 4, '05
Another questionn, Liz... I don't see anywhere in the language anything that defines "benefit". Let's say the City Council decides to send some money to Portland schools. Would the councilors have to research which of their $1000 contributors have kids - and then report each of them?
What about things that arguably benefit everyone - say, the Big Pipe sewer project - would they have to state the names of all their $1000 donors?
How much of a benefit is enough to get over the threshold?
11:38 p.m.
Apr 4, '05
For that matter, isn't the goal of sunshine just to have full disclosure? Starting with the 2004 elections, the City took the lead of Metro and is now posting FULL copies of C&E statements online. Why isn't that good enough?
Apr 5, '05
Under the Amendment, a "large contribution" means $1000 or more in aggregate donated to a single official since his first campaign for that specific office.
So, hypothetically if a person was to run say 2 or 3 times for an office before actually getting elected, over the course of presumably at least say 6 years, then once finally elected all those old contributor lists would have to be consulted to find out who had kicked in at least $1000 over that entire time frame?
Or somebody who had contributed $1000 in our hypothetical candidate's first (losing) campaign, then subsequently contributed to his or her opponent, would also have to be disclosed as potentially exerting undue influence?
Could be that I'm way out of touch, but $1000 in aggregate since your first campaign doesn't really sound like "big money in politics" to me... <nobr>;-)</nobr>
9:04 p.m.
Apr 5, '05
24 hours later.... I must admit a little dissappointment that you're offering no rebuttal. Come on, let's hear it?
Apr 6, '05
Notorious J.E.S. | April 4, 2005 09:58 PM Liz,
Well-intentioned yet off target. We don't need this layer of government to re-report information that has already been disclosed once. We need media that will both detect when an elected official is making a decision that may be skewed by a contribution and report on it. It is the job of the press to report and the public to pay attention.
JK: Of course it is their job. But the reality is that they aren’t doing it. So now what is one to do, more whining or take action? Liz chose action. You appear to be whining.
Notorious J.E.S. This "sunshine" won't help (and this is coming from a tremendous advocate for prompt and full disclosure as the best method of campaign finance).
JK: Wether or not it helps remains to be seen, but at least she is trying to solve the problem. And in a minimally intrusive manner, unlike other proposals. What are you doing about it?
Notorious J.E.S. Also, don't you think that this will push the electeds to pay too much attention to their contributor list, in order to be in compliance with the law? Currently, I'd hope that $1000 checks are the last thing on their mind when making big decisions.
JK: Indeed $1000 checks are the last thing on their mind, as a group of NW neighborhoods found out. It costs more that a mere $1000 to get their attention.(G)
Notorious J.E.S. This law would bring it to the forefront and keep it there, always. Some politicians (Tip O'Neil for instance) never even look at where their political money comes from.
JK: I’ll bet Tipsy didn’t start out that way. And that he only started ignoring contributors after he became so thoroughly entrenched that his job security was 99 and 44/100%
(Later message) Notorious J.E.S. | April 5, 2005 09:04 PM 24 hours later.... I must admit a little dissappointment that you're offering no rebuttal. Come on, let's hear it?
JK: A little demanding aren’t we? BTW, do you happen to have a real name other than “Notorious J.E.S”.
Thanks JK
8:09 a.m.
Apr 6, '05
JK:
My comments were directed at Liz, who was the guest contributor. Unlike you, who started off your rebuttal by calling me whiner and questioning my real (and easy to find) identity while disguising your own, Liz is thoughtful and who I'd hoped to engaged. I doubt she intended to post and run.
Cheers!
<hr/>