It's not about "dirty money"
Kari Chisholm
This afternoon, I testified at the Portland City Council on the public campaign finance proposal. This was my testimony:
Thank you for having me here today. My name is Kari Chisholm, and I'm a political consultant. My firm is called Mandate Media and we do internet strategy for campaigns and nonprofit organizations. I should be clear that I don't speak for anyone but myself.
First, one minor technical suggestion. The definition of "qualifying contribution" includes cash, check, or money order. I'd suggest adding credit and debit card contributions, especially online. Online contributions are a tremendous democratizing force in our politics today.
As both Commissioner Sten and Auditor Blackmer can attest, I can talk for hours about the specific details of this measure. I'll spare you that today.
It was unfortunate that this proposal was initially known as the "Clean Money Initiative". It's led to a number of critics - particularly in the press - to go on a search for the "Dirty Money". They demand evidence of corruption, and in the absence of it, insist that there's no reason to push this idea forward.
To me, this proposal was never about corruption or the appearance of corruption. Rather, it's simply about the vast quantity of time it takes to raise the money to effectively run for office.
A few weeks ago, I met with a friend who's thinking of running for public office. He's exactly the kind of guy we want to serve - smart, savvy, progressive, and he's already proven that he can do great things for our community. (By the way, he's not running against any of you; so, no worries.)
But before we discussed his ideas, his goals, his policy proposals, or even his campaign message, we had to have that first tough conversation.
I reminded him that the office he intends to seek is going to require $100,000 to run. And he's got a year to raise it in time for the next primary election. That pencils out to $8,333 a month, every month, for the next twelve consecutive months.
Now, unless you're independently wealthy, raising that kind of money requires a substantial investment in time. The five of you know this, but I'd like everyone listening to put themselves in his shoes.
Just this month, you'd have to find 83 people to give you $100 apiece. That's a lot of phone calls. A lot of conversations. Even if you can find just eight or nine people who have $1000 each to give you this month, that's a lot of coffees, a lot of lunches, a lot of dinners.
After all, nobody will just give $1000. Ya gotta romance 'em.
And of course, once you've done it this month, you have to do it again next month. Another $8333. And the next month, and the next month.
Nevermind the source of all that money, just think about all the time that it takes. Twenty or thirty or forty hours a week.
Every hour a candidate spends raising money is an hour NOT spent meeting citizens, discussing issues, examining policy proposals, going door-to-door, going to community meetings, engaging citizens online, putting up lawn signs, doing all of those things that we call "campaigning".
Now, some will say, that's the candidate's choice. It's their free time they're giving up. But I also worry about how much time our elected officials are spending raising money instead of governing.
It's not about "Dirty Money". It's about making a choice between two visions of the future. Do we want our candidates and elected officials spending their hours raising money from those who can give it? Or do we want them talking to voters, listening, learning, communicating ideas, and engaging our community?
The city's net budget this year is $1.73 billion. The estimate for this proposal is $1.3 million - less than one one-thousandth of the city net budget.
I think it's quite clear. For the very small price of less than one-thousandth of our budget, the citizens of Portland can buy back the TIME of our elected officials and our candidates - who will then be more engaged with our community. And in turn, our community will be more engaged with our civic life.
There are, of course, a lot of implementation and enforcement details to be worked out, and I'm happy to help, but ultimately this proposal is a very good thing for Portland.
 |
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
6:00 p.m.
Apr 7, '05
Pimpin'
So who is running for candidacy?
6:40 p.m.
Apr 7, '05
I've never heard of someone "running for candidacy", but Jenson, you should do messaging on that campaign!
6:49 p.m.
Apr 7, '05
Brutal.
Apr 7, '05
Great testimony, Kari! I think you hit the proverbial $2 million nail on its $500K head.
10:15 p.m.
Apr 7, '05
Kari writes "Or do we want them talking to voters, listening, learning, communicating ideas, and engaging our community?"
Why does it cost money to "talk to voters"? What's the cost of "listening?"
The high cost of running for office is the cost of sound bite ads. Whoever pays for those ads, they're still sound bites...nothing substantial at all.
I think the idea that candidates not spend their waking minutes trolling for dollars isn't a bad one. But we don't seem to talk about what they'll spend their money ON. To think we'll be spending city money on crappy 30 second ads...I'm not convinced of the benefit, or how this means the politicians are "engaging the community."
10:26 p.m.
Apr 7, '05
Kari writes "The city's net budget this year is $1.73 billion. The estimate for this proposal is $1.3 million - less than one one-thousandth of the city net budget."
Most of our city budget discussion revolves around the "General Fund." God forbid we consider monies from "dedicated" and "enterprise" funds, which are untouchable for banal things like sidewalks for kids to walk on in SW, or even to fund street repairs.
I am amazed to find out (well, not really) that ALL these otherwise untouchable "dedicated" funds can be tapped...to fund political campaigns.
I applaud thinking outside the box, and outside the General Fund. But, goodness, is this the most important priority for which we're storming the barricades of these otherwise sacrosanct city funds?
10:35 p.m.
Apr 7, '05
The opportunity cost for talking to voters is not being on the phone dialing for dollars with contributors. Both Commissioners Adams and Sten spoke of spending 6+ hours per day on the phone seeking contributions during their campaigns.
11:12 p.m.
Apr 7, '05
" Both Commissioners Adams and Sten spoke of spending 6+ hours per day on the phone seeking contributions."
How many hours do you think folks'll be on the phone seeking $5 contributions under this proposal? How much time does it take to bring in 1000 contributions?
I'm really of a mixed mind on this, Chris. Getting the influence of money out is NOT a bad idea. But this doesn't get money out, it just changes where some of it comes from. I mean, I STILL check off giving money to presidential campaigns on my tax form...but do we really believe THAT "public financing" of presidential campaigns took "big money's influence" out of the equation?
I think putting this as a vote before the people BEFORE implementing it would go a long way to deal with public cynicism about this. If it's a good sell, then let's make the sale...not push this through when we're cutting budgets elsewhere. I'd hate to see a stigma attached to people running on "public" money.
I agree with Mayor Potter that we need more diversity in who's running and serving. But I also agree with Commissioner Leonard that we need to think about where this fits in the city's priorities.
11:54 p.m.
Apr 7, '05
Help. I've lost my note on who Mark Gardner, who was part of the invited testimony today, is. Need that info for the write-up I'm in the middle of. Heh.
12:21 a.m.
Apr 8, '05
Bix asks <<< Help. I've lost my note on who Mark Gardner, who was part of the invited testimony today, is. Need that info for the write-up I'm in the middle of. Heh. <<<
Gardiner. Former Chief Financial Officer of the City of Portland. Uh, former PGE Park guy... though I don't think that came up (and who'd want it to). Husband of state legislator. On PERS board and said, if I remember right, that he was honcho in Democratic state party apparatus. Nice guy, actually...
12:23 a.m.
Apr 8, '05
Frank wrote, "How many hours do you think folks'll be on the phone seeking $5 contributions under this proposal? How much time does it take to bring in 1000 contributions?"
Much, much less time... Why? Because, as I said in my testimony, getting $1000 or $100 from someone requires some romance, a real courtship. You can raise $5 checks through the mail, over the net, and having house parties. No one expects you to have two phone calls, a coffee, and dinner just to commit to five bucks.
Not only that, but you'll be able to turn to outside endorsers and ask for their assistance in raising the $5. Some people see this as a reason to oppose it ("those goshdarned unions again!") but I actually see it as a benefit. It suddenly means that an endorsement from an organization matters more than a name in the voter's pamphlet or a single $500 check. Rather, it empowers community organizations - and oh yeah, it forces them to maintain good enough relations with their members that asking the members to cough up a $5 check actually works.
(Just you wait until an organization endorses someone, asks their 'members' to pony up $5, and no one does. That's an organization with internal trouble. This measure empowers true grassroots organizing at a lot of different levels.)
[Bix, Mark Gardner was the former CFO of the city - who is now a business leader working nationally and internationally.]
12:24 a.m.
Apr 8, '05
Oh, and Jenson, there will be no announcement until there's an announcement. That's how this works.
12:38 a.m.
Apr 8, '05
"....getting $1000 or $100 from someone requires some romance, a real courtship. You can raise $5 checks through the mail, over the net, and having house parties. No one expects you to have two phone calls, a coffee, and dinner just to commit to five bucks."
For five bucks you get a kiss, ten bucks, some tongue thrown in...twenty five a "happy ending?."
A thousand gets you a "real courtship."
Good grief...
1:08 a.m.
Apr 8, '05
How much for a cute butt?
Apr 8, '05
Kari has good advice! The more payment options the better.
When we first started two years ago we were called "the next PayPal" by the editor for E Payments News. We are about to have more accounts than PayPal. More buying power for our Sellers than any other payment method outside of credit cards.
Since 2002, our company, UseMyBank Services has revolutionized the payment industry by leveraging the existing online banking systems of all major banks to facilitate real-time instant debit payments (equal to cash). Over 11 million Canadians are able to make "instant online debit payments" to Sellers with UseMyBank. UseMyBank is well proven with some of the largest and most sophisticated online banks and internet merchants in the world. In Q2 05, 10's of millions of Americans and Europeans are about to get the same choices. Sellers want that buying power and consumers love the new choices and control they have to make online purchases. Many for the first time in their lives.
E Commerce has been off limits for the 30-40% of North Americans without a credit card. Many more do not feel comfortable giving online merchants their credit card number. For an online Seller, almost fifty percent of the market is off limits to E Commerce! The internet is still 99.9% credit card today.
Almost every retailer offers debit payments in stores and the majority now pay that way. Almost all websites are still credit card only. For any online seller to lose a customer because they are unable to process a transaction is costly and preventable.
UseMyBank’s payment service has proven to increase online sales for merchants with credit card only sites by 10% to 30%. Today's consumers want full acceptance of all online payment methods and the same choices they have in the bricks and mortar world. Sellers with UseMyBank's debit solution now have another compelling reason for consumers to shop online with them over their competitors.
Latest company news: http://www.usemybank.com/news.asp
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Brian Crozier VP Business Development UseMyBank Services, Inc. [email protected] www.usemybank.com
Apr 8, '05
Frank:
This system would allow the candidates to spend time campaigning (rather than raising money) because getting 1000 $5 checks is done at the front end. In a traditional campaign, you fund raise as you go.
Potential candidates form "exploratory committees" that, essentially, see how much money they could raise so the candidate can determine whether he (or she) can be competitive. I believe under Voter Owned Elections most candidates will use their "exploratory committees" to get $5 contributions.
Once you've gotten your required number of checks, you're all done fundraising. You can spend all the rest of your time phoning, canvassing, debating, and mugging for the camera.
And honestly, if you're 6 months into the campaign and you've only got 500 $5 contributions, then you're not a serious candidate. You've only raised $2,500. You have no paid staff, no office, no signs, no advertising and, most importantly, no chance of winning.
7:02 a.m.
Apr 8, '05
Kari, how do you think "clean money" (or whatever the euphemism du jour) would affect your campaign consulting business? Does that affect your views of the merits of this proposal?
7:18 a.m.
Apr 8, '05
Bert writes: "And honestly, if you're 6 months into the campaign and you've only got 500 $5 contributions, then you're not a serious candidate. You've only raised $2,500. You have no paid staff, no office, no signs, no advertising and, most importantly, no chance of winning."
Exactly right. Look how high we've raised the bar! You can have 500 supporters, willing to make small contributions...but "you're not a serious candidate" and will NEVER be able to compete against publicly financed candidates.
From here on out, if you can't pretty much START with a thousand contributors (or opt out with big money contributors) you're toast. I think this proposal's heart is in the right place, but I'm concerned the unintended consequence will be to LIMIT, not enhance, the diversity of candidates who can run competitive campaigns. I may well be wrong, and this is a noble experiment in inclusiveness, but I also think this starts out on the wrong foot by not being put before the voters first.
7:47 a.m.
Apr 8, '05
Frank, if the 1000 contribution limit is too high (or too low), the citizen commission will recommend that Council adjust it. The initial terms of the system are not set in stone.
Apr 8, '05
Great testimony, Kari.
I would point out that fundraising is talking to people. You're out in the community (on the phone or in person), asking people what they want in a candidate, and getting their feedback on your candidacy.
In some ways, a person giving money shows that they really believe in your ideas. It's a more scalable (and more accurate) sign of support than $5 or a vote. Of course, everyone starts with extremely different amounts of money, so the theory falls apart. Damn.
Apr 8, '05
Couple of things:
Frank Gardner - Isn't he the guy who talked Vera into throwing $35M at PGE Park with Glickman's son. If so, maybe he should run the campaign financing effort for someone.
2nd thought - Erik gets his way and gets his $500K to run without doing campaigning. Competitor X (or if you wish, Franscesconi) raises >$1M and stomps poor Erik. First thought of remaining commissioners is that they need to up the contribution from 500K to 1M.
3rd thought - I am not convinced by this argument that the better financed guy wins 90% of the time. You could say that about imcumbents also, so should we make it harder for imcumbents to get re-elected? How do you explain Potter winning?
10:15 a.m.
Apr 8, '05
Jack Bog asks, Kari, how do you think "clean money" (or whatever the euphemism du jour) would affect your campaign consulting business? Does that affect your views of the merits of this proposal?
Jack, good question. Thanks.
Anything that reduces the amount of money in politics would generally be bad for my business. After all, there's less money to go around to consultants like me.
But then, I've never been about running a traditional political consulting business. I'm in this game to change the world - not make as much money as I can. As long as I make enough to pay the rent and take my gal to the beach once in a while, well, that's OK by me.
While internet fundraising is a big, important part of the process these days, I think too many candidates think of the net as a Magic ATM - build website, send spam, get money. The real power of the internet is as a democratizing force; a grassroots organizing tool.
As you can see right here at BlueOregon, it is possible now (as never before) to have a community of thousands talking intelligently about issues.
I believe that the Voter-Owned Elections measure (yeah, that's the euphemism du jour) would switch the focus from the magic ATM to community building and grassroots organizing.
And that sounds like more fun to me. So, in that way, though there's less money to go around, this proposal would improve my quality of life.
I'd like to think that it would improve the experience of campaigns for a lot of people.
11:07 a.m.
Apr 8, '05
Kari, how do you think "clean money" (or whatever the euphemism du jour) would affect your campaign consulting business? Does that affect your views of the merits of this proposal?
As a non-consultant who works on campaigns, I agree with Kari's analysis. Even though there may be less money to spend, the fundamental spending decisions would still be the same: how to use scarce resources wisely to maximize support for your candidate.
Frank, part of your opposition focused on your distaste for 30 second TV spots. There's obviously no guarantee that the amount of local spots would go down, but if there's less money overall, I could see the amount of mail, canvassing, and internet communications increasing and the amount of TV going down. By no means would this be a sure thing, but you have to have enough resources to put a lot of money behind any one TV spot or it's generally not worth the effort.
The best use of resources in an environment with a limited budget would probably look different. And again, candidates would still look to communicate with voters in the most cost effective way possible.
11:08 a.m.
Apr 8, '05
Kari, how do you think "clean money" (or whatever the euphemism du jour) would affect your campaign consulting business? Does that affect your views of the merits of this proposal?
As a non-consultant who works on campaigns, I agree with Kari's analysis. Even though there may be less money to spend, the fundamental spending decisions would still be the same: how to use scarce resources wisely to maximize support for your candidate.
Frank, part of your opposition focused on your distaste for 30 second TV spots. There's obviously no guarantee that the amount of local spots would go down, but if there's less money overall, I could see the amount of mail, canvassing, and internet communications increasing and the amount of TV going down. By no means would this be a sure thing, but you have to have enough resources to put a lot of money behind any one TV spot or it's generally not worth the effort.
The best use of resources in an environment with a limited budget would probably look different. And again, candidates would still look to communicate with voters in the most cost effective way possible.
11:23 a.m.
Apr 8, '05
Actually, it would probably mean the end of "win bonuses" for campaign managers so I retract all previous supporting comments and encourage the good citizens of Portland to reject an initiative which goes too far, cost too much, is poorly drafted, will add new layers of bloated bureacracy, red tape, ignores other more reasonable solutions and is generally too extreme.
11:30 a.m.
Apr 8, '05
Charlie;
This only affects City of Portland races. So really it only screws with what two to three races a year. The State is still fair game so is Multnomah County. We'll be fine. Beside who wants to work on those anyway all you do is piss on other Progressives. You know that it is totally more fun to piss on republicans.
Joe Baessler
11:51 a.m.
Apr 8, '05
Yes, working on the political disempowerment of the Grand Old Party will always be more fun!
I actually do still the support The Dialing-for-Dollars Reduction Act of 2005, and will cease any more smart-ass posts to the contrary.
9:17 p.m.
Apr 8, '05
Anything that reduces the amount of money in politics would generally be bad for my business. After all, there's less money to go around to consultants like me.
Which is, presumably, one of the main reasons to pass this kind of legislation. Politics periodically goes through binge-and-purge cycles. Taking money out of politics is less likely to affect consultants who genuinely want to improve the world. It might run off a few of the slimeball Abramoff types, though. Which wouldn't be too bad.
(Yes, I know the difference between a consultant and a lobbyist. I just couldn't pass up the opportunity to take a shot at Jack.)
Apr 9, '05
I too, testified at the hearing:
(To the city council) You decide to accept public financing. You are doing well, 60-40 in the polls Suddenly mail starts appealing everywhere, you start dropping in the polls. You know you will get money to fight it when the campaign finance reports are filed and disclose the amount spent against you. No one files a report, so they can’t figure out how much money to match to you. Now what do you do? Loose?
Oh, by the way the mailer lived in, say, Gresham and is outside of the reach of Portland law. Portland cannot dictate what a Gresham resident places in the U.S. mail or what ads he places on a federally licensed TV station.
I touched briefly on what departments would have to give up $$ to pay for this. And finished with a plea to either kill it or refer it to the voters.
Here are some more perceived flaws that I forgot to mention:
Say the big O dislikes your guy so much that they run daily stories praising your guy’s opponent and tossing dirt on your guy. Is there money available to fight this? (I have been told no.)
Like item 2, but Lars.
Eric/Randy needs 1500(?) contributions of $5. I wonder how many city employees in his bureau portfolio will divvy up $5 as a favor to their boss?
Does anyone want a commission to be able to tell the newspapers and TV what they can or can’t publish?
Does anyone want someone to control the content of what YOU place in the U.S. Mail?
How much of your freedom do you want to sacrifice on the alter of “fairness”?
There is a better way to solve the problem of corporate influence: Shut off corporate welfare. Forbid the city from engaging in corporate welfare, tax abatements to developers, land deals, low interest loans and the whole lot.
Or just forbid commissioner from voting on matters that benefit a large donor (~1/10 of 1% of totals received).
JK
9:23 a.m.
Apr 9, '05
Jim, remember that we're not designing a perfect system here - we're designing an optional measure that would be an improvement on the current system.
You already don't get any funds to combat the Big O, or Lars, or the guy in Gresham.
In the case of the VOE measure, you would get matching funds on the independent expenditure (the guy from Gresham). Nobody's going to stop that guy from sending anything he wants. He will, of course, have to file a disclosure report. (And yes, it is possible to committ a campaign finance violation in Portland without setting foot in Portland.)
You're very right about the timing issue. That's a major implementation detail. I've been quite a skeptic on the details - and Sten's staff have been getting earfuls and long memos from me on those details for quite a while.
As Commissioner Sten pointed out, those that criticize should at least have the courtesy of reading the damn thing.
12:18 p.m.
Apr 9, '05
Kari writes "... you would get matching funds on the independent expenditure (the guy from Gresham)."
That assumes an unlimited pile of City money from which to draw, which isn't the case. If and when that money runs out, the publicly-financed candidates face a huge disadvantage.
And how do you quantify the value of free media access that incumbents have? And publicly financed blogs that most elected officials, if they're savvy, will soon have? If a publicly financed candidate runs against Commissioner Leonard --not to pick on him, but he's a contributor here-- does that candidate ALSO get a contributor spot on Blue Oregon? If Lars moves to Ladd's Addition to run for Mayor, how do we quantify the value of HIS free media access?
The idea of leveling the playing field a bit --and bringing more diversity to the Council-- is a good one. But wouldn't a cheaper, more effective way of doing that be a system where we give a leg up to candidates who can't, almost from the get-go command a support base of a thousand contributors? I still think that's an awfully high bar, which Chris say can be adjusted, but its sure starting out high. And with the enormous advantage of name recognition and media access incumbents have, why let them tap into public funding, especially if we see this as affirmative action to bring diversity to City Hall?
I don't think we're going to get the power of campaign contributions OUT of politics without recognizing that the money itself is the problem, and how we let it be spent. Thirty-second sound bite ads are an affront to meaningful campaign debate, no matter who pays for them. I hate the idea we'll be seeing "swift-boat" type ads, paid for by the public, while we're closing neigborhood pools and schools for lack of money.
2:29 p.m.
Apr 9, '05
I don't think we're going to get the power of campaign contributions OUT of politics without recognizing that the money itself is the problem, and how we let it be spent.
Yes, well, in Oregon that's not likely to change without a change to the Oregon Constitution.
6:15 p.m.
Apr 9, '05
Frank writes, That assumes an unlimited pile of City money from which to draw, which isn't the case. If and when that money runs out, the publicly-financed candidates face a huge disadvantage.
I agree. Another implementation detail that I've discussed at length with the measure's authors. First, I'd set no cap at all on the total money spent. While that may seem scary, having a cap actually drives the private funding (and thus the public match) right up to the cap. If you have no cap at all, the private funders know they can't match the wallet of the city, and therefore don't get into the arms race.
I am also concerned about the matching logic in multi-candidate races. Right now, if you have three public funding candidates and one private funded candidate, and the private funding guy goes over the cap - then the matching funds are equal to the overage, but split three ways. That only encourages the private-funded candidate to go over the cap, especially once it's clear that only one of three public funds candidates poses a challenge. If instead the private-funds candidate got matched with $3 for every $1 in overage, well, then there's no incentive for even the private-funds guy to go over.
My overarching point is that the threat of unlimited funds in the system actually serves to keep the total dollars down. Counterintuitive, but logical.
6:42 p.m.
Apr 9, '05
B!x writes "Yes, well, in Oregon that's (money in politics) not likely to change without a change to the Oregon Constitution."
I think Oregonians, in a heartbeat, would vote to change how we elect our officials at every level. I think we'rer all sick of what we have in place. We just need some leadership on this at the state level (yeah, and THAT and a buck will buy me a lottery ticket!)
Kari...I DO like how your mind works on the overspending issue. That's a very interesting take.
Frank
Apr 9, '05
Worrying about how much time our elected officials are spending raising money instead of governing, and then coming up with a public financing scheme seems to miss the point of why candidates need heaps and bags of money for a campaign.
Perhaps, no one is listening anymore.
What do we hear with a campaign that has thousands of dollars at its disposal? The same stump speech recycled over and over again. The same media interview and talking points being repeated just in case we didn't hear it the first time. Mass mailings filled with well-tested conclusions (e.g. "I'm for education" -- as if the other candidate isn't?) and glossy pictures of happy children.
Think about how much votes really learn about a candidate in a 30-second radio or television ad and then let us find ways in which a candidate does not need tens of thousands of dollars to run a successful campaign. Let us use technology to reach all of those in our communities and not just reach those that can keep up with the ever-changing blog-world where only those with computer access (and time to check posts) can participate.
Instead of handbills that cost thousands of dollars with the same "good government, great education, vote for change" mantras, let us focus our energies on removing the reason why we need thousands of dollars in the first place. If we start worrying about the causes, then we wouldn't have this misdirected, drug-war effort of campaign finance reform.
As long as we continue spending money on advertisements instead of substance, then no amount of public financing will solve the problem. Candidates will find the loopholes (as described in other posts) and circumvent the process. If we're serious about reducing the time spent raising money instead of governing, let's get at the root of it.
Apr 9, '05
I don't agree with Kari that the time spent raising money is the main problem with the present campaign finance system. The money running campaigns is, indeed, dirty money because it subverts democratic government. It doesn't matter if a candidate sells out in exchange for a contribution or if that contribution makes it possible for a candidate with the desired issue position to win. Either way, the contribution determines the government policy, and that is bad government.
Apr 10, '05
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | April 9, 2005 09:23 AM Jim, remember that we're not designing a perfect system here - we're designing an optional measure that would be an improvement on the current system.
JK: Its only an improvement if people actually use it. If you cannot guarantee protection from these real possibilities, why should anyone commit to the limits? The very real possibility is that you commit one year of your life busting you butt to campaign only to be shot down by a flaw in the system. Even worse, it is a flaw that is readily visible to everyone except the plan’s promoters. This will guarantee that NO SERIOUS candidate will use the system.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | April 9, 2005 09:23 AM . . . designing an optional measure. . .
JK: My guess is that you never designed anything for the marketplace if you consider these glaring flaws part of “an optional measure”. An optimal something has AS MANY OF THE FLAWS removed as required to be better that anything else out there FOR THE USER. Note this little detail: you are designing this FOR THE CANDIDATE BECAUSE THE CANDIDATE IS YOUR CUSTOMER. The public is only a bystander while the candidate makes the decision to use or not to use the proposed system.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | April 9, 2005 09:23 AM You already don't get any funds to combat the Big O, or Lars, or the guy in Gresham
JK: This is another fatal flaw. No ability to raise money to counter media. In a normal campaign, the candidate would use the media attack to raise more money to counter “this disgusting, unwarranted attack by the liberal (or conservative) press”. You have no ability to restrict media unless you are willing to give up your freedom of speech. I hope you are not naive enough to advocate giving up our freedom of speech.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | April 9, 2005 09:23 AM (And yes, it is possible to commit a campaign finance violation in Portland without setting foot in Portland.)
JK: Ok, so he commits a violation of Portland law from Gresham. So what? Does Portland extradite him for something that is not a crime in Gresham? How about someone mailing from Vancouver? Are you going to claim that Portland can regulate interstate commerce? (Again I am not a lawyer, so I might stand corrected if any lawyers want to chime in here)
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | April 9, 2005 09:23 AM You're very right about the timing issue. That's a major implementation detail. I've been quite a skeptic on the details - and Sten's staff have been getting earfuls and long memos from me on those details for quite a while.
JK: Of course little details like the above can make or break a system and people seem to be pooh-poohing the problems.
Apr 10, '05
"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." -Thomas Jefferson
I believe that Portland and Multnomah County are suffering from a Tyranny of Liberalism. Liberalism as doctrinal as any religion, where the end justifies the means, the laws are interpreted selectively and subjectively, and the most earnest passions of the many supplants the rights of the few.
Tired of fundraising for political campaigns? Want to save the trees? Keep Ralph Nader off the Oregon Ballot? End Constitutional discrimination of same sex marriage. No problem: just persuade the appropriate executive branch of government to hold a public meeting (or not), and do the right thing (or not), so long as we get the outcome we desire, or prevent the outcome we fear with endless court proceedings.
When the Facts are against you, argue the Law. When the Law is against you, argue the Facts.
11:10 p.m.
Apr 10, '05
Kari, The reason for the name change is that the authors have shifted the grounds on which they are supporting this proposal. First we were told that the problem was that city decisions were bought and sold. Once the implication of that became clear, the new rationale became that citizens needed to "own" elections. Now the new rationale is that this allows citizens more time with candidates.
Not that I object, this is the nature of a political campaign. But it's a bit amusing to watch.
By the way, why is raising money not "campaigning"? Is the only thing that counts as "campaigning" pressing the flesh with voters? Do you think Tom Potter was making more policy statements when he was washing dogs down at the Lucky Lab or when he had to address some of the power brokers in Portland?
I have nothing particularly against power brokers, as long as the campaign finance system is open and permeable. I know some big money donors who stand quite nicely for my interests.
Apr 11, '05
What if I get clean-money public funds and use some to buy an old bread delivery truck, paint it funny colors and add a rather loud PA system; who gets to keep it after the election? Can I keep it for my reelection effort, or for another publicity campaign altogether? What if it becomes my little campaign trademark, yeah the noisy guy who thinks the vigorous new City Attorney in San Diego is an indicator of a healthy democracy.
Should I, as your new City Auditor, wear a real Clown Suit rather than a Three Piece Clown Suit and defer to some other department in my auditor's report on pensions regarding the wisdom of borrowing money to invest in stocks for the upward-only benefit of our presumably non-self-serving public servants? Should I call this a systemic version of graft? Should I challenge our District Attorney to toss me out or battle for jurisdiction over all things pension related? Can I keep my Clown Suit after my election to wear to work on a regular basis, just as all the other Clowns do?
Apr 11, '05
JK writes:" Its only an improvement if people actually use it. If you cannot guarantee protection from these real possibilities, why should anyone commit to the limits? The very real possibility is that you commit one year of your life busting you butt to campaign only to be shot down by a flaw in the system. Even worse, it is a flaw that is readily visible to everyone except the plan’s promoters. This will guarantee that NO SERIOUS candidate will use the system."
I'd agree with the theory. But we've got on-the-ground evidence from Maine and Arizona that despite the possibility that folks will try to go around, over, and through the system, serious candidates do use voter-owned elections, and win.
As Kari says, it's an attempt to improve the system, not to create perfection.
Apr 11, '05
I'm curious -- has anyone polled this issue among Portlanders? I'm one of those who thinks this is a terrible use of public resources and would like the chance to vote on it in a public referendum, rather than have the City Caricature Council decide this one for us.
Am I in the minority in this city in that I don't want my tax dollars going into electioneering rather than, say, into any one of our more pressing public policy issues? (Which is why I ask about polling.)
Apr 11, '05
And the great irony of this whole proposal for "voter-owned elections" is that the Council won't even let voters decide on whether voters want it.
4:36 p.m.
Apr 11, '05
Chris, another irony: an election on "voter-owned elections" would have to be funded privately. After all, this measure doesn't address initiative and referendum campaigns.
We don't ask the city to refer out to the voters any other spending issue that's less than one one-thousandth of the city budget, why would we do this one?
Apr 11, '05
Why is it not enough merely to get folks to reveal donations? This City of Portland initiative seeks to compel disclosure.
One might object to compelled disclosure on other grounds just as in COMMUNIST PARTY v. CONTROL BOARD, 367 U.S. 1 (1961). Clean money seems to attack liberty and property in one fell swoop. The evil sought to be remedied is the lack of equality in wealth and income. Yet we all know that there does not exist any totalitarian state that has managed to fit the ideal in egalitarianism. Oregon, as with most states, has already made its special pension program only available to one class of persons rather than applicable to all its' citizens. This non-uniform distribution of compelled tax dollars should be a giant red flag to even the most ardent and devoted egalitarian's among us.
The Oregonian finally noted the Oregon Education Association attack on Bill Sizemore as an attack rather than acting like a cheerleader. Maybe they finally have reached their own limit on the larger implications of the so-called clean money proposal. They could be next, and rightfully should be just as vulnerable as good old Bill when it comes to repelling the invasion of distorted ideologies that threaten to attack individual liberty and speech.
Apr 11, '05
I agree with Ron ("The evil sought to be remedied is the lack of equality in wealth and income").
This is Low-Carb Socialism with a bright yellow "New and Improved Democracy" label in the top-right corner. A wink and a nod from a smiling Andy Griffith in a houndstooth suit: "Makes the Working Class FEEL BETTER!" goes the jingle. The wealth comes from every bureau whose budget is cut (especially those 60 city workers who will lose their jobs) and is redistributed exclusively amongst the political class.
Two incumbents have lost in the past 35 years. That is 2 winning challengers out of 121 contested elections (roughly the same ratio at which Space Shuttles explode). Potter's victory was no anomaly: the 2 incumbents that won were the anomalies.
Voter owned elections will likely do nothing to change the incumbent victory ratio. The primaries will be more crowded, and the incumbents will have more leisure time on evenings and weekends.
If you are a Portland Taxpayer that supports this subsidy, may you get all the government you paid for. There will be no refunds or exchanges.
Apr 11, '05
The third paragraph above should read:
Two incumbents have lost in the past 35 years. That is 2 winning challengers out of 121 contested elections (roughly the same ratio at which Space Shuttles explode). Potter's victory was no anomaly (running for an open seat is the only way to fly): the 2 incumbents that LOST were the anomalies.
Apr 13, '05
Kari -- Why refer? Pretty damn simple. Tax money being spent to spread a political viewpoint.
It's not the amount of money that I think about primarily, although it sure would be nice if they spent it on something useful. It's the principle of using taxpayer money to fund a political campaign with which I may not agree. I'm dead on philosophically opposed to that without the people directly making that judgment.
And how would it have to be privately funded? I doubt the opposition would need to spend much, if anything. And those in favor? Probably so. It's a tough sell, which is why they refuse to put it up for a citywide vote.
But it's a pretty simple question to voters: Do you want public tax dollars spent on political campaigns in the hopes of increasing participation in city elections? Why is it that proponents believe voters are too stupid to decide this issue?
Apr 15, '05
Everything can be for sale, thanks to free money.
What about the Oregon constitution disallowing public entities like the City and State from owning the stock of private corporations like PGE? What right-wing wackos put that in there? Repeal it.
This Kulongoscopy is killing us! Let's cut to the chase. Randy Leonard for Governor. We will need a new slogan instead of Brand Oregon, something like "condemn private property - it's all for the public good."
Apr 19, '05
Dear Ron Ledbury:
I do hope you'll run in the Clown Suit (Bozo, not three piece), and I would be happy to drive the bread truck on Friday afternoons. Do you think we could use "Clean Money" to purchase lollipops we can throw at the voters ("a sucker for public finance suckers"). We can only hope that "Voter owned elections" will spawn a whole new breed of political aspirants.
Speaking of strange campaigns/open elections, did you hear that Mary Carey ("They're Real", the porn star/artiste who won nearly 11,000 votes in the California Governor's race) was just cited in Washington State. She was allegedly dancing with a bit more suggestive prowess than WA statutes permit).
And the State's interest here is what, exactly? Voter funded elections are supposed to accomplish what, exactly?
Apr 19, '05
This Kulongoscopy is killing us!
Wasn't Dr. Kitzhaber responsible for prescribing that procedure?