SCOREBOARD
Bureaucrats 2 Joe Citizen 0

From the other coast, let me just say: Congratulations, Portland. Enjoy your Voter-Owned Elections, and use them well. We here at Common Cause and the rest of the reform community are glad to have Portland on the growing list of Clean/Voter-Owned Elections: Maine, Arizona, Albuquerque, Connecticut...

Charlie, it was a pleasure hanging out with you fine folks when I came out there. I'm almost sad I won't have a reason to come back.

Whether you agree or disagree, the majority has spoken. For better or worse. I just hope the "loopholes" (you know someone will find a way, damn humans...) don't put the elections back into the hands of the big money candidates/donors.

I heard from someone who had the inside scoop at elections that the problem was so many duplicates wiht the volunteer signatures. Apprently Gard and Gerber mailed their own list twice, so a ton of people signed twice. Doohhhh !!! first things first get your act together.

i heard that it was a Don McIntire mailing to his supporters that caused the high duplicates and there are rumors of sabatoge as well

pprently Gard and Gerber mailed their own list twice, so a ton of people signed twice.

i heard that it was a Don McIntire mailing to his supporters that caused the high duplicates and there are rumors of sabatoge as well

In either case Ted Blaczak is off the hook for this monumental screwup. Even better, he's off the hook to those of use who consider him a friend for having been responsible for helping the corporate badguys refer it.

Alice...more like:

Distortions, Lies, Small Mindedness, Vindictiveness, Cynicism 0

Hope for the Future, People Who Have to Work for a Living 1

Keep your head up sweetheart, your boys are still in charge of the rest of the country. Just keep that prozac prescription current.

Uh, your little disinformation effort here isn't working.

And Mr. Algoso if you were part of the conspiracy that created the phone tree that got some of those posting here to go out and sign the petitions two or more times don't worry you will be coming back to Oregon.

Trying to convince people that Mr. Blaczak screwed up the signature gathering will be shown to be part of the disinformation campaign that included the organized campaign to disqualify the referral of clean money to the voters. In addition to revealing utter contempt for the voters you also accomplished, my starry eyed little conspirator friends, committing a felony.

For those of you who are reading this that signed your names multiple times on the petitions you know who you are. And guess what geniuses? So does everyone else. Being not quite as smart as you think you are, you signed your real names.

Look forward to an interview with law enforcement authorities soon. Personally, I hope you lie (an additional felony). At least one of you will not. We are going to learn who led this illegal effort.

A lot of us believe we know who that is. We will wait until we have hard evidence until we speak the name publicly.

Move over Neil, you are about to have some company.

Dear your......... It may come as a surprise that there are people who post here who don't live in Portland.

If anyone was stupid enough to send out multiple solicitations and then not check for duplicates, that is not the fault of people who opposed the measure getting on the ballot.

It is about personal responsibility, folks. Which is why I think the whole paid petitioner thing is fraught with problems. And I don't live in Portland, so don't accuse me of signing twice or being part of a phone tree.

"If anyone was stupid enough to send out multiple solicitations and then not check for duplicates, that is not the fault of people who opposed the measure getting on the ballot.

For that to be true you will have to get the legislature to go into special session and retroactively repeal the statute that makes intentionally signing a petition multiple times a felony.

Good luck.

"If anyone was stupid enough to send out multiple solicitations and then not check for duplicates, that is not the fault of people who opposed the measure getting on the ballot.

For that to be true you will have to get the legislature to go into special session and retroactively repeal the statute that makes intentionally signing a petition multiple times a felony.

Sounds like one of these stories about lack of indiv. responsibility. Because the legislature passed a law, the people collecting the signatures are not obligated to look through the signature sheets before turning them in to see if there are duplicates? Or is that too much work and language like the above is easier?

I was talking with someone today who relayed a story roughly along the lines of Mr/Ms Business suit that posted here.

I am all for taking the undue influence that big money causes in campaigns. I also believe the voters would have agreed with public financed campaigns.

If this turns out to be true it is stupid beyond belief.

From the Oregonian this morning: Committee leaders intend to file a complaint with the Secretary of State's Office today or next week. They want the state to investigate why there were so many duplicates and whether the people backing city-financed campaigns -- known among proponents as "clean money" -- may have played dirty by encouraging their supporters to sign multiple times.

Now this--along with ynfa's accusation of my alleged participation in a "conspiracy that started a phone tree that got those posting here..."--has me thoroughly confused.

Why would VOE supporters want to sign the petition even once, let alone twice? Is the theory that by helping the repealers collect signatures faster, we'd be encouraging them to turn them in sooner and slack off, and then we hope that the county discovers the duplicates and--gotcha! They thought they would qualify but they don't! HaHA!

Is that really what these people think happened? Or am I missing something?

Oregon politicos do not need to make changes in the law to rein in the initiative process. Election authorities have a huge database of petitions that have been submitted over the years. Their so-called "random sample" is not random at all. It will include a disproportionate number of sheets from particular circulators whose petition sheets have a historical record of "problems". With the infamous and outrageous over-extrapolation for dupes (by administrative fiat), the authorities are like Secret Police thugs. They have the tools to determine that a proposed measure will be disqualified as soon as they select their sample.

The fix is in. It has happened before. It will happen again - until Bill Bradbury is replaced by an honest administrator who does not share his hyper-political, situational ethics. Bradbury is still in the federal appeals courts spending tax money defending these Gestapo tactics from 2 years ago. But you won't read about that in the bOregonian or in the so-called "progressive" blogs that defend all ends that justify the means. Thank the public employee union lobbyists if you like this action. C'mon Progressives - drop the Big Labor anchor.

Jack

If a majority of the Portland public didn't want this, you would be damn sure a repeal would appear on the ballot. It's not. 2+2=4

Ramon, Did you work on the Snodgrass campaign for Sec. of State? Isn't that the campaign which stole Bradbury tv commercial footage and used it with their own narration? In what way was that action not "situational ethics"?

The fix is in. It has happened before. It will happen again - until Bill Bradbury is replaced by an honest administrator who does not share his hyper-political, situational ethics.

When Republicans nominate a Sec. of State candidate of the quality of Norma Paulus, they will elect a Sec. of State. Over a million people voted for Bradbury for Sec. of State against Close--are they all influenced by public employees? Or was it that they looked at the incumbent and challenger and saw the challenger had been part of the "don't vote for Measure 28 because mystery money will prevent cuts" crowd and decided they liked the incumbent?

Or maybe you are an angry Nader person?

Those of you more familiar with running big signature gathering drives: why don't the signature gatherers spend more money databasing all their signatures, and checking them against the voter list? I think you can cross out illegal and duplicate signatures and then not get dinged for them in the elections' office sampling effort. Is that not true?

Seems like that would be cheaper than gathering more and more signatures, and doing just a random sample of duplicate-searching. Seems like it might cost you, what, 40 cents a signature to database and run it against the voter file? In this case, $16,000?

Is it that all the signatures come in too close to the deadline, and my cost estimate is way too low, what's a better cost estimate?

I'm one of those annoying people who say to a petitioner "which one is this" and have them flip the paper over so I can read the names of the chief petitioners. The seconds that takes really angers them--they could maybe have gotten a couple extra signatures in that time. And if I see something I recognize, then I could say "sorry, think I already signed that".

Good points made above about the behavior of the petition carriers.

This was in today's Oregonian: Signing a petition more than once is a felony, and the potential for mischief in the ballot measure process has concerned state regulators in the past. In 2002 and 2004, the Oregon Elections Division mailed warning letters to people who signed petitions multiple times. Elections officials are compiling a database of people who sign more than once. They plan to send warning letters to people in this case, said Brenda Bayes , the election division's operations manager. Even though Oregon petitions have the words, "Do not sign this petition more than once," printed at the top in large letters, "a lot of individuals don't realize you're not supposed to do that," Bayes said. Names in a database of people who signed more than once---that is evidence. "There must have been a phone tree" is not evidence.

I have known of campaigns that sent out petitions to their mailing list saying "please sign and have your friends sign and then send it back". I wonder if that was done in this case. If a busy person accidently signed twice because there were two diff. mailings, I'd say that merits a warning letter, not an indictment.

But still, if groups are doing that, they should do some quality control. Surely checking for duplicates (perhaps preparing a database of the names of signers) could have saved them some grief. Unless they were so sure of themselves that they didn't need to do that--classic definition of hubris.

The Bradbury lawsuit is a matter of public record. Check into it. In early December, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard case # 04-36034, "Sajo v. Bradbury." Note that our own holier-than-thou Bill Bradbury is the defendant. If the claims of his discriminatory and exta-legal tactics against signature petitions two years ago have no merit (he has called the claims "ridiculous"), then ... would there still be a case at all?

See: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/calendar.nsf/6A48F01CFA4BEE9C882570CB006E0B94/$file/po12_05.PDF?openelement

Erik Sten sponsored VOE, limited to candidates for elected City of Portland office, and Erik will fund his reelection campaign with the $300,000 he sponsored.

And y'all don't see any conflict of interest?

The slimy sheen of self-dealing would be diminished by a public vote. If the City Council and VOE advocates are so confident the public supports VOE, then refer it to a public vote after the first election cycle. We don't need a petition for the City Council to do the right thing.

If they had decided to spend an extra million bucks a year on emergency home heating assistance to the poor, or "renting" additional jail beds, then I would shrug my shoulders and say "who else can do it?" But an entirely new entitlement that is only available to politicians?

Not exactly a high priority for most Portlanders, many of whom didn't become aware of Voter Owned Elections until after it was a done deal.

With or without a public vote, the City of Portland has poisoned the well of public support for new tax initiatives, for any purpose. We know money is being wasted (public art, public subsidy of condo towers, Water Billing Software, reelection campaigns, and expensive consulting agreements). The compensation and benefits offered by the City of Portland or PPS are the envy of many Portlanders who labor for less income, job security, or retirement and health benefits.

Parents of young children are fleeing the PPS system in droves, and no short term funding solution will reverse the declining enrollment trends. They are voting with their feet, having been frustrated in trying to make themselves heard in every other venue.

When the orchestra strikes it up and you recognize the theme, don't you know the ending in advance?

If the fix is in - collaboration between the Bradbury State Database crew and local elections officials - then appealing to Bradbury is a fool's errand. But it must be done so that you can then take a number & wait in line in federal court.

Is Portland's VOE law identical to (or even patterned on) Arizona's?

If not, will you agree that public campaign funding of the Arizona State Legislature is unlikely to offer many parallels to the City of Porland?

Complaining about teacher salaries is a giant canard, considering that these people with post-graduate certifications are giving up the potential for higher earnings profiles in the private sector, by taking on perhaps the most vital non-military job in any society: educating the next generation of workers.

Gov. of Penn. was on TV last night floating the idea of making math/science teacher salaries equivalent to engineering salaries in a particular area--in order to get more qualified young people into teaching. Now what union do engineers belong to?

Phone tree? Phone tree? Damn, I'm out of the loop again. First nobody tells me about Neil's sex abuse, then I don't hear about the plot to foil Gard&Gerber, Burdick, and the PBA! Of course, I would have immediately reported such an illegal effort to the proper authorities.

So, I'm wondering: did the money from PGE and the other utiities come out of their bloated profits or straight out the ratepayers' pockets?

Charlie:

Why would the City of Portland pattern themselves after the failed Arizona campaign finance system? By prohibiting VOE challengers from outspending much better known incumbents, you will generally enhance the incumbent success rate (Francesconi/Potter exception noted)!

According to Ben Barr (of the Albuquerque Journal) 9/18/2005:

A report by the U.S. General Accounting Office found no notable difference in the average number of state legislative candidates between the 1996 and 1998 elections (prior to Clean Elections) and the 2000 and 2002 elections that followed the implementation of the law. What's more, the most recent data from the Citizens Clean Elections Commission shows that in 2004 there were 20 fewer legislative primary candidates than in 2002, a drop of almost 10 percent.

Likewise, the percentage of contested races has been almost flat, and the incumbent re-election rate is unchanged.

click here for the full article

Blue, et al: just because a bunch of incumbents were reelected with "Clean Money" does not prove the system offers any benefits to the challengers. If the incumbent retention rate is unchanged, all other claims are moot. Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

You have to admit the VOE challenger is prohibited from outspending the incumbent, correct? VOE rules completely fail to address the tremendous powers of incumbency, which is exactly what the incumbents wanted. And if somebody (hey Ginny) has the audacity to raise "dirty money", we'll Erik and Willy Week will be glad to point out what a corporate mouthpiece she has become. It reminds me of the "razzle-dazzle" number which Richard Gere sang in Chicago.

It is my understanding challenger cannot win a primary with VOE dollars and then "opt-out" in the general election (recognizing they can't compete without outspending the incumbent). If they take VOE money in the primary, they are obligated to continue down that path in the general election. If a non-VOE challenger does try to outspend the incumbent, the incumbent receives a dollar for dollar match for each "dirty" dollar. It's all bullshit, designed to create alot of "ABOUT TIME" sound and progressive fury, signifying NOTHING. Hopefully y'all won't choke on the hook, line, or sinker: cause you've swallowed it whole.

Alice, Are you involved in any campaigns? Or just steamed about VOE because people with more money should have more voice (the "money is speech, so those with more money shout, and those with less money barely whisper" approach)? Sure it wasn't VOE but his own limits, but Potter didn't get elected Mayor by outspending Francesconi.

I wonder if that isn't what this is about--"Francesconi should have won--he had more money!".

Except there are certain things no amount of money can buy--inspiring people to talk to their neighbors, family, and friends about a candidate, for instance.

Of course, that implies "we the people " is still valid and has not yet been replaced in the Constitution with "they the consultants"

I am supporting a candidate for County Commissioner (who is not an incumbent), and I've donated $100 to a gubernatorial candidate (not an incumbent). I'll vote for Saltzman (mainly because he's the only member of the council that has worked in the private sector) who happens to live in my neighborhood, and I'll vote for whoever seems most likely to beat Sten in the general election. I would love to buy some "Anyone but Erik" bumper stickers, if anybody has considered printing them up.

I'm not an insider, or paid consultant, but I wrote my college thesis on Campaign Finance Reform, and I am very familiar with the powers of incumbency, and had a relative who served 30 years in the U.S. House (a Democrat from a predominately Republican District, I should add).

Potter proves the power of a grassroots campaign in an OPEN RACE (no incumbent) when the insider favorite (Francesconi) pisses off the police officer's union, and many neighborhood associations.

Potter's success demonstrates (firstly) that a strong grassroots campaign can succeed IF THERE IS NO INCUMBENT in the race and (secondly) that even an extremely well funded candidate can self immoliate if the campaign strategy is flawed and poorly executed.

Jenny: you can't have it both ways. Either:

A). They "don't have to be fundraisers" (translation: it's not very hard to get a 1,000 donations of $5.00) and lot's of newcomers will participate, or

B). The initial vetting process (getting the 1000 people to sign and give you $5) is a challenging fundraising task that most political novices will find very time consuming, if not impossible.

Which is it, A or B? With as few as two challengers, and one incumbent, I'm thinking answer choice B is the correct answer.

Thus far, we've got two novices (Emilie Boyles and Amanda Fritz) and one entrenched incumbent (Erik "The MasterMind" Sten) that have qualified.

That will be roughly $835,000 from Portland's Taxpayers, assuming either Emilie or Amanda make it into the General Election. Or $1,035,000 if both Amanda and Emilie survive the primary (which seems unlikely). Thank you Portland Taxpayers! Would you like fries to go with your voter owned elections?

Of course, it is very likely that Ginny Burdick will exceed the VOE threshold for non-participating candidates, which will give Erik another $400,000 (on top of the $350,000 he already received) YES! If, that is, Ginny Burdick has the audacity to try and outspend Erik's publicly funded campaign. Very cool. Erik can qualify for up to $750,000 to get reelected for the third time, and perhaps no more than $290,000 goes to Emilie and Amanda (assuming they don't make it to the general elections). Whose idea was this, again?

Maybe we should call it the "Erik Owes Voters" (EOV instead of VOE) Campaign Finance Reeeeform.

Hey Blue:

How does it reduce the "potentially corrupting influence of money in politics" if 4 out 5 sitting commissioners have publicly stated they WON'T PARTICIPATE IN IT? I'm thinking the incumbents are still completely reliant on dirty money!

Plus, there is absolutely no limitations placed on the free speech rights of any old group of union members who decide to go out and start knocking on doors and putting up yard signs (say, every Saturday for six weeks before the general elections) for their ol' pal Erik. People have a right to campaign for whoever they want, right?

Do you think the unions will go door-to-door for Emilie or Amanda? Mmmmm. Do you think maybe a few Firefighter's would be willing to volunteer some nights and weekends for Commissioner Leonard? What does Erik or Randy have to offer them that Ms. Boyles or Ms. Fritz don't have? Mmmmm. Oh, that's right, ERIK IS THE INCUMBENT, and they owe him big time! A WINNER! You people are willfully blind, or just plain stupid.

Blue: Incumbent City Commissioners have an installed base of supporters that benefit from their reelection. Challengers lack the reins of power, and the budget/decision making authority that goes with it. That means their ability to garner the same kind of installed base of supporters is minimal. Worse yet, the kind of challengers that can devote themselves to a full time (high probability LOSING campaign) are exactly the Quixotic types that are unlikely to generate the broad support necessary to unseat an incumbent. The only upside that I see in VOE is Erik gets to spend more time with his family, instead of fundraising. Which is cool: I just don't think the taxpayers should pick up the tab.

Open your eyes. If the outcome of the first "try it you'll like it" election cycle is two "also rans" that lose to an incumbent (in the primary or the general election), then the experiment FAILED.

Ironically, Erik may put as much as $750k of taxpayer dollars into his own campaign coffers, and still suggest that Ginny Burdick is the one spending dirty money. Irony doesn't get any RICHER than that!

If the above scenario plays out, would you be willing to admit that the $1.4 million didn't accomplish very much?

Or will it just be "better luck next time"...can't imagine why the challengers didn't get more than 30% of the votes. So sorry! How many examples of INCUMBENT WINS AGAIN will it take for you to admit you were duped?

Alice, You need to channel your anger someplace more useful.

I am speaking as someone who helped a couple friends over the years defeat incumbents. And we did it with plain, unsung hard work (incl. "I'll tell you a story about why I admire my friend who is running, and then you can share a similar story"--oddly, there were times when the other side was made up of people who were not personal friends of the candidate and did not have a similar story).

Calling people names does not win their votes. Spending all your spare time supporting the candidate you want elected CAN win votes. Nothing is sure in politics--ask anyone who ever worked on a campaign where one of the candidates dropped out, became ill, or died after being nominated.

LT:

No anger here, I've got my eye on a much nicer home in Vancouver. I just need to finish up some landscaping work and get my house sold before August. That will be a 900 square foot larger home with a 40% property tax reduction in a school district with rising enrollments and stable funding. Did I mention the 9% income tax reduction (once the office transition is complete), plus whatever I save on cellphone taxes or other "local option" revenue enhancements. I'll just have to commute to PDX every couple of weeks, and hope my family and friends will remember the bridge works in both directions.

I am dismayed by the paucity of critical thinking the "progressive" community has brought to this issue. The incumbents would not have voted 5-0 in favor of it if they felt it could actually unseat them: that's just self-preservation. It is designed to help them get re-elected while providing the "progressive" feel good patina of a competitive race. Heaven forbid if one of them is unseated: you'll see changes before the next election cycle for sure.

It's as if the liberals never met a new way to piss off taxpayer dollars they couldn't embrace. How about public financing of Erik's drycleaning? Maybe a monorail to Wapato? We could auction all of the cop-cars on EBAY and replace them with a combination of Segways and Toyota's PRIUS? Let's convert the Memorial Colliseum into a giant skate-park: we won't know if it could be profitable if we don't try!

Why not make it 4% for public art. It don't cost nothing.

LT: name one incumbent you helped defeat. And tell us why they were on the ropes to save me a Google search (let me guess, cloud of impropriety or alleged participation in an adulterous affair?). It simply doesn't happen without a reason.

Jenny: I'm not into process. Making the process more "democratic" (or accessible) or inclusive is meaningless if the newcomers consistently lose to the entrenched incumbents. If Saltzman and Sten both get defeated in the Primary, then sign me up for the next election cycle, and I'll run against Sam Adams. You were right, I was wrong. But I don't think that is a remote possibility.

That numerous people avail themselves of public money to engage in a process that is likely to fail does nothing to change the status quo. That's a waste of public money. If Erik Sten (the motivating force behind VOE) is the largest recipient of public funds in the first election cycle should bother all the lower case democrats in the crowd.

Can you ignore the irony of Progressive Erik's potential consumption of $750k worth of tax dollars to defeat (at least) two female challengers on HIS WAY TO HIS 4TH TERM on the City Council?

With all their self-professed shame for being "five white guys" you'd think one of them would be willing to take a dive in the name of racial or gender diversity. How about it, Erik? Show us how progressive you are and throw your support behind

Whoops my mistake! I was hoping there would be a woman of color candidate for Seat #2, but it looks like VOE wasn't quite inclusive enough in Erik's race.

But there are two women: Burdick and Boyles. So how about it Erik: will you take one for the team and step aside so that we can finally have a female City Commissioner? Let Burdick and Boyles duke it out in the primary, and you can just take the minimum $150k you qualified for, and just buy yard signs and pizza for the volunteers. No media, no consultants, no paid staff, no website. Just run on your 12 year record of achievement you gorgeous hunk of Stanford Man!

I know you believe in diversity, doncha? There's a chance you might win without even spending a dime, and it'll make Voter Owned Elections a whole lot more popular if we can get a fresh face (or two!) on the council. You can probably get a higher paying job with Greenpeace or OSPIRG, and you won't even have to run for reelection. I dare ya!

Watching breathlessly from outside Portland....I'm rooting for the pole dancer at Mary's club to qualify for the $150,000. Then you just might end up with a female in city hall who warranted an esplanade named after her.

Not that Alice deserves an answer, but because I can make a point at the same time.........

In the 1980s, there were lots of us who wanted to defeat Denny Smith, who had barely won the Congressional seat by beating Congressman Al Ullman in 1980 when he had come close (for the chair of House Ways and Means) to losing his primary to a relative unknown. In 1990, a year when something like 5 members of Congress were defeated, one of the successful challengers was my old friend Mike Kopetski. It took him 2 tries (lost the first one in a recount). We got him elected (I was a small volunteer cog in a large operation) by having a quality candidate. I often tell people that it was the quality of the candidate and the campaign organization that won the election. The activist who came to Democratic meetings with his DUMP DENNY SMITH license plate brackets did not defeat Denny, it was a superior candidate with a superior organization who won.

And one reason I watch the Gov. campaign with interest is that I was one of many volunteers in 1980 (Carter conceded early and there were W. Coast candidates who lost close elections) and 1982 who helped elect the first Democrat to my state House district, even though some people said it was impossible. No Democrat had ever won there, and who on earth believed a black man could win in S. Salem? But, as the saying goes, he didn't win by being black, but by being an individual named Jim Hill.

This is not the place to debate the relative merits of the gov. candidates, although I am glad both Jim Hill and Ben Westlund are running.

We need more issues debate in this state, and less "executing the campaign plan and getting the message out" which too often means inflicting mailers, broadcast ads and robo phone calls on voters rather than respecting their intelligence by engaging in dialogue on issues.

Alice- The council did not vote 5-0 in favor of VOE...it was 4-1.

And the money you are "planning" to save upon your relocation to Vancouver?`

Portland has a 0% cell phone tax. The discussion has been whether or not to have a 5%`cell phone tax in Portland.

Vancouver residents pay a 6% cell phone tax.

Unless you plan on buying your groceries and other goods in Oregon to avoid the sales tax (against the law, btw), you can count on the principle of "you do not get something for nothing" being made fully clear to you as you register your vehicle and begin purchasing goods and services in your new state.

Thank you for the correction.

Was it Leonard or Saltzman who voted against VOE?

The cell phone tax is a minor concern: like the straw man on the camel's back. The 9% income tax and property tax savings will constitute the bulk of my anticipated savings. I do plan on breaking the law and shopping in Oregon. Catch me if you can.

"Was it Leonard or Saltzman who voted against VOE?"

Guess.

I'm guessing Commissioner Leonard was the "Dirty Money" holdout, because he's still thinking about it at 3:00 a.m. these many months later.

Ironically, I don't think Erik could lose this election if he tried, but it will probably be the most expensive campaign he's ever run. What if the Ferrari mechanic wound up winning: time to make the City purr like a Ferrari!

I remember Saltzman was the odd man out on the JTTF vote: I was hoping you would make it 3-2. GOODNIGHT!

"I'm guessing Commissioner Leonard was the "Dirty Money" holdout, because he's still thinking about it at 3:00 a.m. these many months later."

Naw. Just a curse left over from my firefighting days when one small noise wakes me up and it is a while before I can get back to zzz town.

Goodnight.

Please, people think about it a little bit. Would the same incompetents (opps - meant incumbents) have voted for VoE if they thought it meant them losing?

I am sure Erik realizes the more mechanics and tyros with a website to shill for money he can run against, the better his odds. Too bad he doesn't know how to do any real job besides gaming the election system.

Steve:

What are "Tyros"? I assume you mean Tyrants, but the field of candidates for Sten's seat don't quite rise to that level of derision.

I think you're being unkind to Mr. Lewis Humble. He's not just any old mechanic: he's a FERRARI Auto Mechanic with a sheepskin from Jesuit High School. Do you know how few Ferrari auto mechanics reside in Portland? I'm not sure we can afford to lose even one to public service.

My favorite candidate is Jay "Boss" Rubin, whose listed occupations include "Doughnut Fryer, Swahili Instructor, and Events Organizer". He even made it all the way through his Sophomore Year at Boston U. And he's got more private sector experience than Erik Sten. I bet Erik couldn't fry a doughnut or speak Swahili to save his life.

Learned a new word today: Tyro is latin for a "young soldier" and is a synonym for amateur or beginner.

Tyro is still giving them too much credit. A young soldier has skills, most of Sten's competition are still wet behind the ears, politically speaking. I think Ginny or Dave could make it into the general election, but I'm afraid they could split the vote and leave Erik with 51% (or better) in the primary.

Emilie Boyles Granted Certification 2/21/06

Emilie Boyles has become a Certified Campaign Finance Fund Candidate and is eligible to receive an initial primary public funding allocation of $150,000.

The Auditor's Office reviewed her Request for Certification and supporting documentation, submitted February 15, 2006. This review confirmed that the candidate has complied with the provisions of Code Chapter 2.10 and City Administrative Rules.

The Request indicates that she received 1,007 valid $5 qualifying contributions from City Residents and $60 in seed money. This $5,095 will be deducted from her public funding allocation.

Per City Code, $144,905 will be distributed to the candidate's principal campaign committee by March 7, 2006 (10 business days after determination).

Erik Sten files Request for Certification 2/21/06

Erik Sten, candidate for Commissioner No. 2, filed his Request for Certification as a publicly funded candidate Tuesday afternoon, February 21, 2006.

The Auditor's Office has five business days to review the request and determine if he has qualified for certification.

Certified candidates for Commissioner are eligible to receive $150,000 for their Primary Election campaign, minus any seed money and qualifying contributions received by the candidate.

100% of the funding is due to certified candidates within 10 business days of certification.

The first year of "try it you'll like it" voter owned elections will cost a minimum of $435,000 (minus seed money), assuming none of the three VOE candidates make it to the general election.

Assuming Erik, plus another voe candidate (either Amanda Fritz or Emilie Boyles) advance to the general election, the cost will increase to $835,000. If all three VOE funded candidates advance to the general election, then it will cost $1,035,000. If one or more VOE candidates is faced by an evil "outspending" dirty-money candidate then matching funds will kick in.

<h2>There are countless other recipients that would have put these funds to better use. Sam's Tram is not one of them. 2% for Public Art isn't either. Schools, public safety, drug counseling, or shelter/heating subsidies would be better recipients. Perhaps you can think of others. Portland should consider their spending priorities before they go back to the voters with any new revenue proposals. As long as VOE and 2$ for Public Art remain in force, I'll be voting against ALL sources of new revenue.</h2>