Um, your constant linking of this to Burdick is bullc--p.

She's a VP at a firm that helps run the campaign, she may be friends with some of the campaign's leaders, she may want voters to vote on the issue, but it's not her campaign. So stop it or I'll have to vote for her just because what you're doing is slimy.

Ginny Burdick is the one who constantly makes the link - and is putting the VOE repeal effort at the center of her campaign. That's her choice, and of course it's a campaign issue since she is offering it as a reason for voters to support her.

I don't see anything wrong with Charlie pointing out that Burdick is part of a coordinated campaign to kill voter-owned elections and knock out Erik Sten in a bid to restore the Goldschmidt political machine back to prominance in Portland.

What's slimy is that she's bashing Portland's public financing of elections while using the state's public financing system as an incentive to contribute to her campaign.

Having said that, she's clearly financing her campaign the old-fashioned way ... by throwing in with well-financed special interests.

People-powered Ginny, she is not. And I'm glad that the Multnomah Dems voted to oppose her candidacy for that Sten's seat on the Commission.

OK. Let's get this clear. Part of Ginny's message is that voters should have voted on public financing. That's one of five or six points she makes, but it's not on her home page, thus I would argue it is not "front and center."

But the campaign against public financing is not a campaign run by Ginny -- which is what your post states: "Burdick’s Big Money VOE Foes...."

There are Big Money VOE Foes, but they don't belong to Burdick. Nothing I've seen from their campaign uses Ginny as a spokesperson, etc.

Charlie:

We are so glad to see the TRUTH was revealed to you, and you have generously bestowed it upon the BlueOregon elite. Everybody else has opinions, but CHARLIE HAS SEEN THE TRUTH and the TRUTH IS GOOD! Thank you, Charlie, for sharing the TRUTH!

Here's an alternative TRUTH: many Portland voters with no connection to PGE, Qwest, Gard & Gerber (or any other well heeled interests) are pissed off the City Council would divert public tax dollars to fund political campaigns at the same time they are underfunding public safety and poor mouthing Portland Public Schools.

I would happily endorse VOE if it were funded by a payroll tax on all City employees. Better yet, since all City and County pensions were exempted from the I-tax, perhaps a special surcharge could be levied on all retired City of Portland employees to fund Clean Government? If the City were able to solicit donations from civic minded individuals or businesses, even better. But to divert money from bureau operating budgets to fund more yard signs, bumper stickers, and attack ads? PLEAAASSSSEEE!

To levy a tax on all taxpayers is to require them to fund candidates which they DO NOT support. At a minimum, they should have referred V0E to the voters in advance of implementation. Having failed to seek the consent of the governed, having (in Erik Sten's case) diverted public funds to his personal use (his reelection benefits him more than it benefits the general public), and having set the bar for "qualifying donation" so ridiculously low that my 18 month old son has made a qualifying $5 donation (signed in Crayon), this ill conceived initiative deserves a quick death at the ballot box.

November will work just fine.

Alice | Mar 14, 2006 10:56:34 PM We are so glad to see the TRUTH was revealed to you, and you have generously bestowed it upon the BlueOregon elite. Everybody else has opinions, but CHARLIE HAS SEEN THE TRUTH and the TRUTH IS GOOD! Thank you, Charlie, for sharing the TRUTH!

JK: Alice, do you have any financial interst in this issue? Are you, or do you work for, an entity that has contributed more than $1000 in any election cycle? Do you get any income from any election related activities?

Persionally I am aginst government giving money to anyone (except the needy), but I am starting to see some advantages to this scheme of finance. It is a lot cheaper than giving many millions to well connected developers to screw over Portland with their politically correct high density garbage "new neighborhoods" that are bleeding this town dry of money needed for basic services like police, fire and schools.

It is becoming a lesser of evils thing for me.

Thanks JK

VOE is a good thing because it gives the little guy a leg up for some equal footing, but don't you think it should have been put to a voters before enacted?

The only financial interest I have in VOE is not seeing my tax dollars wasted on Erik Sten's reelection. I have never contributed a $1,000 in any election cycle. My employment has nothing to do with elections, real estate, or any issue that might come before the City Council.

I am tired of paying high property taxes while my neighborhood streets, schools, and sewers are crumbling. We don't need new taxes in the City of Portland, we need new priorities. Voter Owned Elections will only expand the pool of candidates; VOE funds are intentionally inadequate to beat an incubment. Amanda Fritz has the best chance of proving me wrong: I expect Saltzman to get more than 55% to 60% of the general election vote (and he could win in the primary).

If they wanted to level the playing field, the challengers would be provided with twice as much money as the incumbent in order to overcome the tremendous advantages of incumbency. Just because everybody gets the same amount of money doesn't make it fair. You are naive if you believe otherwise.

But I digress, Charlie already explained the TRUTH: my knee-jerk rightists opinions can't handle the truth.

pardon me Charlie but I have another question for you

you said:

"Voters will get a chance to vote on this, but only after a few cycles to see if it's a system we want. I think that's fair."

why is that fair though? why shouldn't the city council have refered it to voters in the first palce. If your changing the rules of demcoracy shouldn't all of it's participants have a say so before you do so?

charlie -

its weird though, I don't know of anytime else when the rules of a demcoracy were fundementally changed without popular consent. Vote by mail, term limits, campaign finance reform, for example all were or are being put in fromt of voters

also I have nothing to do with Burdick, Im just saying I wonder if VOE should have been approved by voters first instead of taking years to get use to it first, it's like we can't be trusted

Alice,

You seem to be on the right track with your final statement. As to your desire to see challengers get twice as much money as incumbents, well, hmm, that's worth discussing. Realize, though, in the traditional way of funding campaigns, incumbents almost always outraise and outspend their challengers. Parity is not a bad starting point for now.

Since you disapprove of much of what the city council does, why not get off your butt and run for office. With the Voter Owned Election system in place, there's no reason you can't get your message out and see if the voters agree with you.

If VOE is optional, can I opt not to have my tax dollars support it?

For what it's worth though, I agree with Charlie in that I don't think that measures i support that have been passed through the city council (or legislature or what have you) should ever come up for a vote. Or at least not come up for a vote until I've had my way for a couple years. Anything i disagree with though should be put up for a vote immediately (as long as polls show the majority backing my opinion).

Wow, it's amazing the things I can justify that way.

And since it seems the current council can't legally force a future council to put this up for a vote, anyone want to start taking bets on whether we ever see this on a ballot?

I actually support VOE by the way, whole-heartedly. It scares the bezeebees out of me though to see Enron as a defender of democracy. It should have been put to a vote from the beginning to avoid giving people the idea that the good guys are afraid of seeing this on the ballot. I hate being embarrassed by people I agree with.

Charlie - I just don't know how you can advocate changing a system fundementally without getting voters approval first. To say well in a few years you will get a chance to have a democratic vote to decide if you like what we've already done seems wrong, smacks of dictatorship.

On the otherhand I truly do love the VOE model and would like to see it implemented, but I believe you made a mistake by not refring it to voters yourself. And for that reason whether it was Ginny Burdick or whomever gathers sigantures to vote on this, it still seems liek a good idea to me.

I hope you don't lack in confidence that the voters would approve it with the initial presentation of the idea. I too am looking forward to the debate too only sadly it may not happen for several years.

I am curious, I am not Ted Blaszak or whoever, and I did not post under the additional name of Cardy. I do not know why you think I am or have. I would like to remain annoymous and was merely trying to dicuss the issue, but I will refrain from any future postings as you seem more interested in a personal political struggle than a open discussion.

Charlie,

I wish you would stop this witch hunt - I am not Ted Blaszak! I am on Wi-Fi internet at my college along with 2,500 other students. I just wanted to have a disscusion on a blog about an important issue - but if all you have to fall back on is a witch hunt then forget about it.

btw

how did you get my ip address - and would you please respect my wish for privacy.

Charlie:

Imagine if the City Council voted to spend $1 million annually on an incentive compensation program, payable to the top five Portland Police Officer's (as elected by their peers). Call it the Pride, Integrity, and Guts bonus. If you agree that our City Council was elected to provide oversight of the Police Department, would you support giving $200k bonuses to five of the boys in blue?

I can imagine that many Portlanders would object to five police officers receiving $200k bonuses: it's money that can't be spent on patrol cars, or training, or more 911 operators. Some citizens might suggest the City Council lacks the authority to divert operating funds for the PIG bonus. Others might feel it discriminates against dedicated firefighters, civil servants, and road maintenance crews. Undoubtedly, the guys from NORML would be opposed to the idea: they might even try and gather enough signatures to put a repeal initiative on the ballot.

Would you support putting the PIG Bonus program up for a vote? Would you criticize the guys from NORML for being "anti-democratic" or trying to micro-manage the City Council?

Sorry Charlie, but I think you would be standing in Pioneer Courthouse Square, gathering signatures with the OSPIRG kids.

There are certainly five members of the Portland Police Department that are far more deserving of public subsidy than all of the political candidates that will ever qualify for VOE funding.

Granted, a million bucks a year is not very much money in the grand scheme of things: less than one-tenth of one percent of Portland's budget. So why not fund both VOE and the PIG Bonus?

I don't know if VOE could pass if the issue had gone directly to voters. I've worked on more than one good measure that went down in flames during the campaign. That' because in general, the good folks don't have any money for a barrage of media ads, and the bad folks do. The truth is, folks like Burdick represent powers that routinely do an end-run around the democratic process, because they control the means by which the public learns about the issues. To a lesser degree, a lot of voters are to blame for this as well, because they think that signing a petition to get something on the ballot, watching some ads and then voting "yes" or "no" is the full spectrum of participation. But if they don't pony up the bucks to get the "yes" side they sympathise with out to the rest of the public, they are engaging in a battle with one hand tied behind their backs.

Burdick and her pals had their own methods turned against them, and now they're whining about it because their traditional method of manipulating the masses --ie, monopolization of the local media-- was unavailable to save their bacon. Stuff it, Ginny. It's bad enough that I have to pay bills every month to the same jaggoffs who are sending you out to disempower me even at this miniscule level. Hell, Enron doesn't pay its taxes at all, and your camp has the utter gall to whine that a few dollars of the taxes they don't even pay might go to VOE. Please.

Sorry. Not Enron. PGE. Freudian slip ? ;)