The people who supported and worked for this reform -- like the League of Women Voters -- are the ones calling for a thorough investigation of the allegations made. If Boyles or any other candidate violated the rules, they should not be entitled to Voter-Owned funds. Period.

That's how the system was designed. It's worth pointing out that the old big money system also had many candidates and bad actors who broke the rules -- like Tom Moyer's Secretary contributing $1000 to Jim Francesconi. Also, Oregon's initiative system -- which Oregonians overwhelmingly support -- may have been subject to fraud by Bill Sizemore and others, but the appropriate response was not to get rid of our system of entire direct democracy, but to strongly penalize wrongdoing and fraud.

Gary Blackmer and the City Auditor's office need to investigate -- and certainly there should be a presumption of innocence -- but if fraud has occured, VOE funds should be revoked. Every system has those who will try to take advantage of it; a strong system is one that has rules and safeguards against wrongdoing.

I think the whole "paying for signatures" idea is a red herring. There's a reason Golovan would want to volunteer to collect them; clearly the Eastern Bloc community wants an active voice in City politics. There's also no law about supporting multiple candidates, so the fact that both Tate and Boyles got help from Golovan doesn't strike me as dirty business, either.

Now, whether Golovan performed as the laws provide is a valid and open question. I don't think it's a sound basis for conclusion to rely on the (perhaps intentionally) shady memories of some of the signatories. But if there are cases of one person signing for multiple people, that should show up in the contributor sheets.

Which brings the next question: if that were the case, why wouldn't Susan Francois and her staff catch it? When I spoke to her about the process a few weeks ago, she was adamant that a single substantive error in the submission would invalidate their entire request for certification. One duplicate, one non-resident of Portland, one $5.10 donation, and it's over for you. And while 1,000 names isn't chicken feed, it's not too much to go over by hand in the allotted week.

So if she certified Boyles' sheets, did she just miss what's being alleged...or is what's being alleged not clear from the sheets, and someone at The O is speculating? That'd be worth knowing, all right.

I think the next iteration of this should be restricted to registered voters. It's consistent, and offers verifiability on a number of points (residency, age, signature). I appreciate the idea that people who aren't registered nonetheless should be able to participate in other ways, but it just makes things too complicated--and I have to say, if you can't even motivate yourself to register to vote, should you be contributing money to the process?

Worth mentioning is one other bit from the Theo article which to my mind tosses Boyles from legitimate consideration regardless of these allegations.

In a faxed statement Thursday, Boyles accused the newspaper of religious discrimination against Christian conservatives and Slavic Christians in particular.

This is so much BS that it reeks of, "Uhoh, I'm in trouble, better throw up a smoke screen."

Ah yes, that struck me as a really, really bad move by Boyles. Thanks for the reminder. I haven't soured on her completely, but she's off to an uninspired start IMO.

O.K. the Oregonian is not a bastion of liberal media bias. I do not agree that these alleged transgressions against VOE should result in the system being thrown out. I have had a huge problem with self-identified "progressives" or "liberals" who have bitched & moaned about VOE. The Oregonian, in my opinion, picked up on that thread from liberal blogs such as BlueOregon and is now throwing in some new fodder for these P.I.N.O.'s or L.I.N.O.'s who talk a good game of campaign finance reform, but don't have the gonads to stand up for a system that our elected officials enacted without wussing out via the initiative process.

The Citizen Campaign Commission will undoubtably have a lot of "process" and "procedure" work to do. Hopefully, they will get on this issue a.s.a.p. so that our system will provide direct evidence to the nay sayers out there that VOE is a pet project, or is not a priority.

Thank you Charlie and Carol for your diligence in highlighting the role of the Citizen Commission and the need for the Commission to step up and in a hurry on this issue.

I was under the impression that the candidate needed to get the 1,000 signatures personally, not have this done by surrogates. Can someone tell me if this is true or not? If surrogates can do it, it seems to me that the system will break down and can not meet its original objective. After all, someone needs to be able to swear that the cash came in $5 amounts from the people on the list. If the candidate didn't raise the funds and signatures, how do they swear that it was done right? What's to keep a group from doing this and then paying themselves out of the city's funding?

John, when you ran for State Rep., I'm sure that most of your fundraising "asks" were done by you personally (perhaps not all?), but it's very common in political campaigns to have a finance committee who also raises money for that candidate. I've personally raised tens of thousands of dollars for Bradbury, for example. I also gave money to John Kerry, but obviously he didn't personally asked me.

What's important here is: did the Boyles and Tate campaigns list contributors who in fact didn't contribute? If so, they shouldn't be entitled to VOE funds.

Steve, I just used the example of John Kerry's campaign, and of course both his and Bush's campaign used public funds. As does Ginny Burdick's current race for City Council.

Sten is out there "meeting the voters." He is also serving as a City Commissioner too.

Steve, why don't you host a house party and invite Sten to come if you feel he is not reaching out to your neighborhood?

It was never the intent to mandate any candidate seeking VOE funds to go it alone and do it themselves. Each campaign should have quality control mechanisms in place prior to submission and the City Auditor's office should have, if the Oregonian allegations are true, compitent quality control mechanisms in place to catch this stuff.

Charlie,

I know that fundraising in the traditional order is often done by supporters (I actually did all of mine). I was still under the impression that the reform was to set up a test for the candidate to go out and get 1,000 names at $5 each partly to ensure that it was a hurtle that only the dedicated would take on.

John,

Yes, a 1000 contribution threshold was specifically designed to put the burden on campaigns to go out and demonstrate community support. But having traditionally under-served, under-representated communities organizing on behalf of a candidate I think is actually a good thing, and still takes a lot of work. If the system is getting more people involved -- and playing by the rules -- that's great.

Under our existing system, what's being alleged with Boyles is not allowed. If wrongdoing is proven, then Tate or Boyles should not be allowed to use VOE funds.

PS I had a hard to picturing a surrogate from your race getting a check from Lloyd Benson!

b!x, where did this quote come from:

From the newspaper article linked at the start of this BlueOregon post.

I was still under the impression that the reform was to set up a test for the candidate to go out and get 1,000 names at $5 each partly to ensure that it was a hurtle that only the dedicated would take on.

The proposal itself just said "Clean Money systems require candidates to gather a specified number of small contributions." Whether that's through door-knocking, blogging, or a single public event (or any other method)--the system seems agnostic toward it. Even if the methodology were specified, how could you police it? Seems that the act of having gathered the checks, rather than the method, is its own proof.

None of this is particularly relevant to this case--presumably all methods require knowledge and consent of the donor.

Pat,

Why the quotes in this statement: I have had a huge problem with self-identified "progressives" or "liberals" who have bitched & moaned about VOE.

Does asking questions about VOE disqualify someone from being a liberal or progressive?

And I agree with b!x -- both of the candidates here come off as either dissembling or deliberately naive.

Look at the Tate quotes. She spent six months trying to get signatures and was still 400 or so short. Golovan contacts her and offers to finish the job, and does it in a few weeks. Tate says she was "shocked" but assumed nothing untoward happened. And by the way, she's planning on hiring Golovan.

Oh, really? There may be good reasons to have amateurs in politics, but political naivete or stupidity ain't.

According to Anna G, a sampling of the problematic Boyles sheets have now been posted online (pdf).

The rules and safeguards should are applied evenly to all candidates. I may not be a Christian consersative myself, but if a Christian conservative wants to get more actively involved with local government because of Voter-Owned Elections, great. Nothing wrong with that.

But just a two minute examination of her qualifying petition appears to include multiple signatures signed by the same person. Not O.K. This is one of the reasons PROPONENTS OF VOTER OWNED ELECTIONS ARE THE ONES CALLING FOR A FULL AND TIMELY REVIEW.

Ross, about converting $25 dollars into 5 separate $5 contributions, all is needed is for the City Auditor's office to apply the existing law and honor the rules already in place.

I would hire Golovan in a minute under those circumstances. He delivered 400 signatures and $5 contributions in a short period of time. That requires a pretty good network and showed he could deliver it. There is nothing naive about that. That's how a lot of people get started in politics.

Yeah, well, if you go by these sample sheets Theo has posted online, he's either shifty or not paying attention while "delivering" it. Neither one of those options is quite what someone should be looking for.

But something needs to be done to prevent people from laundering a $25 dollar contribution into five $5 contributions from family members.

Of course, this is a problem in the non-VOE fundraising process as well.

The law is clear, but there needs to be enforcement in place that creates a realistic likelihood people who cheat will be caught.

There's little question that there needs to be a process internal to the elections office to catch potentially duplicate signatures of the sort which appear on the Boyles sheets. In the normal system of contributions disclosure, things tend to be complaint-driven, or spurred by news organizations checking the forms.

In this case, as has been said, it seems something is off if the elections office couldn't notice potentially duplicate signatures on the same sheet, or possibly adjacent sheets. Precisely because this is about qualifying for public monies, not simply the reporting of monies gathered privately from citizens to fund an entire campaign, either some necessary part of VOE failed, or some necessary part of VOE is missing from the law.

Seems that the act of having gathered the checks, rather than the method, is its own proof.

There's no requirement for "checks." These can be CASH contributions. And so NO paper trail for these kind of donations. If someone can't see that the same signer signed for multiple people, then I'm afraid they're in total denial. That doesn't help to promote the cause, folks.

Supporters of "Voter Owned Elections" need to demand that NO money be
given to anyone associated with this obvious fraud --immediately-- until this gets resolved. In my opinion --a personal opinion-- there is no question that what this head of the Russian Chamber of Commerce has conducted is a fraud. That both candidates of VOE are interested in hiring him...I think that tells you about those candidates.

I think Voter Owned Elections has a good intent, but has systemic problems with how this has been set up. We've got a scandal of huge proportions...the proponents of VOE need to step to the plate to say baloney is baloney...otherwise its the same old baloney. And the voters, when they're finally allowed to weigh in, will not be pleased!

Portland's VOE obviously has no tangible effect on Corvallis or Benton County, but its success is crucial as a means to ridding Oregon of the current system, which is far worse than anything that's gone wrong with VOE. i'm not surprised something like this happened; after all, this is the maiden voyage, so to speak. of course problems are going to occur; of course people are going to screw up or cheat or be stupid. that's what we hooman beengs do.

what matters is identifying what works and what doesn't, and then fixing what went wrong. this experiment is far too valuable to give up on. it's imperative Pdx makes this thing work. after a few successful elections with VOE (which, you will recall, is working well in other places around the nation), we can expand it to other parts of the state. our democracy is too valuable to let some growing pains with a new and far better system undermine this reform. just remember how many people doubted vote-by-mail, and we now know it's probably the best system in the nation. VOE can follow suit.

So let's see -- Boyles is diqualified, probably Tate too. So what did "clean money" accomplish? Fritz would have run anyway, and Sten, the incumbent, got a free ride.

What an accomplishment.

which, you will recall, is working well in other places around the nation

I'm sorry, but I don't recall that. Where is it working well? Where is it that the sleazebags who dominate politics with their ready handouts to sweaty palms have been cast aside?

Yes, yes, I know...we have publically financed presidential campaigns that have swept into the dustbin of history those monied interests that used to so cynically manipulate our presidential electoral system.

But aside from that success story?

Look, folks on the fence --like me-- who'd like to believe in the viability of a new paradigm of political reform, but are, well, pretty cynical...we need to see ACTION when an obvious fraud takes place, and this new system gets so willfully --and crudely-- manipulated.

Maybe it's because I've been out of town this week, but has this question been answered: Were the contributions in question made by check or by cash?

If by check, then there exists somewhere a printed record (the checks themselves, or copies) of the individual intent to contribute $5 each. Even if now someone can't remember (or doesn't want to tell a reporter that they remember) giving the $5, well, the check is the proof.

If by cash, then we may have a problem.

The next iteration of these rules should exclude cash as a payment method, and include credit cards. Both checks and credit cards can be traced to the donor -- while cash is untraceable.

Under the current system, credit and debit card contributions are disallowed. Despite repeated efforts on my part (and repeated promises on the part of Susan Francois and Gary Blackmer) the system ended up NOT including easily-traceable credit card and debit card contributions. Untraceable cash was inexplicably included.

I support VOE, and I fully expected that we'd have a few bumps in the road along the way. Let's fix 'em and move on.

I support VOE, and I fully expected that we'd have a few bumps in the road along the way. Let's fix 'em and move on.

Do we ask for the money back from a candidate who supplied forged signatures...or not? (My wife says I should say "IF they supplied forged signatures." I say: "c'mon...IF?)

I don't think "tsk tsk" is going to cut it. If we're handing out major bucks to obvious scam artists and we don't rectify that problem...this attempt at reform is doomed.

Do we ask for the money back? Yes.

BTW, something to add to the mix here -- don't forget that state law still applies here. If they didn't actually collect the $5000, but reported it on their C&E's, then there's a violation of state law there.

Also, a good system isn't one that has no problems. It's one where they catch the people that try and defraud it. In Arizona, for example, one state legislator was removed from office.

Of course, while it would be better if the auditor's office uncovered the problems, it's not irrelevant that the media caught 'em. That's the whole point of public disclosure. With public disclosure, the media and your opponents serve as an informal and private corrective.

Just wait till the white supremist discover this source of money.

Have I mentioned lately how much I despise living the last several years in a country where more and more people seem to instinctively gravitate towards playing some sort of fear card?

Michael -- I don't think you'll be able to find 1000 people willing to put themselves on a public list in support of a white supremacist candidate. They haven't been able to draw more than a few dozen folks to any public event in Oregon, in years.

Arnold, Blackmer IS looking into this, as reported in today's Oregonian.

Arnold, Blackmer IS looking into this, as reported in today's Oregonian.

He also says he's not sure the City has the authority to take the money back, which is seemingly contradicted by the relevant VOE code and administrative rules.

If there's fraud -- and there's every indication that's the case -- Boyles should have to return the Voter-Owned funds. No argument here.

Um guys, "fear" of businesses leaving or "fear" of big campaign doners is not that same as saying "wait until the white supremecists use this!" -- the latter being the local version of dropping the word "terrorism" into a political conversation.

Don't cheapen the bullshit that the fear card is by just dropping whatever you favorite public policy pet peeve is into the term. That's just weak.

Some people do not have checking accounts. Some people who do might prefer that the account numbers not become public record.

And that's what money orders are for. Also, debit/credit cards (which don't, you'll recall, deliver the card number to the payee.)