So judging by Mr Blackmer's actions, if she had not slipped up and signed a year's lease, all of the other money is hers? This is just too precious, good thing we had a stupid person get caught.

I am sure when the system gets better, then we'll catch the people who outsmart Erik and Blackmer. This VoE is getting laughed at across the country, I just got called from NY, it hit the news there.

Also from The Oregonian article:

"Boyles' financial history is shaky: She owes the state of Alaska more than $21,000 in student loans, although state regulators eventually declared the debt uncollectable after they could not find Boyles to demand repayment. As of last week, she owed $175 in property taxes and fines to Multnomah County. In an e-mail sent to numerous newsgroups this weekend seeking legal help, Boyles' daughter said her mother earns $600 a month."

It's pretty obvious that the City's taxpayers can say goodbye to the money the Council gave away to Boyles. Even if she returns half of the $150K, she probably could not afford to pay the 12% penalty interest on the remaining $75K.

The more I learn about Portland's VoE (a.k.a. "Erik Sten's re-election fund"), the more I realize what a horribly bad program this is. Check out the Auditor's PDF about the program (with stupid clipart).

• VoE Discourages Candidates from Raising Too Much Seed Money and Qualifying Contributions. Any amounts raised in excess of $15K or $20K are deducted from the City's initial giveaway.
• VoE Penalizes Unopposed Candidates. If a candidate is unlucky enough to have all of their opponents withdraw, s/he has to pay back all of the funds regardless if the money is spent.
• VoE Encourages Candidates to Spend The Entire Jackpot. If you win or lose, you better plan on spending the entire jackpot or else you have to write a check to the City and give back the excess (assuming you haven't left town).

For a program that will probably end up costing taxpayers millions in a few election cycles, it seems like Sten and Co. could have thought it a through better.

After reviewing the expenditures by Ms. Boyles, it seems more appropo to denominate the creative campaign funding scheme "Voter Boned Elections"! Hope that isn't too salty?

That 15,000 limit is itself odd.

Change it to 150,000. Also allow someone to continue to appeal to folks to donate to the city on behalf of their campaign so as to defray some or all of the public cost.

Now, what would happen to any opportunity for the Auditor to impose a civil penalty for misuse of public funds if the city suffers no loss because of subsequent donations before the date of an election? (The time has not yet run out for Ms. Boyles to obtain such cover of her debt.)

This ability to continue to make such later appeals for money is on my list of issues. But I would have only been able to address it hypothetically, and challenge it by overtly asking folks to cover the city's cost during any campaign.

Without such a limit on both seed money and the ability to repay from new contributions before the close of a campaign then it might just look like the Mannix funding dilemma caused by debt from a prior campaign. Except here the city would be the lender.

I want a change in election funding laws generally so as to recognize campaign debt that is not paid off by the time of an election as a donation.

Now . . . if rich-boy-joe-bloe received public campaign funds and could escape any civil penalty merely by covering the city's cost with a single immediate check while poor-candidate-sally gets hit with a demand for return plus a penalty is the penalty solely then for being poor?

You guys are evil . . . to the poor. If Mannix owed 400,000 to someone he was even poorer than Ms. Boyles, and perhaps even more susceptible to manipulation.

Could someone "loan" Ms. Boyles the money today to repay the monies she received . . . so as to save her from a civil penalty?

Could Sam Adams retroactively ratify illegally distributed funds (illegal at the time of their delivery) for the tram so as to escape personal criminal action? Could the Auditor be demanded to be consistent? (Think -- "on behalf of another" in the words found in the ORICO laws; with an eye toward Keiwit and Jim Francisconi as beneficiaries.)

Could Mr. Sten push today for a retroactive change in the VOE ordinance so as to eliminate the prospect of the Auditor's demand for an civil penalty against Ms. Boyles beyond just a simple demand for return of the money? Dan Saltzman found a way for the tram, and got his name in highlights in the Oregonian for his courageous action.

The pro-tram folks ought to find a better adviser than they have in the anti-Boyles anti-VOE folks. This could just get too tempting to resist going to court for a play date.

One wonders whether the Auditor is going to apply this same standard to the May rent for Fritz and Sten. If they pay their entire May rent up front, including the portion after the primary, out of their city funds, then they are in violation and have to return all the money they received?

If this were the only problem with Emily Boyles - her petitions were all legit and she wasn't paying her daughter at what appears to be an exhorbitant rate - this would look like the auditor was trying to find an excuse to take the money away from her.

What about literature - if they don't use all of it, can they give it out after the primary? Or would that violate the ordinance? And what about web sites, polling and media work done for the primary, can they be reused in the general election? And what about those computers? It seems to me the idea that there will be a wall between primary and general election expenses is a fiction.