Did anyone else detect a subtle religious undertone in that message?

Perhaps an overt overtone.

It's kinda funny that Emilie Boyles is now blaming her decision to hire a crook on her main opponent, Erik Sten.

Withdraw, Emilie, withdraw. And give the money back.

P.S. I betcha that Jack Bog and Phil Stanford are finding it difficult to contain their glee. Hmmm... could it be? Maybe THEY'RE behind this whole fiasco.

It's a line from the Karl Rove playbook -- she is God's candidate.

Erik tempted her with the fruit of knowledge. Or the fruit of public money for elections. That she fell from grace, well, you know the story. Erik's a snake! A snake!

Emilie might want to know that Jesus was a carpenter, not an elected official.

Wow. I mean....wow. Should we line up to take shots at Boyles' feet, or just join the free-for-all? She's already firing away...

Oddly enough, I did pick up a religious overtone. For some reason, I suspect that's what she was going for...weird, huh?

Is there a problem with her religion? Or are liberals not openminded enough for her obvious Judeo-Christain beliefs?

I was raised in a very conservative home, and I thought Emilie went a bit far in her piece...but why is there a problem with her faith?

Quite a successful system, this VOE.

Half the people who turned in qualifying signatures were frauds, one was a union-backed challenger and the other was an incumbent who designed the system.

I suppose that's about par for a Sten project.

Yeah, pancho, it's society's fault for the Boyle fraud. And her opponent's. And it's religous bigotry. But worse, one of the Voter-Owned candidates is a ONA nurse!

Hee hee...ha ha ha...HA HA HA HA HA...WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

Too funny. Wiping tears from eyes.

(Well, except for the "tax dollars being stolen" part)

Obviously this version of VOE is ludicrously defective and, along with its author should be turned out.

[Editor's note: off topic comments deleted.]

Time to bury this monster deep and have some real world pros craft a version that protects the public rather than enrich the scammers.

"I suppose that's about par for a Sten project."

Nah, Erik's got it figured out he gets his big campaign money from Homer Williams as "seed" money to get going. So pretty much we are were we were before VoE, less $600K of taxpayer money.

As I understand it, City Council chose to allow a few election cycles to occur so issues just like this could be discovered and rectified before it went out to the voters. Seems to be working.

Maybe its just obvious to me, but I would posit that the all important arm of our liberal (not that definition!) society, the free press (and the Oregonian to boot), has done an excellent job of uncovering this "alleged" fraud. Props to Ms. Griffin.

The system is important and can work. It is just one of many excellent examples of Portland pushing the status quo in an effective and measured pace. Its personally why I live here.

red: I think religion is crazy and I think people like Boyles who believe in it are crazy and no flying spaghetti monster can convince me otherwise. Anyone who seems like they're going to throw that much faith in their governing is not someone I'm likely to support.

You are free to think I'm crazy or intolerant or whatever you want. Yay free society!

She had a week to work on a comment and released this trash? Wow, if Boyle knew anything about politics, I'd say she had a complete meltdown, but I suppose we can expect a non-politician to get flustered by adversity. Of course, this also suggests she had no sound political advise either. One of the most important skills of an elected official is knowing where to get good advice. Emily Boyle did not get good advice on this issue.

Suppose that Portland passed a law that required that ALL candidates must get 1000 signatures and must get 5 dollar donations from each of those signors toward their political campaign.

Each candidate would thus have sufficient public support to place their name on the ballot; as the public purpose for purposes of overcoming first amendment challenges. If this hurdle was required for all then the clean money element of the law could be isolated out to nothing more than an agreement to limit spending.

Instead, the clean money law introduces opportunities for legal challenge that are unrelated to the clean money agreement to voluntarily limit spending.

The flaw is more than ample enough to obtain a judicial demand that Mr. Sten himself return his clean money.

Let's start here

"ORS 260.655 Payments for putting name on nomination papers or for performance of political committee duties. No payment or contribution for any purpose shall be made a condition precedent to putting a name on any caucus or convention ballot, nomination paper or petition, or to the performance of any duty imposed by law on a political committee."

Consider: 1) no money may be demanded for placement on the ballot (per US Supreme Court) 2) Portland does not demand any signatures supportive of placement on the ballot

Tactically, Ms. Boyles should immediately return the money to the city pending legal resolution. She really cannot spend it now unless she can fully cover later if return is demanded, so this return costs her nothing at all. Then she should insist, in court, that Mr. Sten and other clean money candidates return their clean money. She would be arguing that the clean money law is invalid for all clean money candidates due to the demand for five dollars from some candidates and not others. The demand of five dollars is not even rationally related the clean money, other than the drafter's decision to plop it into the same ordinance. If the five dollar thing is invalidated then the statute upon which Mr. Sten claims the right to demand, and retain, his clean money would be based on a provision that has been voided, thus eliminating his rightful claim.

Simple.

oy, vey.

er...uh...wow.

i don't even know where to begin.

note to self: ABEB: Anybody BUT Emilie Boyles.

For the record I live in Washington County and can't vote in this election, but this is just campaign doubletalk and BS. I support VOE btw and think that this is just an example of how it needs to be fixed. Additionally, I am not asking her to step aside nor is really anyone else.

However, to invoke religion and say we should all pray for Portland infuriates me. She is trying a lot of the same doubletalk that we all hate from Republicans. She is certainly no progressive, we know that now.

I didn't think Burdick had enough time to write Boyle's spin, especially after all the OHSU recent press releases, OHSU advertisements in the Oregonian, Oregonian "OHSU fluff pieces", expediting seven Oregonian editorials on the tram in two months, and running her own campaign. Remarkable!

Would you rest your rebuttal on that?

Try a more exhaustive examination.

The signatures and contributions are more like that of a poltical party demand within their own membership. The very demand for both signatures and contributions here is the key to converting a neutral law, neutral as to all political parties, into a city-as-a-party thing where the party platform is the agreement to limit spending (spending from any source).

You need to look at it like an algebraic formula with variables. This is the essence of legal reasoning. Swap the public purpose of limiting spending on campaigns (regardless of public funding or private funding) with either pro or con universal health care. In addressing the five dollar donation is it even necessary to look at or consider the stated public purpose? I think not.

Could someone argue that disparity of income/wealth, as a legislative-style factual finding, justifies supporting the delivery of public dollars to someone that pledges to advance the issue of universal publicly paid health care? Alternatively, could someone argue that the higher utilization of services and elective procedures by wealthier people supports the medical community to the benefit of poor, as a legislative-style factual finding, and justifies supporting the delivery of public dollars to someone that pledges to advance the issue of opposing universal publicly paid health care?

The formulation of public policy objectives and preparation of supportive factual findings is nearly infinite. That is, it becomes necessary to isolate out the five dollar thing from the stated public purpose. The five dollar demand, and the demand for signatures, must each stand on their own.

The actual placement on the ballot is not definitive of eligibility to be declared the winner of an election. A person who's name is on the ballot cannot use that placement to claim that a write-in candidate with more votes cannot be declared the winner. Placement on the ballot is thus irrelevant to the inquiry as to whether the delivery of money can be uniquely conditioned on the signatures and five dollar donations.

Torridjoe, you got it. The voluntariness of a promise to limit expenditures is an isolated issue. It is isolated from both signatures and from the five dollar donations. Mr. Sten can limit his expenditures all on his own or promise to do so through a signed document. But that issue is not the one that will resolve the case of delivery of dollars to him. Mr. Sten is not spending more than the agreed amount so there is no controversy over that written pledge resulting in a city demand that he return money for violating his voluntary contract. It is inapplicable here.

Mr. Sten could consider whether the best way to support clean money elections might be to return his money and go back to the drawing board.

You are free to agree or disagree. I am just putting a contemporaneous analysis into the public record.

b!x, don't forget my SSM arguments. The proper procedure was to be denied a license and then go to court and seek a equal privileges and immunities violation remedy of declaring the marriage statute void, to the extent of delivery of public benefits but allowance of registration so as to alert the public for commercial purposes that the couple treats their resources as one. It may not be exactly what the SSM advocates want but it would surely have altered the entire legislative debate that followed. That claim, based on a denial, is not altered by M36 or the resolution of the prior case. But hey, you are free to disregard my musings.

Recheck the statute.

I used to have my own case law CD with my own document file format and display system that included tailor-made hypertext linking between various legal data sets specific to Oregon. I hope that I would not mess up on pointing to a single section in a statute. The .655 piece is useful.

I don't expect Ms. Boyles to get the aid of a sufficiently talented lawyer so it could all be just entertaining discussion.

Where else but at the Portland Public Trough can one convert a $5,000 investment into a $350,000 return?

This system is so easy to scam, no wonder Boyles is claiming Sten somehow entrapped her by creating a process that invites fraud.

But fraud isn't even needed to leverage that $150-$350K from Portland taxpayers. Those "signing" the petition do not have to be registered voters, nor must they even be old enough to vote!

Next election, I would love to see someone turn in 1,000 signatures from elementary and kindergarten students - preferably in crayon. Of course, they each would have "contributed" $5 each, all in untraceable cash.

You don't have to be 18 nor registered to vote to give money under the old system either. As inconvenient as it is for opponents of Voter-Owned elections, it's NOT easy to scam our current system AND GET AWAY WITH IT.

Having said that, even though the Boyles money's going to be recovered, there needs to be improvements made in the implementation of the system. But Portland should keep VOter-Owned Elections.

Joe:

Do those other states allow pre-schoolers to scribble their names on qualifying petitions? Or have those states yet to become that progressive?

• Wes

For those VOE supporters who love Portland's system because it is based upon models working successfully(?) in other states, consider this:

In Arizona, Maine, Mass, North Carolina and Vermont, each of those states require that a "qualified contribution" be made by a REGISTERED VOTER in the JURSIDICTION for which the candidate is running.

Portland not only permits children to sign the qualifying petition, but also those who are not registered to vote anywhere, including resident aliens not eligible to (legally) vote.

If Sten and Blackmer wanted this to be a legitimate "showing of interest," then they should have raised the bar and required a showing of actual voter interest.

• Wes

see http://www.newrules.org/gov/clean.html

It's important to differentiate between limits on who may vote (or sign petitions) and limits on who may conitrbute to a candidate.

Under the old system, you didn't have to be a Portland resident (or even an Oregon resident) or of legal voting age. There were very few limits on who could contribute at all.

The VOE system, at least, forces candidates to raise their money from the same people they serve -- the residents of Portland. That's a step forward.

Also, has their been a rash of pre-schoolers contributing to campaigns? Do we need to start worrying about the growing power of the Barney Lobby?

"How about the old big money system in which a downtown developer can invest a couple of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions and get millions back in special interests tax breaks and giveaways?"

You got me there. That explains why Eric Sten's recent C&E report lists these contributors: Robert Ball, Tom Walsh, James Winkler, Homer Williams, Doug Obletz and other downtown developers and builders.

The difference now is that instead of contributing a couple thousand bucks to Sten, they only needed to pony up $100 each in "seed money." With that crowd, that's lunch money at the Governor or Heathman.

• Wes

"I don't think that Sten -- or any politician for that matter -- is likely to be heavily influenced by a C note."

Explain to me again how Erik can take "seed" beyond $5 from Homer anyways. He found a lopphole already.

Emilie shouldn't blame Erik Sten; she should blame the shady Ukrainian Volodymyr Golovan to whom she indirectly entrusted her campaign, her reputation and her political career. (Are there even 1000 Ukrainians registered to vote in Portland?) I have worked with Emilie Boyles thru the New Slavic Life Center and, while I found her to be a lovely person, I noticed she was also enamored of the Russian/Ukrainian cultures and she tended to be naive about their willingness to circumvent the system. Russians and Ukrainians come from a country where, in order to survive, they've had to find a way around the law. This does not change once they immigrate. I have seen them abuse the government welfare system, engage in marriage fraud for green cards and financial support, form illegal businesses and participate in all kinds of nefarious activities designed to make money without accountability. Many Americans fall in love with the beauty of those cultures, the magnificent religious and secular rituals, the kindness and seeming generosity, the literature, music, language, etc... and end up getting used, taken and played for the fool. I was one of those people, back in my 20s before I understood the flip, rotten side of the Russian soul. It cost me $10,000, my life savings at the time, and also my heart, to a charming and handsome green card shark. At least it didn't cost my good name or my unwitting involvement in a crime. I actually feel bad for Emilie Boyles. She made a mistake that was not only expensive but also ruinous. She needs to bone up and take responsiblity for that, but not demonize her for being human and wanting to trust in a culture that charmed and enchanted her.

When I was candidate for the same City Council seat as Boyles, I read the entire ordinance and the administration rules, which explicity state:

<hr/>

e. Exchanges for Qualifying Contributions Prohibited. City Code Section 2.10.070 F. prohibits the giving or receiving of any payment, gift or thing of value in exchange for qualifying contributions.

This provision does not prohibit a participating candidate or solicitor from collecting qualifying contributions at events where food or beverages are served, or where campaign promotional materials are distributed, provided that the food, beverage and campaign materials are offered to all persons attending the event regardless of whether or not particular persons make a qualifying contribution to the participating candidate. Participating candidates may use seed money to purchase such food, beverage or campaign materials as legitimate campaign expenses.

<hr/>

What's so hard to understand about that, Emilie? In fact, having spent a few years in internal audit in my own career, I actually looked for loopholes to make an issue of and attack Sten. However, I must support Sten and Blackmer on this one. It looked like they did a pretty thorough job. Boyles and Tate did get caught and they are going to get in a lot of trouble. This is not the Water Bureau blunder. Now if Boyles actually got elected, or even past the primary with fraudulent signatures and contributions, that would be a real fiasco.

I think the greater message is that we need a certain threshold of education and experience to qualify to even run for office, like we have with the City Auditor who must be a CPA, CMA, or CIA. I don't think we want to be too restrictive, but shouldn't we require a bachelors degree, transcripts, and verifiable employment of at least 5 years, just as an example? And what about the candidate filing forms? In the case of Boyles, she doesn't list any of her prior employers. She claims to have four years of college, but has no formal degree conferred upon her, so that could have been four years taking one class a term. Shouldn't we know GPA and hours completed?

Maybe Boyles was genuinely too stupid to read or understand the city code that she signed under penalty of law to uphold and we should be sorry for her (I'm not), but if that's the case she shouldn't have been wasting the City's time and money by running in the first place.

RTH: "Maybe Boyles was genuinely too stupid to read or understand the city code"

Maybe we should require voters to pass a literacy test too.

<h2>But, of course, that might offend the US Supreme Court, even if a city code made it a crystal clear condition and made sure staff orally announced the precondition and vigorously administered a test.</h2>