I like the values behind and want VOE to work, but the Boyles scandal could be a fatal blow to Portland VOE's maiden outing. What's obvious is that Sten's VOE program was written too idealistically and relied too much on the honor system.

The reality is that the VOE offers a jackpot to anyone who can work the system. My suggestion, instead of offering a jackpot payout, VOE should offer matching funds. If a candidate really is credible, then they should be able to find voters willing contribute to their growing campaigns. Let voters vet candidates through their checkbooks/debit cards.

This comment is not paid for by Go Sten Go Committee.

The Sten-Blackmer virus is on the loose and is now in full bloom, overwhelming the remaining critics. There is no inoculation because the virus spontaneously mutates in response to negativity. And since it is vertically and horizontally transmissable, everyone who spends time or money in Portland will become a host to the Sten-Blackmer pathogen. But don't worry. Only about 1 in 4 are symptomatic. The rest of us are merely carriers.

torridjoe: "Norm, who's been able to work the system so far? ...one is under investigation and likely to be forced to return the money. ..."

Since the Boyles' "campaign" admits that she is in debt and may not be able to return taxpayers' money, then, yes, I would call that working the system. If Boyles cannot return the money (and the legal/collection fees), how do we (taxpayers) get back our money? Is Sten and the council going to pay us back? Afterall, we (voters) never authorized our money to go to Boyles.

"... All you're doing is encouraging candidates to raise MORE private money, and then just throwing public money after it for no particular reason. The clean candidate program is designed to offer money, but with strings. ...

The VOE program is not intended to eliminate private money from campaigns. Afterall, it requires candidates to collect private money to qualify. Rather, VOE is intended to provide an alternative to BIG private money. If your concerned about big money have too much influence in a matching funds program, then cap the matching funds to $25 individual contributions like Mayor Potter did in his winning campaign.

$150K is an awfully attractive jackpot and the City is not capable of screening those who are interesting in setting-up losing "campaigns" funded by taxpayers. Boyles is probably only the first candidate who will try to find loopholes in the VOE program in this and future elections. Instead of setting-up a jackpot system, VOE should require candidates to prove their legitimate expenses before receiving taxpayer money.

Is Sten and the council going to pay us back? Afterall, we (voters) never authorized our money to go to Boyles.

It's called representative democracy, dude. People voted for it indirectly by electing our city council. Sorry you don't get to vote on every fucking decision city council makes.

The comments about this "jackpot" all seem to assume that the qualifying candidates are just putting this huge wad of cash into their pockets and walking away. They do have to spend the money on their campaign, and they do have to submit verification of this fact.

The other piece of blowhard BS that's getting really frustrating here is the constant dittohead drumbeat against Erik Sten by people who don't know their facts and often don't even live in Portland. Now you're trying to add Gary Blackmer to your enemies list. Geez, get a grip! If Gary Blackmer --a smart, dedicated and nonpartisan public servant --is the worst example of corruption you can find, you guys are really getting desperate.

Maybe you guys need to go start a Hillary-haters blog somewhere and leave public policy to people whose brains haven't turned to sponge.

Torridjoe: "Boyles can return the money. She's only spent half, and there's surely no problem with the City placing a lien on her for the rest, as necessary. (I do recommend some kind of surety bond to be posted by prospective candidates for future elections, however). She can't be working the system if she's going to lose badly and be on the hook for the money. That's not exactly a good outcome for her. ..."

I'm not familiar with Boyles' finances. I don't know if her or her campaign have assets available to lien. Certainly, she has worked the system to obtain taxpayer cash and even blames VOE for making it easy for her to do so. If she is unable to return the money, then the City and taxpayers will only be another set of lenders with worthless IOUs.

Requiring a VOE-financed candidate to have assets or an insurer seems to contradict the purpose of making elections accessible to more candidates.

torridjoe: "...clean candidate financing isn't designed to eliminate private money--just the INFLUENCE of private money. But beyond where the money comes from, I'm concerned about what they DO with the money. And you only get that with clean candidate financing."

$150K seems like alot of money for taxpayers to risk in order to obtain supposedly "clean" candidates.

My main point is that VOE should be tweaked to reduce the risk that the City will be in the situation of having to reclaim $150K. Instead of asking VOE-financed candidates how they spent the $150 jackpot, why not turn the fund into a reimbursement system in which candidates prove their expenses are legitimate (receipts, vendor W-9s, etc.) before giving-out taxpayer money? A reimbursement system wouldn't be perfect, but it would give the City more time to investigate expenses --- like it hopefully does for any other expense contract.

On VOE the Candidates need to give out receipt for the five dollars, and have a place on the form that collect the signatures a place for the candidate to personely sign their ititals or they signature so that they have seen the signatures and can say I DID NOT KNOW. & at the city level two people at a time look it over with a third person reviewing it. We have people who are on the VOE committee who can work with city people to help them in this so it will not slow not the progress. Also a video should go along with it so THERE is NO MIS-Understanding of the rules (or the canidate can NOT BLAME their opponent for them not following the rules , which means they have BROKEN THE LAW

"I really don't know what you mean by "working the system;" she's worked nothing if she goes into debt to the City."

OK< I have another example. What if Homer says he wants to set up a committee "independent" of Erik and spend $100K of his own money to put signs in every yard in Laurelhurst for Erik which are from the "Homer Loves Erik" committe.

He then does not hesitate to remind Erik over lunch that he did all of this work for him and to think about it during the next tram vote. Is that allowed while Erik takes his hard-earned $150K?

I still think VoE has too many loopholes in it.

Just as vote-by-mail has given Oregon high turnouts and cheap, reliable papertrails

Actually, as Gronke and others have pointed out, VBM has not significantly increased turnout.

And this particular paper trail is somewhat illusory --- you can't prove the person who actually cast the ballot is the one who signed the envelope.

Just correcting the record.

torridjoe: "...We're talking about a very small amount of money, not even $100,000. That's .004% of the City budget, barely even worth recovering except for the example set..."

Wow. I hope you are never put in charge of other people's money -- especially public funds. $100K is a significant amount of money and I'm sure there are plenty of agencies and non-profits in this City who are much more deserving of these funds than questionable candidates like Boyles.

torridjoe: "... I think $150K is an amazingly cheap price to guarantee that our candidates are clean. ..."

As pointed out in Steve's example, no system can 'guarantee' candidates are 'clean' (whatever that means). All such systems are voluntary and only work based on the honor of the candidates. The Boyles fraud demonstrates the flaws in the current system and I wouldn't be surprised if it ultimately leads to the repeal of VOE.

t.a. barnhart: "...we need a huge change in how we do politics and government, and an incompetent like Emily Boyles is no reason to give up this experiment in stemming the flow. we need real change, and VOE is that -- and for the better."

The Boyles fraud is sufficient reason to ask how we can improve VOE. It also brings up serious questions about forcing taxpayers to pay money to candidates. Again, unless the Council tweaks VOE to make it harder for taxpayer cash to be handed out, I can't imagine VOE will survive in its current form.

VOE is one method of making the process more accessible. However, VOE does not really change the system of candidates raising private funds to run for office. Nor does it prevent a candidate from receiving taxpayer funds while an "independant" committee also spends private funds.

VOE is an interesting experiment, but I don't think voters are going to be interesting in funding it if Boyles and other questionable candidates continue to receive the $150K jackpot.

As far as I can tell Boyles is a con artist using the guise of helping others to mooch off the system and she's been doing it for a while.

Quote from today's Oregonian: "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."

Quote from Apr 13 Oregonian: "In 2000, the state of Oregon involuntarily dissolved a group she formed to help disabled people and the homeless after Boyles failed to pay the state registration fee, according to the Oregon Secretary of State's office. Court records also show a $474 small claims judgment in Multnomah County court against Boyles from 1995. And Multnomah County has placed a $175 lien on her mobile home for failure to pay her 2005 property taxes.

<snip>

Boyles doesn't own her Southeast Portland mobile home outright, but pays a middleman who deals directly with the bank. Last week, William Thompson called Boyles' campaign manager to complain that she owed him about six months worth of payments on her trailer, totaling $1,242. He said he warned Boyles that if she didn't pay up, he would alert the media."

It looks like she already has a lien on her property (property that she doesn't even own and is worth a lot less than the money she now owes to the City).

If we get any of the money back, I'll be surprised.

Gotta jump back in on this one... As a former Commish #2 candidate, I had no problem understanding the rules of VOE. Boyles cheated. If there was any doubt, that vanished when she spent the money she was not supposed to receive.

As a former auditor, I can say for certain that the control point in VOE was signature verification. Blackmer dropped the ball in such a way that he should have his CPA suspended. His sampling procedure was completely negligent of basic audit standards and calls into question all of the city's audit findings.

Having said all that, if you really want to take money out of politics, why not just put a ceiling on campaign expenditures? That limit could be $10,000 or $15,000 or any amount that establishes relative parity. Let's say it is $20,000. A guy like me could spend and raise $4,000 to run. Let's say Ginny Burdick and Erik Sten have $20,000 each, the maximum. They have a 5:1 financing advantage. They still have the lead, but not the ability squelch all opposition from lesser financed rivals.

VOE and sums like $150,000 or more would not change the dynamic that campaign expense limits would establish. They would just mean that the local industry that feeds off big campaign spending would have to earn money elsewhere. No big radio ads or TV ads to sell every two years. So what? If we are really after the spirit of VOE, we shouldn't be compromising democracy for industry. With the incentive for the exchange of publicity for advertising removed, you might get fair journalism coverage, too. In reality, Portland's VOE program is just pork for the local media and campaign industry.

t.a. barnhart: "...so at worst, a candidate can scam $50k, not a big loss to taxpayers..."

$50K may not be big money in Corvallis, but it still seems like a lot of taxpayer money to risk. In fact, $1 of taxpayer money being misspent by a candidate is too much.

VOE candidates should have to prove they have legitimately spent the money before accessing taxpayer funds. A VOE candidate could be allowed to raise a limited amount of campaign operating cash, such as the initial $5,000 while the City approves/denies their VOE funds request.

Better yet, have candidates use the City's purchasing system in order to pay their vendors. This would force candidates to understand the bureaucracy they propose to govern. Afterall, why should candidates be exempt from the same purchasing requirements of any City agency?

t.a. barnhart: "...so at worst, a candidate can scam $50k, not a big loss to taxpayers..."

Dear Mr. Barnhart,

You sir are an idiot with idiot ideas that seem to utter forth like infinitely seeping rump vapor.

You need to forget politics and go into comedy.

<hr/>