The most interesting thing about the Sten-Burdick race is how Burdick apparently must believe that the truly offensive negative advertising her or her supporters is running on 620 KPOJ benefits her candidacy. Either they are genuinely ignorant, or they know something about the supposed progressive-liberal community in Portland that few want to admit. For some reason, Burdick has to believe that that advertising in that venue is in the best interest of her campaign. What is it?

Despite what VOE supporters want to argue, Burdick's ads don't really argue implicitly or explicitly for the proposition those with the most money should have the biggest megaphone. VOE is at best a band-aid solution, and a sadly Portland one at that. Simultaneously paternalistic, simplistic, and yet naively populist. And Burdick's ads should prove that the problem is not really that money buys the biggest megaphone --- because that megaphone can be used so very badly. Rather the problem is that we have failed as a culture to defend equal access to the people's public air waves in the service of doing the business of representative democracy, purely on the basis that they are the people's property.

With the grant to private businesses of the right to use the airways (and the use of the rights of way to bury cables) should come the mandatory right of access during the silly season of politics to all candidates who have, at each step in the processes of representative democracy from ballot qualification through the primary process and onto the general election, successfully established their viability. Then ads like Burdick's will appear exactly as the whacked-out excess that they are, and Burdick will be seen as a candidate with the rather questionable political values she apparently has rather then the true-blue liberal she supposedly is.

but shifts the bulk of power from local kingmakers to everyday Portlanders.

Wow...you really think Sten's power & election potential isnt coming from the "kingmakers" of Downtown Portland??

And if he is all about using VOE, then why is every ad I hear or see say its paid for by "Friends of Sten?" Seems he found a way around spending his free money on advertising.

VOE, it seems to me, is just some creative fleecing of the taxpayers. Those who have big friends will still get their money, they just have to "cook the books" and have them pay for advertising & such (through PACs or whatever), instead of giving them the money directly. Nothing has changed, except the taxpayers are out $150k per candidate who signed on.

Jon:

Friends of Sten is Erik Sten's campaign committee. It is not a separate PAC or group of rich Sten supporters.

Ginny Burdik's campaign committee is called "Friends of Ginny Burdick." Dave Lister's is called "Dave for PDX." And Emily Boyles is called "Boyles for Portland."

There is no big Sten-funding conspiracy. The reason every ad you hear or see for Sten says it's paid for by "Friends of Sten" is because those ads were paid for by his campaign committee.

Jon -- I hate to say it, but you clearly haven't been paying close enough attention to how the VOE system works. The Sten campaign still pays for it's own advertising (and other expenses), and includes a disclaimer that Erik is a VOE candidate, at least in the ads I've seen.

However, under the VOE rules, the campaign is limited in what it can spend and does not accept contributions after the intial $5 qualifying contributions (plus, a small number of $100 seed money contributions.) Erik is NOT raising HUGE chunks of money from the corporate aristocracy.) Sten's campaign receives its funds from VOE -- but the expenditures are made by the campaign (i.e. Friends of Sten.) I'm not aware of any independent expenditures that have been made on Sten's behalf. If you've heard or seen 'em, please fill us in. Otherwise, please don't toss around allegations of cooking the books and fleecing the taxpayers.

If you ask me, the sweetheart deals that the PDC hands out to the corporate "aristocracy" is where the taxpayers get fleeced. How much of that money has ended up back in Ginny Burdick's campaign coffer? As Peter Shaw suggests, Burdick has clearly sided with the aristocrats. Anyone who's watched Erik's career -- his first grass roots candidacy, his work on the Council, and his current publicly-financed, non-special interest campaign -- will recognize that Erik has always been independent from the wealthy elite.

Maybe it's time to point out a little nuance. Not all PDC endeavors line the pockets of the powerful elite, maybe just some high profile projects because only larger construction/development teams can handle them. There are countless small business assists out there that aren't on the radar. These are the projects that clean up neighborhoods and storefronts, creating new economic engines that this area needs.

It's possible to have a position isn't all in favor or not... just sayin'.

While it's off on a tangent of sorts, askquestions1st makes a stellar point about Burdicks negative advertising. Reminds me of the guy (I forget his name) who was running against Potter for Mayor and ran really negative attack ads on KPOJ. Portlanders didn't seem to buy into it - which says a lot about Portlanders considering that conventional wisdom has long held that negative ads really do work.

And while as an observer from western Washington County I have been a fan of VOE, askquestions1st makes what I believe to be a very valid call for "mandatory right of access..." to media which uses publically owned airwaves and grounds to generate profits.

Wow... big surprise for me. I agreed with askquestions1st on an issue. Bigger surprise - I agreed with TWO of 'em.

I'd better go buy a lottery ticket or something... Either that or check out my window for a massive falling meteorite heading straight for me. LOL

All snark aside, right of access really does deserve a prominent place in public discourse. Maybe it could even be coupled with VOE to both make the system more fair and at the same time reduce the cost to Portland taxpayers.

BTW, anyone else hear the new Loren Parks radio spot attacking Saxton? I just heard it earlier today at work. I've got two different radios tuned to two different stations, and I don't recall which radio I heard it on. But I think it aired on 106.7 FM.

Charlie: Sten has voted for about every "taxbreak and upzoning" that has come before him. Why would his fund raising ethics determine his voting before VOE or after. An honest politician wouldn't vote differently just because his money sources might be different-would they? I can't wait, if Sten gets back on the Council, to see him leading the pack on reducing taxbreaks and voting against all the upzoning.

Paul,

Actually, I agree with your comments. I think you read my post too broadly. I wasn't criticizing everything (or even most things) about the PDC. Much of what they've done is great. (Hat tip to TK on his post!) My point had to do with self-dealing and the perception that a small cabal seems to exert a lot of influence over some public policy decisions. It is clear that these interests didn't like what Erik Sten wanted to do on PGE. They also don't like VOE. (Which lessens the importance of fundraising from big donors like them, right?) Personally, I think certain positions of those "aristocrats," as Peter Shaw called them, are not in the broader public interest, but are financially motivated.

When you realize that the contributors to the (failed) VOE repeal effort are much the same as the contributors to Ginny Burdick's campaign, and that she has largely failed to articulate a positive platform, but instead seems to be running just to oppose Sten, it leads me to conclude that the aristocrats are calling the shots.

I'm not saying that big businesses shouldn't have a lot of influence. But as the letter argues, they already have an awfully loud voice. Burdick's campaign message seems to be that it's not loud enough until they can shout down every idea that doesn't serve their interests. Fair enough. That's what politics is all about and why we have elections. But count my vote in favor of a system that is more democratic. Big businesses already have enough influence. (Even Dave Lister seems to agree with that.) What they want doesn't necessarily help the business climate for the small businesses that create most of the jobs. The aristocrats certainly don't need their own spokesperson as a voting member of the City Council.

Paul-

Watch what your students feed you at Renn Fayre man, your veil is slipping. Look, most of us don't go for that divine right of kings crap anymore. Noblesse oblige or not, the people would rather make their own decisions thank you very much.

The one problem with misnamed VOE is that it is forced speech. People are compelled to support candidates they may disagree with thru tax their dollars. And if the people really wanted minorities or anyone else to have a real chance at getting into office for City Council, Portland would have council district and candidates could walk them, which is what they should be doing in the first place. M.W.

Sorry Charlie, tax-funded election campaigns simply fails the smell test:

“To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.” - Thomas Jefferson

Before commenters go on a rant against Jefferson and his faults, recall that he was a leader of his day against Monarchists a/k/a the "divine right of kings." Back then, king-worshipers were called "Monocrats" ... today they might call themselves "Friends of Sten".

" My point had to do with self-dealing and the perception that a small cabal seems to exert a lot of influence over some public policy decisions."

Tell me when Erik sees his re-election for sure he won't flip back to voting for every SoWa and Pearl District project again while the rest of the city (outside of downtown and on light rail) get shafted?

Erik adopts these positions like PGE to get you to see him as the friend of the people while he still will give Homer, OHSU and the rest of the developer cabal what they want.

When everybody gets re-elected, it will be more years of the same old, same old. WHen do we actually get a politician with some vision?

The one problem with misnamed VOE is that it is forced speech. People are compelled to support candidates they may disagree with thru tax their dollars.

Is that really all that different from the long standing system of forcing the people to pay for partisan members-only primary elections with our tax dollars? I have to pay for it and yet I get no say unless I jump through the hoops, and even then I'd only get a say in one side.

Erik has always been independent from the wealthy elite.

Quik, someone tell Homer Williams. Opie's not on the list after all.

Kevin writes: "Is that really all that different from the long standing system of forcing the people to pay for partisan members-only primary elections with our tax dollars? I have to pay for it and yet I get no say unless I jump through the hoops, and even then I'd only get a say in one side."

Gee Kevin I agree with you. For years I have suggested that the Democrats and Republicans should pay for their own primaries. M.

<h2>Thanks Michael, but I don't see it changing any time soon. The tax funded primary system is a big contributor to the continuence of the two-party system. And as long as those same two parties dominate then they have no incentive to get off the gravy train. In short, they prefer each other's company because the devil you know is always preferable to the devil you don't know. C'est la vie.</h2>