If it were Chris Smith (instead of Sho), they'd already be revising the rules to fix it.

Kari, don't you have a little something to add to this? A little perfunctory thing that maybe should just be permanently posted in the left-hand column if you forget it so often?

Letting a technicality like this smear his reputation. What a great way for a candidate to show he's on the ball.

Also, I would generally be pretty forgiving of this for a person who's never campaigned for anything before, but his response seems weird. How do you have the knowledge that a poll is being conducted for you but not know who is conducting it? It makes him sound like he was informed by ransom note. Maybe others with more knowledge of campaigns could venture a explanation.

Kari, I know this has come up before, but I don't understand why you insist on anyonymous posting, when you don't accept anonymous commenting. So now, even after your commenting on this, we don't know whether you wrote it or not. If more anonymous posts citing news reports casting Sho in a bad light were to pop up, how would we know if it's you posting them all, or not?

Sho's campaign staff are all neophytes, very enthusiastic and hark working, but still unfamiliar with this stuff. I suspect they did not realize the campaign finance implications of the poll. Surely, this does not qualify as a smear.

If it's the voice of BlueO, and not just quotes from other sources, what is BlueO saying here? I understand editorials, where the editorial staff present a message on behalf of the entire paper, but I get the sense that these posts are just individuals choosing to quote things without identifying themselves as the people who are choosing the quotes.

This is not something I've seen on any other blog. This is not transparent. This is not full disclosure. Even on pseudonymous blogs, bloggers maintain their pseudonym's responsibility for each post.

Like I said about the Novick/PDA thing: transparency and disclosure aren't hard. They make you look good. So why in the world would someone pass up the oppurtunity to practice good practices?

If you can suggest a better place for a meta discussion than this, please offer it. Or just flat-out tell me that this blog is not a legitimate topic of discussion on this blog.

But suggesting that I go away is unproductive. I'm commenting on this blog because I actually care about this blog. Sure, you can run things however you want to. You can choose who can be part of your community. You can even declare criticism of how you do things to be an inappropriate topic for this blog, or something you're just not going to waste your time on. But as long as I'm still welcome, I'll continue doing my normal thing as a commenter on blogs: sharing my opinion and speaking my mind.

Jason: I agree, I don't think this could be called a smear. Jack Bog isn't quite at Pavel Goberman or Lars Larson levels in terms of how readily I tune him out, but he's not too much better. I do think this is a rookie mistake, but again that whole passive tense thing about how Sho knew of the poll but not about the poll is confusing to me.

You ask for a candidate that is going run things like a business, and you get a candidate that runs things like a business. Maybe that means more efficiency...but maybe it means a lesser understanding of the need/importance of transparency.

"it may imperil his effort to obtain public funds under the Voter-Owned Elections system."

So what? Mr Adams believes in VoE so much he's decided to spend his own money and as much of it as he can to make sure he gets elected. I am sure TorridJoe/MrChisholm will write a long diatribe on how filthy those who dont take publci money are.

After all, what do you expect when you have a candidate that knows the system - no matter how tangled it becomes to trap anyone but the chosen few.

Steve, it's my understanding that Sam opted out of VOE because he helped pass it, and doesn't want to be seen as profiting off his own votes. It's also my understanding that he's voluntarily capping contributions at $200, rather than financing his campaign. Feel free to point to a source to correct me.

Let me see if I've got this straight, if I happen to really like one of these people I don't get to contribute? You make an assumption that my money is dirty? He's dirty if he takes it? Disclosure tells you who gave and if you have a problem with it, you know.

Making an assumption in advance is faulty reasoning, the fact that it is money doesn't mean anything other than it is money. The source might say something to you, but that is after the fact.

For pete's sake if you think a mayoral campaign is difficult to keep legal, try a federal one.

"It's also my understanding that he's voluntarily capping contributions at $200, "

I think it is $500 per donor, but I don't think he is going to let anyone out-spend him. So we will probably get a council full of incombents and the same old ideas.

Sorry, forgot the $500 reference

https://www.c-esystems.com/samadams/donation.aspx

"You make an assumption that my money is dirty? He's dirty if he takes it? Disclosure tells you who gave and if you have a problem with it, you know."

Then explain to me again why VoE is necessary. We already have full disclosure without VoE. You can contribute as much as you like, bless you. I don't understand why we need to supplement that with taxpayer money that could be used for schools or roads.

Thanks for that, Steve, but didn't you say he was financing his campaign? Was that a prediction? I don't see how he has to worry about being outspent if his opponents are using VOE. And I dug up this article which says he's limiting himself to VOE's mayoral campaign limit of $200,000 anyway.

"I do think this is a rookie mistake, but again that whole passive tense thing about how Sho knew of the poll but not about the poll is confusing to me." James X

Is Sho Dozono really a rookie? Maybe he hasn't run for public office before, but it's not as though Dozono has been out of the loop where he wouldn't have had full and ready access to knowledge about VOE. Seems as though I've heard that Dozono is one of those guys that hangs out with the crowd at the City Club? Hard to believe attendees wouldn't have been talking off and on about VOE, and that a guy hanging out with them that decides to run for mayor wouldn't have been particularly interested in exactly what the terms for VOE were, especially when he has no trouble at all getting way more than the necessary votes to qualify in a very short period of time.

Then, when the question about the poll comes up, Sho gives a fuzzy answer. To Willamette Week no less, a paper that has written damning articles about him in the past.

Sho Dozono may be many things, but a political neophyte is not one of them.

His campaign is advised by consultant Len Bergstein and managed by Paige Richardson, who ran John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign in Oregon. Also working on the campaign is Amie Abbott, who works for the Portland Business Alliance. - Portland Tribune, January 11.

All right, Kari, but if there's no name on the post, I'm going to assume it was written by all the editors, you included. Which would still make disclosures an issue.

"By definition, we won't have a council full of incumbents. At least two City Council seats will have fresh faces in them."

Because two quit. Under VoE everyone spends the same, so the incumbent will always have a built-in advantage since he can keep the in-house PR going for his term.

"You know what the candidate is doing with their campaign money" I believe VoE candidates are held to the same disclosure standard as non-VoE candidates, so what's the difference again.

"that they're clean." So what exactly are you saying about non-VoE candidates - that they are more likely to be unclean. I think a VoE guy can mis-use money like anyone else. They can also get non-reportable money (like donations to a candidate's favorite charity) like anyone else to buy face-time.

Just think of all those potholes we could've filled with that money.

Jim Francesconi tried to smear Tom Potter's reporting around the $25 contribution reporting, too.

The only difference between SAM and JIM is two letters.

Something like four thousand signatures in three weeks gives evidence that people want Dozono in this race. It also shows that Dozono supports public campaign financing. If he's denied the financing, he will have to raise private money and I believe he'll be able to do that with no problem. It will be pretty hard for his critics to call that dirty money after he has collected so many signatures under VOE.

When I ran I found the whole campaign finance reporting to be very confusing and complicated. It is particularly confusing to someone used to business accounting based on defined fiscal periods because the cut off dates for the various reports do not conform to what a business would consider normal cut off dates. That may have been improved with the Orestar system.

I am not interested in seeing a Sam Adams coronation in the mayor's race, which is what you will have if Dozono is out. I'd much rather have a horse race.

"Depending on how you keep score, we're somewhere amongst the top five most popular state-level blogs in the country."

And Fox news is the most popular cable news channel. Might want to pick another standard.

By the way, is Lefty Blogs going to approve my blog for the headline scroll? Just wonderin'. I haven't heard anything yet

Look, this "story" says more about the imperfections about VOE than it does about any malfeasance on Sho's part. It also shows the type of campaign that Sam intends to run. WW doesn't just stumble on these stories. This was planted by Sam's campaign in the hopes of slowing down Sho's momentum. It's text book - Campaign 101. Let's not get lost on the merits here.

And I'm not condemn VOE, it's great that candidates can spend their time talking to voters instead of being locked in a room raising money from elites.

It is an example however of how rules like this (often created in a vacuum) don't anticipate many scenarios that often happen in a campaign. Anyone who thinks that even seasoned elected officials know exactly how this process works which was changed since the last problems, has never worked on a campaign.

It is completely reasonable (and normal) that a 3rd party group would run a poll - especially a group that doesn't like the idea of a meglamaniac like Sam being coronated. Labor unions do it ALL the time. This can be done totally w/out the knowledge or instruction of other people mentioned in the poll. It was not a secret that Sho a long time civic leader was considered a potential candidate. It's also not unreasonable that in a town as small as Portland that someone would share the results with Sho -- probably to encourage him to run.

I was actually heartened by Sho's response. If anything Sho deserves credit for being honest. He answered the question and didn't deny he had any knowledge of it - which most politicians would do. For one, I find that refreshing.

There are important issues that we should debate in Portland about our priorities. This one is just dumb. How do we fund our schools? How do we remain strong in an economic downturn -- another big Sam tax? For one, I like the idea of someone with a little real world experience injecting some life into the debate.

Sho's campaign staff are all neophytes, very enthusiastic and hark working, but still unfamiliar with this stuff. I suspect they did not realize the campaign finance implications of the poll. Surely, this does not qualify as a smear.

The neophyte claim was also made in regard to Emily Boyles' Portland city council campaign, which probably everyone here knows blew up on account of abuse of Portland's new public-campaign-financing system. For consistency's sake, if Boyles screwed up, claimed it was because of being a neophyte, and still got roasted, then why should Sho Dozono get a free pass, and why should commenters get worked up about how he is being "smeared"?

Also, how credible is it for Dozono to claim that he knew about the poll but has no idea who commissioned it? It seems as if Dozono is really setting himself up for failure. It seems as though his campaign screwed up and is now denying responsibility for its mistakes.

Kindly separate two points: Whether or not Dozono's campaign-finance filing was improper, and whether or not he is a promising prospect for mayor of Portland. One is a point of law. The other is a point of politics.

I agree that the problem with the campaign-financing filing was minor. But is that actually the point?

And no, I most definitely do not support Sam Adams for mayor, just as I did not support him for city council.

I think people are confusing VOE with state campaign finance disclosure. My understanding is that it's the STATE law that Sho violated, not the city VOE rules.

State law requires candidates (even potential candidates) to disclose cash and in-kind donations within 30 days. This was clearly an in-kind donation, so the question is why wasn't it disclosed? Probably just an oversight, so why doesn't Sho just say that? Instead, he tries a legal tactic of saying he wasn't really a candidate (which is absurd).

This kind of disclosure is important. Who paid for the poll? Why was it commissioned? Why did Sho get the results for free? Can anyone have the results for free? Does Sho owe the firm that gave him the donation anything for their kindness? Transparency requires answers to these questions.

There is something else pretty weird about the entire "smear Dozono" claim. This news story was first reported in the Portland Tribune, which anyone who has ever read it will know is no fan at all of City Hall in general and Sam Adams in particular. The implication that this story is some sort of smear to promote Adams at Dozono's expense is just bizarre.

If Blue Oregon wants to discuss a real scandal, then post the facts about the sleaze ball tactics Portland City Commissioner and Mayoral candidate Sam Adams is using in his attempt to bulldoze through the Street Maintenance Fee. First he establishes a hand picked stacked deck committee to stuff the proposal with a Christmas tree of funding for personal agenda items including a blank check for his freeloading bicyclist buddies. He then adds preferential fee discounts on utility bills for bicyclists, transit users and hybrid car owners – none of whom pay their fair share for the infrastructure they use. This is followed by series of highly orchestrated town hall meetings where the majority of meeting time is taken up with the hard sell being delivered to supporters. Opponents are discouraged and in many cases have their ideas stifled because Adams refuses to effectively listen to their objections or fold them into the proposal.

Next comes the public hearing in Council Chambers where Adams takes up nearly two hours of the public’s time with staff presentations and long winded testimony from people Adams personally invited and had been part of the inner workings of the already slanted process. When the public’s turn finally comes, Mayor Potter then treats the people still waiting to testify as second class citizens by reducing the standard three minutes of time to a short two minutes.

When a the ordinance is voted on by the council and passed at a following City Council meeting, a combined group of concerned business people and citizens pose a threat to what Adams has choreographed through the initiative petition process where Portland voters will have the final say.

With the knowledge that voters are unlikely to approve this scam, in jumps Commissioner Randy Leonard with another bag of tricks to rescind the original ordinance so Adams can break up the proposal into three parts thereby hosing the petition gathering effort by opponents. These actions by council members behaving akin to control obsessive dictators purely demonstrates a full-blown loss of all personal integrity and respectability by Adams, Leonard and Potter that is an out-and-out insult to the electorate, especially if the reason for keeping this tax off the ballot is because the council sentiment is that voters do not agree with the new taxes and/or spending programs.

The people of Portland have a right to vote on this politically motivated con job. . Continuing to exploit the taxpayers in such a totalitarian socialistic manner may just be the preamble for voters to choose all new people to fill the open seats on the City Council. Bringing the issue to the forefront that Dozono did not report an independent poll that was conducted before he even announced his run for Mayor appears to be a feeble attempt by the Adams beneficiary camp to discredit the competition for the top job that would likely bring a real business sense of accountability, respectability and tax fairness equity back to the citizens of Portland.

Just three percent of the Safe Sound and Green Streets funding plan budget is allocated for improvements to infrastructure serving taxpayers that include bicyclists, but also pedestrians. What I heard, is that improving safety around schools is one of the areas that expenditure of this part of the budget id intended for. A far, far bigger share of the budget goes towards improvement and maintenance of infrastructure directly supporting motor vehicle dependent businesses. Bikes are one of the pressure releases for motor vehicle clogged streets.

I've heard that Paul Romain was invited to be on some committee or whatever, that worked to build this plan, but he sad "NO". This person seems to be nothing more than a greedy and spiteful obstructionist. For sensible people, the referral is just a waste of time and money. Thanks to the Paul Romain pending referral effort, details of the Safe Sound and Green Streets budget are temporarily not accessible on the website, in accordance with state election law. I wonder where else that information might be available.

Sho Dozono... . I'm remembering a little bit of the story Will Week wrote about him some time back. A number of questions were raised about his business practices, but the one I remember seemed to have something to do with a person whose finances he was responsible for managing. I believe Sho was acting as someone's guardian. It seems as though the outcome of the issue was that Sho didn't exactly break the law, but just like with the campaign disclosure issue, he played loose and fast with the rules, played dumb about it and gave fuzzy answers regarding questions put to him.

Sho may have some civic and Samaritan inclinations, some business experience and lots of connections, but he seems like a slippery dude to me. I would not want have to place much trust in such a person. Definitely not mayoral material, regardless of how wide his circle of friends are and how many contributions he was able to get in 3 weeks.

Ah, the WW the moral arbiter of all that is good in this city. If they write something about you it must be fair and 100% accurate. Right!

Let's face it if you are a prominent leader of any ilk in this town you are going to be criticized by WW at some point for even the slightest mistake. Yes, I said mistake - remember the ones we all make. I have no idea if Sho's campaign made one but if he did - it's insignificant in scale. I love how so called progressives are ready to castigate someone on one mistake over a lifetime of good works. Anyone who knows sho knows that he is a man of honor, integrity, a hard worker and has an abiding concern for those under represented in the halls of govt.

I'm not saying it's not a fair issue to report, the question is why does Sam's campaign feel like they need to attack Sho? This information was "leaked" to cause harm. Sam, run on the strength of your ideas and vision for the city. Other than impose a transportation tax, I don't have any idea what Sam wants to do?

A campaign between credible candidates fleshes this out for the benefit of the public. We ought to be celebrating another qualified diverse candidate getting into the race rather than casting dispersions. Or is this a Republican site?

If "Tax 'em Sam" Adams becomes mayor, we'll get clobbered with taxes.

Even if someone commits a state election violation or a violation of the public financing, that shouldn't disqualify them from being mayor.