"""If he serves out this term, something he won't guarantee"""

"Serves out"?

This term hasn't even started. Not till January.

I don't recall Sten mentioning his lack of committment when campaigning.

This must be a "Portland Weird" kind of
admirable behavior.
As weird as the Portland brand of "taking on" powerful (PGE) forces.
What a stretch that is.

If Sten wants to really "take on" something he should take on the PDC?

Simply demand the agency turn over, for public viewing, real budgets and account ledgers.

Yeesh. I needed to take an extra dose of insulin after reading that thing. Sten will probably have to list it on his 1040 form as a gift.

And my favorite part was that it claims that the fact that Sten and Saltzman had strong challengers is proof that voter-"pwn3d" elections works. Because we all know there had never been a strong challenge to an incumbent in all the years before VOE went into action.

"Between casting the vote that will win with ease, or the one that will thrill his liberal acolytes."

Er, excuse me, but in his case it's usually the same thing. RARELY has he cast something that had problems passing and 99.9% of this votes appease the liberals.

"... 8 going on 40 ..." - more like 8 going on 9 and clueless as to how most people live. When you've been in 'public service' as long as he has you don't really know what it's like to be someone earning less than $20 per hour and trying to make ends meet (and I mean substantially less than $20 per hour).

Scariest part of the article "... someday he'll be governor." Well, at least we allow assisted suicide, THAT would be the point at which I'd welcome it.

The O recently referred to me obliquely, too. What is it that prevents them from actually naming bloggers?

Oh my gawd, the vitriol. Bad Bogdanski. Just remember the Chicken was finally vidicated for thrashing Barney. Insipid isn't another word for reality, Big O.

After Randy Gragg's heartwarming tribute to Bob Gerding last week, I guess Anna felt she also had to do something nice for a loved one.

Dave J, thank you for your comment on another thread that you'd like to see me in local government (made me smile and think, "awwww, someone else wonders how that would have been, that's nice"). Partly because of Public Campaign Financing, 24,250 Portlanders agreed with you, despite my initial lack of name-recognition and consistent refusal to attack the incumbent. I was planning to run this time before adoption of the program, and there have indeed been other strong challengers in previous elections. Having experienced Portland politics "up-close and personal", I would not run again for Portland City Council without Public Campaign Financing. The article today shows a tiny glimpse of the insider nature of Portland politics. I like its use of quotation marks for "voter-owned elections", because Public Campaign Financing is only one part of creating truly voter-owned elections - there is so much more to be done. My experience this past year convinced me Public Campaign Financing is one necessary component of opening up the path to being a City Commissioner to more than the affluent, power-broker in-crowd.

The article is incorrect in stating "overall spending fell" due to "voter-owned elections". Dan Saltzman raised three times his 2002 primary war chest and spent twice as much. Comparisons of primary spending in open seats with those of challengers to incumbents are invalid. In my race, the only one where a community candidate challenging an incumbent qualified properly for public money and didn't mess up before the vote, public financing increased the total spending. I support Public Campaign Financing, and it irks me to read inaccurate assertions about it whether positive or negative. The progam is needed in part because it allows a citizen who hasn't worked inside government and/or gone to high school and college with big-name Portland power players, to use qualifying and spending the money as one part of the portfolio of a "strong contender" - thus avoiding having to ask those power players for donations.

It will be particularly needed if there is an open seat and Special Election, e.g., if, as the O hints, Erik doesn't serve his full term. I've asked the PCF Commission and Auditor to write rules for public financing in elections called outside of the scheduled primaries, since open seats will continue to be more accessible than those held by incumbents and thus even more important to serious challengers of the status quo.

It will be particularly needed if there is an open seat

I look forward to your trying to sell these arguments to the public if and when it ever comes up for a vote.

The Sten-Blackmer "system" will make a real difference only where there is no incumbent running for re-election. Otherwise, it guarantees that the incumbent will keep his or her huge advantage.

Proof again it always pays to tip the paper boy even if he does seem a bit daft as in time he might be in the right place at the wrong time.

What I think is really funny is the "ususal suspects" chaulking up the money for the FPR&D Campaign, listed in Ryan Frank's Blog on the Big O. If there is any doubt on who runs things in Portland that nails it. When the O did thier tax thing last year, which of course you can't get to now without paying for the archives, the eye opener for me was the legislature was able to exempt FPR&D and UR from the Tax Limit. Not schools but these two pork programs. I keep wondering when voters are going to wise up and elect someone like Amanda who wasn't beholding to the money. But you are right Jack. Unless an elected official is really screwing up like trying to screw underage pages, and actually gets caught in a timely manner, the name recognition and the new "System" will give them thier cake and let them eat it as well. They will only get ousted if someone other than the usual suspects coughs up some big money and then we pay to keep the incumbants in office. It would seem that this would be the perfect place to put in term limits say two terms max for both Mayor and councilperson, if getting diverse and fresh blood is the objective.

Term limits haven't done much to bring in outsiders to the Board at Multnomah County, John. Well-funded, connected insiders still cycle through the open seats there.

Jack, it still delights me you endorsed my candidacy despite my using Public Campaign Financing, rather than because of it. I'm glad we agree that the real test of the program will be when there's an open seat.

Sounds more like an epithet.

But, he must serve out his term (his sentence).

The Auditor is supposed to reject the filing of any candidate where the filing is "spurious." A filing is coupled with a signed expression of intent to actually serve; just like a contract, a condition precedent to obtaining any VOE money.

If I changed my name to "none of the above" and announced that I would immediately resign if I won then this would be spurious.

If Sten leaves before his term is up he must return all his VOE money, and (I suppose) have the public campaign money declared an unlawful expenditure for which the Auditor must consider to be worthy of a "penalty."

If you (Mr. Sten) have already uttered words of intent not to serve out the term then the Auditor must consider immediately accelerating the demand for return of your receipt of VOE money and determine an assessment of a penalty.

The ball is in your court to refute the O, as they are calling you out as a criminal, on VOE. (It only gets worse if you use your position to convince the Auditor to waive off such a possibility of return and penalty. Pity the city attorney with multiple masters.)

If I were in Mister Lister's shoes I would demand that Mr. Sten immediately refute, publicly, claims that he is questioning his intention of serving out his term, with special attention to what his intention was on the last date for withdrawal of his candidacy before the May election.

ORS 166.715(6)(V) points to ORS 260.665(2)(d) "Be or refrain from or cease being a candidate;" and "(e) Contribute or refrain from contributing to any candidate, political party or political committee[.]" (Don't forget the central theme, a dollar more for Ginny means a dollar more for Sten; thus leading to a possible facial challenge that could be made by Mister Lister.)

The question I have is whether the Auditor has the VOE authority to remove a candidate that received the most votes, even if they cough up all their VOE money and pay all demanded penalties (or otherwise violate election laws pertaining to VOE or other simpler election laws).

If the O is saying what I think they are saying then Mr. Lister should be able to obtain an award from Mr. Sten that matches his own campaign expenditures, in triplicate (consistent with the Sizemore OEA gambit), and a rerun of the May 2006 primary race, perhaps without Mr. Sten but certainly without his access to VOE money. It's a pity someone didn't spend a million.

Mr. Blackmer? Ms. Meng?

The O: "If he serves out this term, something he won't guarantee, " ("But he did, but he did" in my best Tweety "I tawt I taw a puddy cat," impression.)

To The O -- Send the recording, or your notes, verifying the non-guarantee to the Auditor and the City Attorney Proto!

"F***ing"? "Something for the h***s?" Jack, that is totally out of line. You can disagree with how Anna Griffin wrote her piece, but that's beyond the pale. I've seen you ban people from this blog for a lot less.

Good point. I'll reword.

Amanda,

I was suggesting both not either or, except be smart enough to copy an existing municipal program that is working and have a peer review. I like campaign finance, my only problem with it is like so many other things, from the water billing system contract to just last week the paving materials contracts the consultant was supposed to save them millions on turned out according to the Auditor to cost them more, these creative genius' either get snookered or snowed trying to write these programs from scratch, and expect high priced consultants to "save" them, when they usually end up being taken to the cleaners by some slick consultants usually buddies of the West Hills gang.

I'm glad we had this talk.

Amanda, I understand your points on VOE, but when we have several recent examples of candidates who were successful in being elected without the "connections" (Bud Clark, Margaret Strachen, Eric Sten, Mayor Potter, Randy Leonard, etc.), then I have a hard time buying into the benefits of VOE which has many flaws and methods of getting money to elected officials and candidates "under the radar".

Bud Clark was first elected in 1984, Margaret Strachen in 1981 - both over 20 years ago, not "recent". And Sten, Potter, and Leonard being elected without connections? Surely you jest.

Amanda, I guess I am a lot older than you. I regard 20 years and less as "recent"-certainly in "political time". According to the Oregonian, Sten, Potter and Leonard were "outsiders". They were not necessarily westhills connected. Same with Clark and Strachen. My point is we have had a broad representation in candidates and elected officials; and not that it couldn't be higher. And is it worth taxpayer financing this broad spectrum when corruption can still occur as just demonstrated?