Wasn't there something about the guy who gathered all her signatures being indicted?

Did he get indicted? I must have missed it.

I too recall a recent article (perhaps 7 days ago, probably in the Oregonian) about renewed efforts to go after the signature gathering guy. I don't remember what kind of effort it described.

Here ya go, Jack. From the O:

The Oregon Department of Justice will convene a grand jury this month to consider possible criminal charges against Vladimir Golovan, the Slavic activist who helped Portland City Council candidate Emilie Boyles qualify for public campaign financing and later land her in hot water with city regulators.

The system continues to work.

The system continues to work.

Yeah!! I can't think of a grand jury that didn't do the right thing since....oh wait.

Kari: Please read the post, and the Nov. 1 post to which it links. I know there's been a grand jury convened -- that's way old news. The question is, What is their decision? We know there will be no civil recovery of tens of thousands of dollars from the Glendive News Anchor. But will anybody be indicted? And if so, for what? So far, the "system" hasn't worked at all, except to get your hero Opie Sten re-elected without having to work at it much. Now he's disappeared, no doubt to work on his resume.

The system continues to work.

For whom?

The system works great... if you are already in office.

The promise of VOE was that it would open up the process for women, minorities, etc. Take money out of the game.

What actually happened?

The incumbent running on VOE retained his seat against non VOE challengers.

The incumbent running on private money retained his seat against a VOE challenger.

Really opened it up, didn't it?

Money was taken all right....

The promise of VOE was that it would open up the process for women, minorities, etc. Take money out of the game.

Let's look a little deeper into what actually happened, Dave. You ran as a relatively unknown candidate and spent a significant chunk of your own money. I ran as a relatively unknown candidate and didn't have to dig into my kids' college funds. I'm guessing you, like me, didn't enjoy losing -- Public Campaign Financing (PCF) taking the money out of the game for me certainly makes it easier for me to consider trying again.

I had been planning to run whether or not PCF passed last year. Now, I will never run in a traditionally-financed campaign. I believe elected officials should be beholden to the long term public good, not to affluent campaign contributors. Fundraising in politics today is disgusting, sick, and wrong.

The fact that only one non-incumbent candidate had the organizing skills, honesty, intelligence, and community support to qualify for funding the first time around and use it honorably, doesn't make the whole program a failure. We're only 1/3 of the way through the pilot phase. What if I run again and win next time, building on the increased support, name recognition, and experience won with the help of PCF this year? Will everyone agree then that clean money helped at least this one woman, and enabled the voters to elect a new Council member with no financial ties to anyone except the taxpayers?

.....This is where Jim Karlock and others post that it's not possible to beat an incumbent without outspending him. To which I say two things:
1) Open seats are where PCF will prove most helpful in electing non-insiders
2) Bud Clark

I don't know about anyone else here, but the difference between a candidate who ...spent a significant chunk of (his) own money. and one who spent a significant amount of anyone else's money is a big difference. The ability and willingness to spend OPM without first asking them may be a prerequisite for a council position, but it's not a quality that reassures me.

As for a new Council member with no financial ties to anyone except the taxpayers?, I suppose the support of organized labor in your preliminary fundraising was inconsequential? No IOU's there? Unions are already overrepresented on council.

Lastly, your unabashed use of the term "clean money" suggests to me that you're willing to overlook the lack of a vote on VOE and may signal a bit of an ends/means blind spot.

Those are two items that would worry me next time around. Even if your beatification process is well under way.

I contacted the DOJ's office, and they confirmed that there is an active investigation "into allegations of elections violations" of Vladimir Golovan, which was requested by the City of Portland Auditor's Office. They also stated that there is no investigation of Emilie Boyles currently underway.

So, who knows what she's talking about.

'Lie Boyles' comment using the word "indictment" was just her being an idiot when she meant "grand jury".

I suppose the support of organized labor in your preliminary fundraising was inconsequential?

Correct. I received fewer than ten $5 donations at union meetings -- all from my friends in my own bargaining unit at OHSU. Another twenty or so from nurse friends I know because of our shared experiences with the union. Nine at the AFL-CIO Labor Day picnic. One mailed in from the Communication Workers of America president. No other pre-qualifying support from unions.

I disagree with your contention that the ability to spend taxpayers' money wisely and frugally should not be a prerequisite or desired quality in a City Council member, rickyragg. PCF offers every taxpayer and voter the opportunity to see exactly how the candidate spends the 50 cents each one donates to a qualified campaign. Traditionally funded candidates promise fiscal responsibility when elected. I demonstrated it by careful stewardship of public money, every day of my campaign. The fact that it was indeed Other People's Money was always at the top of my decision-making matrix, and whenever there was a question about whether using it was appropriate (e.g., for the election night party), I spent my own instead and declared it as an in-kind donation.

The promise of VOE was that it would open up the process for women, minorities, etc.

No, Dave. That wasn't the "promise of VOE". There may have been some advocates who argued that it might -- but the core purpose of VOE was to replace "bad" money with "good" money; to remove from both challengers and incumbents the need to do the money chase.

And it did that admirably - for both incumbents and each of their VOE challengers.

Regularly, you argue that our elected officials should spend more time digging into the details of various policies. By removing 20-30 hours a week of fundraising time, VOE accomplishes the goal of making more time available for policy-making and responding to the community.

Kari,
I have both said and written that VOE was an incumbent protection program. The election proved me right on that.

The other fundamental contradiction in this whole VOE thing is the assertion by members of the council that they were never "bought" by good old dirty money, but that somehow "clean" money will make them less bought. How can you square that one?

To truly believe in VOE then you have to believe that Erik Sten and Dan Saltzman's votes were bought by their contributors in the past... and yet they were re-elected.