Detail, east Portland photo, courtesy Miles Hochstein / Portland Ground.



For old times' sake
The bojack bumper sticker -- only $1.50!

To order, click here.







Excellent tunes -- free! And on your browser right now. Just click on Radio Bojack!






E-mail us here.

About

This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on December 17, 2006 10:56 PM. The previous post in this blog was Tools of the trade. The next post in this blog is Monday morning, special edition. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Archives

Links

Law and Taxation
How Appealing
TaxProf Blog
Mauled Again
Tax Appellate Blog
A Taxing Matter
TaxVox
Tax.com
Josh Marquis
Native America, Discovered and Conquered
The Yin Blog
Ernie the Attorney
Conglomerate
Above the Law
The Volokh Conspiracy
Going Concern
Bag and Baggage
Wealth Strategies Journal
Jim Hamilton's World of Securities Regulation
myCorporateResource.com
World of Work
The Faculty Lounge
Lowering the Bar
OrCon Law

Hap'nin' Guys
Tony Pierce
Parkway Rest Stop
Utterly Boring.com
Along the Gradyent
Dwight Jaynes
Bob Borden
Dingleberry Gazette
The Red Electric
Iced Borscht
Jeremy Blachman
Dean's Rhetorical Flourish
Straight White Guy
HinesSight
Onfocus
Jalpuna
Beerdrinker.org
As Time Goes By
Dave Wagner
Jeff Selis
Alas, a Blog
Scott Hendison
Sansego
The View Through the Windshield
Appliance Blog
The Bleat

Hap'nin' Gals
My Whim is Law
Lelo in Nopo
Attorney at Large
Linda Kruschke
The Non-Consumer Advocate
10 Steps to Finding Your Happy Place
A Pig of Success
Attorney at Large
Margaret and Helen
Kimberlee Jaynes
Cornelia Seigneur
Mireio
And Sew It Goes
Mile 73
Rainy Day Thoughts
That Black Girl
Posie Gets Cozy
{AE}
Cat Eyes
Rhi in Pink
Althouse
GirlHacker
Ragwaters, Bitters, and Blue Ruin
Frytopia
Rose City Journal
Type Like the Wind

Portland and Oregon
Isaac Laquedem
StumptownBlogger
Rantings of a [Censored] Bus Driver
Jeff Mapes
Vintage Portland
The Portlander
South Waterfront
Amanda Fritz
O City Hall Reporters
Guilty Carnivore
Old Town by Larry Norton
The Alaunt
Bend Blogs
Lost Oregon
Cafe Unknown
Tin Zeroes
David's Oregon Picayune
Mark Nelsen's Weather Blog
Travel Oregon Blog
Portland Daily Photo
Portland Building Ads
Portland Food and Drink.com
Dave Knows Portland
Idaho's Portugal
Alameda Old House History
MLK in Motion
LoveSalem

Retired from Blogging
Various Observations...
The Daily E-Mail
Saving James
Portland Freelancer
Furious Nads (b!X)
Izzle Pfaff
The Grich
Kevin Allman
AboutItAll - Oregon
Lost in the Details
Worldwide Pablo
Tales from the Stump
Whitman Boys
Misterblue
Two Pennies
This Stony Planet
1221 SW 4th
Twisty
I am a Fish
Here Today
What If...?
Superinky Fixations
Pinktalk
Mellow-Drama
The Rural Bus Route
Another Blogger
Mikeyman's Computer Treehouse
Rosenblog
Portland Housing Blog

Wonderfully Wacky
Dave Barry
Borowitz Report
Blort
Stuff White People Like
Worst of the Web

Valuable Time-Wasters
My Gallery of Jacks
Litterbox, On the Prowl
Litterbox, Bag of Bones
Litterbox, Scratch
Maukie
Ride That Donkey
Singin' Horses
Rally Monkey
Simon Swears
Strong Bad's E-mail

Oregon News
KGW-TV
The Oregonian
Portland Tribune
KOIN
Willamette Week
KATU
The Sentinel
Southeast Examiner
Northwest Examiner
Sellwood Bee
Mid-County Memo
Vancouver Voice
Eugene Register-Guard
OPB
Topix.net - Portland
Salem Statesman-Journal
Oregon Capitol News
Portland Business Journal
Daily Journal of Commerce
Oregon Business
KPTV
Portland Info Net
McMinnville News Register
Lake Oswego Review
The Daily Astorian
Bend Bulletin
Corvallis Gazette-Times
Roseburg News-Review
Medford Mail-Tribune
Ashland Daily Tidings
Newport News-Times
Albany Democrat-Herald
The Eugene Weekly
Portland IndyMedia
The Columbian

Music-Related
The Beatles
Bruce Springsteen
Seal
Sting
Joni Mitchell
Ella Fitzgerald
Steve Earle
Joe Ely
Stevie Wonder
Lou Rawls

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Sunday, December 17, 2006

On beyond Vladimir

So they finally indicted Vladimir Golovan for fraud in connection with the Emilie Boyles campaign's "voter-owed elections" signature scam from last spring's Portland City Council race. I must admit, I never thought it would happen. Now all the Stennies can strut and cluck around about how "the system is working, there are rules and if you break them you have to face the consequences," yada yada yada.

Certainly having this guy indicted is better than having everybody walk away scot-free. I hope they can get a plea out of him, although some of the charges look a little, shall we say, offbeat. Identity theft? For forging another person's signature, once, on an election petition? "Unsworn falsification"? Heck, I do that every time I play poker.

Anyway, there remain some deeper questions that need to be answered. Here's my list:

1. Why no charges against Boyles and Tate? Golovan wasn't the main intended beneficiary of his alleged misdeeds. He picked up 15 grand or so from each of Boyles and Lucinda Tate, for whom he also worked, but Boyles and Tate each stood to receive around 10 times that amount, to spend as they pleased on their campaigns. Once she got her dole, Boyles immediately put her daughter on the payroll and paid off some serious bills that had the strong odor of personal living expenses about them. Who knows what Tate would have done with the money?

So why was neither of them charged? Most likely because they said they didn't know that the signatures they were turning in were fake, and the state prosecutors couldn't come up with any evidence to contradict their word on the matter.

But given the transparency of the fraud -- it was facially obvious that at least several of the signatures Golovan submitted were not genuine -- if Boyles and Tate didn't know of the fraud, they should have known. Which brings me to the next question:

2. What level of due diligence should be required on the part of the candidates seeking taxpayer campaign financing? This case proves that under the "system," a candidate can turn in phony signatures and not be culpable, so long as he or she adopts a "don't ask don't tell" policy with his or her signature gatherers. Even a quick look at some of the Golovan signature pages would have revealed problems -- should the candidates not be required to do at least that much? Shouldn't they be required to certify under oath that they have examined the sheets, and to the best of their observation and knowledge, all the signatures are genuine?

3. Should paid signature- and contribution-gathering be allowed at all?
Why not outlaw paid solicitation of signatures and contributions outright? The idea of the required 1,000 $5 contributions from residents is to insure that the candidates have grassroots support. In that spirit, shouldn't they have to talk people out of their $5 themselves, or with volunteer help, rather than hiring hucksters to accost strangers at supermarkets and church halls? Given the cesspool that signature-gathering has generally become in connection with initiative petitions in Oregon, wouldn't it make sense to preclude the same problems in the city "system"?

4. Is anybody at City Hall going to check signatures and addresses in the future before forking over the tax dollars? It's a major embarrassment that the only people who looked at the signatures with a critical eye toward their genuineness were newspaper reporters. Shouldn't the city be doing the same? Obviously, false signatures should be flagged before public money goes out, not after.

Of course, given the wide-open criteria for the qualifying $5 contributions, it would be impossible for the city to check every one of the signatures and addresses. Under the current "rules," all that's required is that the contributor be a resident of the city -- not a registered voter, not a citizen, just a resident. Even if the city elections officer had access to county voter registration records -- and my understanding is that he or she doesn't have even that -- that wouldn't be enough to check mere residency. What could you use? Property tax records? Wouldn't include renters. The phone book? Wouldn't include people without listed land lines.

5. How will the contributions be verified?
Another huge hole in the "system" is allowing qualifying contributions to be made in cash, with no paper trail required. Obviously, someone like Golovan could front $5,000 in cash himself, without any of the signatories pungling up their $5. When the candidate gets his or her $145,000 in "clean money" from the city, it would be easy enough to reimburse the financing source for his or her trouble. If the signature-gatherer puts up 5 grand and gets paid a fee of 15 grand, it all comes out in the wash, and then some.

6. If signatures, addresses, and contributions can't be verified, isn't the system just an open invitation to fraud? If the "system" can't be tightened up so that signatures, addresses, and contributions can be, and are in fact, checked, then the stealing will just get worse. The "progressive" elements behind "clean money" clearly want to maintain the appearance of ultimate openness, but it's at the cost of major security vulnerability. It's a jungle out there, kids -- you have to have a firewall.

7. Should the city pay or reimburse for expenses only after the fact, rather than paying the candidates a lump sum and hoping for the best? The only thing that Boyles herself has been busted for is misspending the "clean money" she received. She was given an immediately negotiable check for $145,000, and allowed to spend it without any monitoring by the city other than a post-expenditure report that was filed long after half the money was gone. Perhaps the city should dribble the money out more slowly, requiring proof that the funds are being spent legitimately before paying funds out of the municipal treasury.

8. When (if ever) are the taxpayers of the city, who are paying for this program, ever going to get a chance to vote on it?
"Voter-owed elections" are a waste of money at best, and an incumbent protection racket at worst. Even if the "rules" worked well (which they obviously haven't), the voters should have been consulted before this radical change in the dynamics of city elections was implemented. They weren't consulted, and they won't be, unless someone forces the issue by an initiative petition. The boys at City Hall are doubtlessly hoping to keep tweaking the system until it finally rises above its current status as a fiasco, and then put it up for a vote. But if you're waiting for this clunker to run smoothly, and then have a referendum, don't count on it for decades.

Sure, I'd like to see big money be taken out of city politics, and I'd like to see grassroots candidates thrive. But this contraption has done little to advance either cause. The condo scams continue unabated, and the two incumbents in the last election got by without so much as a runoff. Between those truths and the fact that it's a license to steal, "voter-owed elections" is just another goofball feature of what has become a truly odd little city government.

Comments (26)

Nasset got a call from Vladimir Golovan and just said NO.

Thanks
JK

Jack, you and I have disagreed quite a bit about whether VOE is a good system or not. You do, however make a number of very good points.

Shouldn't they be required to certify under oath that they have examined the sheets, and to the best of their observation and knowledge, all the signatures are genuine?

I like that idea. Most excellent.

Is anybody at City Hall going to check signatures and addresses in the future before forking over the tax dollars?

This seems like a no-brainer. I'd change it so that only registered voters could participate. (After all, there's no reason you couldn't take registration forms with you door-to-door.) And I'd require the city to contract with county elections to verify the sigs.

Another huge hole in the "system" is allowing qualifying contributions to be made in cash, with no paper trail required.

Agreed. In the context of arguing for allowing credit-card donations, I repeatedly made the argument to Gary Blackmer and Susan Francois that credit-cards are by-definition verifiable as city residents. (Since you have to enter a correct street address to process the transaction.) And, I pointed out then, that cash was unverifiable. For weeks, they assured me that credit-cards would happen in the rule-making process, but ultimately, they blew it off.

The "progressive" elements behind "clean money" clearly want to maintain the appearance of ultimate openness, but it's at the cost of major security vulnerability.

Not this progressive that supports clean money. I argued, repeatedly, that the phrase "but no one would ever do that" should be barred from the conversation. Campaigns run to win. If a legal loophole exists, a campaign will exploit it. They just kept giving me the line, "but we've never seen THAT in Arizona or Maine." Nevermind that Oregon has a much more sophisticated political culture with respect to campaign finance and signature collection. We were among the first states to have massive independent expenditure campaigns (1996) and the first to state to have a "decline to sign" counter-campaign for ballot measures.

Should the city pay or reimburse for expenses only after the fact, rather than paying the candidates a lump sum and hoping for the best?

Yes. I'd plunk down some $25,000 for incidentals, and then ask the campaign to submit major invoices for direct payment, and then proof-of-expenses for the small stuff before additional funds are remitted. We don't want to create a cash flow problem, but shipping the entire $150,000 doesn't make sense.

***

I do think that VOE is a good thing, but the city elections folks need to get their act together. It's certainly possible for a good idea to be executed badly. And PDX VOE 1.0 was seriously buggy.

And if cash is not allowed isn't that a bias against peopple without checking accounts, or credit cards?
The nickle

Kari:

Does it bother you that Erik Sten is both author and recipient of VOE public funds?

While the below observation was written by Hodding Carter (in criticism of Huey Long), it is an apt description of the populist tactics of the VOE Faithful:

But where the student of economics presents his suggestions through an impersonal, systematic theory, whose appeal is primarily to the rational, Huey and his high priest strike home to the emotions, the hates and the desires, the superstitions of the under-privileged poor-white class.

We still don't know what problem VOE is designed to fix (Lack of private capital for aspiring local pols?...Quid-pro-quo votes by Commissioners in favor of their backers?...Exclusion of the lower class from political participation?)...We don't know how VOE funds are intended to combat the (as yet unidentified) problem(s).

We are told that we are on the vanguard of progressive action, and VOE will help women and persons of color (like Boyles and Tate?), and it helps incumbents spend more time "doing their job" rather than campaigning/fundraising.

In a further twist of populist irony, we are told that the VOE "system is working" despite the paucity of VOE contenders, and the gross mismanagement of Auditor Blackmer's office/staff. But we need a couple more years worth of six-figure giveaways before seeking the consent of the governed.

We don't know what the problem is. We don't know how VOE is going to fix it. And we don't know if/when the voters will ever have a chance to vote on VOE public campaign finance. But the system is working. Go back to sleep sheeples.

At another time and another place, there would be tea floating in the harbor. Jack is spot on.

Under the current "rules," all that's required is that the contributor be a resident of the city -- not a registered voter, not a citizen, just a resident.

I still dont understand this..the initiative process requires a registered voter's signature. Why doesnt VOE?

And carrying voter reg cards door-to-door would make sense, but how would they verify that the person is eligible? There are many non-citizens in the area. State ID wont work, thanks to the DMV, anyone with a drivers license can be a registered voter, citizen or not.


Here's a further question: Why couldn't the auditor's office look at all 1,000 signatures before cutting the check?

This could have been farmed out to an AP class at Lincoln High and they would have come up with plenty of red flags. For that matter, a remedial class at Lincoln would have found them.

And they're not Voter Owned Elections (VOEs) until the voters have had a chance to vote on them. Until then they are only Taxpayer Underwritten Required Donations (TURDs).

Along with your list I'd add "Why no charges of Nonfeasance against the public officials who were responsible for overseeing this thing?" Seems that Blackmer and others are being given a pass on this. If we're going to set examples let's include the second act of this farce.

Good summary and points, Jack.

1. Why no charges against Boyles and Tate?

I can understand why none against Lucinda Tate, since she was a victim of Golovan's scheme, and suffered rather than gained from it. I would like to know the process for recovering the money from Boyles - for example, if her current wages are being garnished. The system should also consider penalties other than fines, for people who gain/use the money fraudulently and can't pay it back.

2. Shouldn't they be required to certify under oath that they have examined the sheets, and to the best of their observation and knowledge, all the signatures are genuine?

Yes. I did have to sign when submitting my signatures, that my campaign had complied with all the rules. One of those is to have personally authorized each solicitor. And the solicitor signs each sheet to say that s/he collected $5 from each signer. I'm not sure that adding a more specific statement by the candidate would have made Boyles more liable that she already is, but it would be good to spell it out even more clearly.

3. Why not outlaw paid solicitation of signatures and contributions outright?

The rules already prohibit what Golovan/Boyles did, in paying signature-gatherers retroactively (and too much) with public money. I think it might be difficult legally to prohibit paying staff who are helping to gather the signatures, using the maximum $5,000 collected from the 1000 $5 donations. And while nobody in my campaign who collected signatures/donations was subsequently paid a dime, for some candidates whose campaign volunteers don't have any source of income, allowing them to use the $5,000 may be crucial. One of the goals of the program is to allow less affluent, but honest, candidates to have a real chance to get their message to the voters.

4. Is anybody at City Hall going to check signatures and addresses in the future before forking over the tax dollars

Yes, that should happen, therefore we need to go to allowing only registered voters to donate, in order to do that. The Auditor's Office used the US Post Office web site and Water Bureau records to check names and addresses this time, to establish residency, but that doesn't allow checking of signatures. There are downsides to limiting donors to registered voters, but on balance I think it needs to happen.

5. If the signature-gatherer puts up 5 grand and gets paid a fee of 15 grand, it all comes out in the wash, and then some.

This was already prohibited in the current rules, and one of the reasons Boyles was disqualified and required to return the money.

7. Should the city pay or reimburse for expenses only after the fact, rather than paying the candidates a lump sum and hoping for the best?

That would increase administrative costs for the city, and would be hard for candidates without access to personal credit lines since vendors like yard sign companies require payment of several thousand dollars, up front. And sometimes timing is crucial, and a candidate would be disadvantaged by having to wait for city processing. More frequent reporting, a more realistic timeframe for disbursement and expenditures, and a handbook with reasonable/customary standards for expenses like staff salaries, would be more helpful. The system is set up with 30% of the money disbursed on qualification, 70% closer to the election, but the timing for qualification was too close to the primary this time so Boyles was certified and received all the money at once. And promptly spent it on items specifically prohibited in the rules, such as personal utilities, family support, a year's lease on office space, and back-pay for Golovan.

I wasn't required to file my first spending report until April. It would have been helpful to me to have had an earlier report, as for example I would have realized earlier in comparing mine to Erik's and Dan's that I was underpaying my staff in relation to market rate wages. Reporting every month would be helpful for candidates as well as safeguard public money better. So would requiring candidates to post their financial reports on their campaign web sites, which I did.


8. The boys at City Hall are doubtlessly hoping to keep tweaking the system until it finally rises above its current status as a fiasco, and then put it up for a vote.

They've pledged a vote in 2010. I believe all candidates for Council should be asked to promise to honor that timetable and join the pledge. It doees seem reasonable and desirable to me to fix the current problems and allow voters to choose between a good public campaign financing system and no system, rather than between a flawed system and no system.

Due to length and respect that this is Jack's blog, I can't even begin to comment on the virtues of public financing, except in answer to Mister Tee's question of its purpose: "Lack of private capital for aspiring local pols?...Quid-pro-quo votes by Commissioners in favor of their backers?...Exclusion of the lower class from political participation?" My response is yes, all of the above.

Correction in last sentence: Yes, to combat all of the above.

"I argued, repeatedly, that the phrase "but no one would ever do that" should be barred from the conversation."

Thank you, Kari. Naivete is one of Portland (and Oregon's) major problems, imho. That paired with overly selective skepticism. The Oregonian editorialists get that M37 can be manipulated by developers contrary to the public interest, but not don't seem to see that neo urbanism is being manipulated in the same manner right under their noses.

There is an interesting article on bottom of the first page of Metro on retired federal prosecutor Jeff Kent. It says Kent and Turner had "hacked through corruption in Chicago where mobsters often held sway over cops, defense lawyers and baillifs." In my mind I continued: He moved to Oregon where mobsters can hold sway over any or all of the above and the prosecutors don't care.

We need to drop the denial and squeaky clean stuff at all levels of government in Oregon to even begin to analyze our problems.

Amanda, please answer this one:

Since conventional wisdom is that a challenger must outspend in order to unseat an incumbent,

And VOE prevents outspending an incumbent,

Doesn’t VOE almost guarantee that a challenger cannot unseat an incumbent.

(Note that Potter did not unseat an incumbent)

Thanks
JK

Cythia writes: "Naivete is one of Portland (and Oregon's) major problems, imho."

Well, imho, naivete is what makes Portland and Oregon charming and perhaps allows it to try new approaches to issues rather than submit to weary cynicism.

Cynthia also writes: "In my mind I continued: He moved to Oregon where mobsters can hold sway over any or all of the above and the prosecutors don't care."

Got any solid evidence on that claim that would stand up in court?

Yes I do, Gil, and we're working on it. One has to get out of the Oregon good ole culture to get LEGITIMATE review of LOTS of evidence.

And I like charm and innovation as much as anyone; innovation in land use policy actually has a lot to do with why I moved to Oregon, and I am very involved in forging innovative animal policy. I find delight in many small things , especially at this time of year.

But naivete when it comes to legal racketeering is anything but charming.

Particularly for the victims.

Jim : Doesn’t VOE almost guarantee that a challenger cannot unseat an incumbent?

It's not VOE that almost guarantees incumbent re-election. It is very difficult to unseat an incumbent on Portland's City Council, under any funding scenario. Ginny Burdick outspent Erik and didn't manage it this year.

It is very difficult for one challenger to unseat an incumbent. Ginny almost got into a runoff because a third candidate, Dave Lister, made a good third-place showing. Two years ago, 8 unfunded candidates came within 3% of forcing a runoff against Randy Leonard. If public financing had been in place then, and several of the challengers had qualified and been able to get their message out, I believe there would have been a runoff.

There is far more to incumbent protection than just campaign money. Clean money is necessary but not sufficient, if we want to break into the insiders' network. And it will often take more than one attempt to do so, which is another reason why keeping the public financing system for another two rounds will be a good investment for Portland's citizens.

And public financing will be most crucial if there is an open seat during the trial period, if we want to avoid the current MO of promoting the next person in line with connections to money and influence. Claiming an open seat for hardworking Portlanders will be both more doable and more important than challenging incumbents.

Correction: The article I mentioned above is on the front page of Monday's O, not the front page of the Metro section.

Ginny and Francesconi are poster kids for "it doesn't matter how much they would have spent" kind of candidates. A charisma implant for either one is the only thing that could have saved them.

If Amanda Fritz had outspent Saltzman 3 to 1, she would have (at least) forced a runoff, and could have won in the general election (if she were able to raise her name recognition sufficiently with media buys).

Money, by itself, doesn't win elections. But even a great challenger is unlikely to beat a mediocre incumbent if they already have several core constituencies wrapped up (unions, local businesses, teachers, newspapers).

It doesn't matter how fine a candidate you are if most voters don't know who you are. Simply attending the candidates forum and buying a page in the Voter's Pamphlet will only influence a small number of voters. Sony's Betamax was superior in every way to VHS, but VHS won due to superior marketing and branding.

Candidates are just another product: you have to give the voter a reason to buy the candidate, and then encourage them to buy your specific brand of candidate.

That's the beauty of the "old-fashioned" campaign finance system: great candidates tend to attract more money than the Emilie Boyles variety. Socialized campaign finance doesn't expand the pool of great candidates; it merely expands the pool of lesser candidates who likely would have failed the fundraising litmus test.

If you saw a line at a retail location in the former U.S.S.R. you would consider queing up even if you didn't know what product you were lining up for: you would be wise to buy whatever is available.

We have always had more choice in this country, whether you're looking for Peanut Butter or Sen. Obama Osama.

Mister Tee, the only way I could have spent three times more than Dan Saltzman is if I became someone other than Amanda Fritz. I believe it is wrong to ask people for large sums of money for a campaign, when an elected official will be making votes that will benefit or disadvantage the very people who have the capacity to give $25,000 to a candidate. The end does not justify the means.

The "fundraising litmus test" is not a test of greatness, it is a test of willingness to spend more time talking more with affluent potential donors than with hardworking people choosing between putting food on the table and paying the rent.

Amanda,
It does no good to have the current council pledge to bring VOE to a vote in 2010. Those guys might not be in those chairs then and there's no way to bind a future council.

I've called VOE an incumbent protection racket since the idea was first floated several years back and I stand by that. I think the election proved it.

I would also like to say that money isn't everything. I got half as many votes as Burdick and spent less than 1/4 what she did.

That being said, I would not challenge an incumbent again, with or without VOE.

It does no good to have the current council pledge to bring VOE to a vote in 2010. Those guys might not be in those chairs then and there's no way to bind a future council.

Agreed, Dave. That's why my previous comment called for all candidates to pledge to join the promise for the vote in 2010.

Amanda,
Thanks for clarifying. I need to read more carefully.

You're welcome, Dave. How delightful, to disagree completely on the value of VOE, yet be able to discuss it respectfully and even to find points of concurrence.

Amanda,
I think there's better than an even money chance there will be an open seat on the council in '08. You and I could well be doing battle at that time. And if we are, we will have fun, first and foremost.

Besides, I'd love to see you do the heimlich (sp?) on godzilla again!

Amanda: It is very difficult for one challenger to unseat an incumbent .... Two years ago, 8 unfunded candidates came within 3% of forcing a runoff against Randy Leonard. If public financing had been in place then, and several of the challengers had qualified and been able to get their message out, I believe there would have been a runoff.

Ah, but note that "one challenger" is always the problem. The 2004 Leonard-versus-neighborhoods race really was about as close as we came to a real runoff because it was Leonard versus many challengers - not one. The rest of your account of this race needs some clarification: The challengers' strategy was to concentrate on their own support base in their individual neighborhoods, where they had strong name recognition and networks, and not intentionally try to run city-wide campaigns. And, in the event that they did manage to keep Leonard below 50% and force a runoff, they made a public pact that everyone except the strongest challenger would withdraw, and throw their support to the strongest.

What would have happened in a runoff of Leonard versus challenger (in this case, it would have been Frank Dixon), and how VOE might have influenced the outcome, is of course open to speculation.

Right, John, the "one" challenger was my point. Many challengers with equal publicity increase the likelihood of keeping an incumbent under 50%. Although Mark Lakeman, rather than Frank Dixon, was in second place and would automatically have gone on to the runoff in November 2004 had the one-for-all, all-for-one strategy been just 3 percentage points more successful.

What surprised me about the VOE experiment is how supposedly qualifying for $150K of public money to spend caused doors to just fly open for Boyles. She was the same idiot, with the same resume, with the same questionable background and credit score after she got $150,000 of our money as she was before it. Suddenly she carried a co-endorsement by the Multnomah Co. Dems, got column inches in The O (err...I really didn't plan that pun), and had a stack of invites to appear publicly. Meanwhile, a guy like Dave Lister had to fight for every opportunity he got for some publicity. Obviously, money talks. I think the ultimate question that society needs to debate is whether talking money has a right to free speech. Is it really freedom of speech to take advantage of incumbency, personal wealth, etc, to squelch the opposition by outspending them? If not, then the Oregon Constitution needs to be ammended to allow the electorate to decide on campaign spending limits that level the playing field. While I'm undecided about the pros and cons (at least theoretically) of VOE, what the 2006 fiasco did demonstrate is that the media and political apparatuses in Portland do follow the dollar signs.

Robert Ted:

It was extremely frustrating for me, especially when Boyles got a full page spread in the "O" because she had "qualified" for VOE funding and I hardly got a mention as an "also ran".

Everything turned around with the city club debate. Boyles rattled off her platform in rapid fire stacatto and the crowd could hardly contain their laughter. Her credibility as a candidate was zip, zero, nada.

When Griffin broke her story I publicly called on Boyles to return the money during the League of Women Voters debate. She never showed up for any other forums after that.


Sponsors


As a lawyer/blogger, I get
to be a member of:

In Vino Veritas

Chloe, Pinot Grigio, Valdadige 2013
Edmunds St. John, Bone-Jolly Gamay Noir 2013
Kirkland, Pinot Grigio, Friuli 2013
St. Francis, Red Splash 2011
Rodney Strong, Canernet, Alexander Valley 2011
Erath, Pinot Blanc 2013
Taylor Fladgate, Porto 2007
Portuga, Rose 2013
Domaine Digioia-Royer, Chambolle-Musigny, Vielles Vignes Les Premieres 2008
Locations, F Red Blend
El Perro Verde, Rueda 2013
Chateau Ste. Michelle, Indian Wells Red 2
If You See Kay, Red 2011
Turnbull, Old Bull Red 2010
Cherry Tart, Cherry Pie Pinot Noir 2012
Trader Joe's Grand Reserve Cabernet, Oakville 2012
Benton Lane, Pinot Gris 2012
Campo Viejo, Rioja, Reserva 2008
Haden Fig, Pinot Noir 2012
Pendulum Red 2011
Vina Real, Plata, Crianza Rioja 2009
Edmunds St. John, Bone/Jolly, Gamay Noir Rose 2013
Bookwalter, Subplot No. 26
Ayna, Tempranillo 2011
Pete's Mountain, Pinot Noir, Haley's Block 2010
Apaltagua, Reserva Camenere 2012
Lugana, San Benedetto 2012
Argyle Brut 2007
Wildewood Pinot Gris 2012
Anciano, Tempranillo Reserva 2007
Santa Rita, Reserva Cabernet 2009
Casone, Toscana 2008
Fonseca Porto, Bin No. 27
Louis Jadot, Pouilly-Fuissé 2011
Trader Joe's, Grower's Reserve Pinot Noir 2012
Zenato, Lugana San Benedetto 2012
Vintjs, Cabernet 2010
14 Hands, Hot to Trot White 2012
Rainstorm, Oregon Pinot Gris 2012
Silver Palm, North Coast Cabernet 2011
Andrew Rich, Gewurtztraminer 2008
Rodney Strong, Charlotte's Home Sauvignon Blanc 2012
Canoe Ridge, Pinot Gris, Expedition 2012
Edmunds St. John, Bone-Jolly Gamay Noir Rose 2012
Dark Horse, Big Red Blend No. 01A
Elk Cove, Pinot Noir Rose 2012
Fletcher, Shiraz 2010
Picollo, Gavi 2011
Domaine Eugene Carrel, Jongieux 2012
Eyrie, Pinot Blanc 2010
Atticus, Pinot Noir 2010
Walter Scott, Pinot Noir, Holstein 2011
Shingleback, Cabernet, Davey Estate 2010
Coppola, Sofia Rose 2012
Joel Gott, 851 Cabernet 2010
Pol Roget Reserve Sparkling Wine
Mount Eden Chardonnay, Santa Cruz Mountains 2009
Rombauer Chardonnay, Napa Valley 2011
Beringer, Chardonnay, Napa Reserve 2011
Kim Crawford, Sauvignon Blanc 2011
Schloss Vollrads, Spaetlese Rheingau 2010
Belle Glos, Pinot Noir, Clark & Telephone 2010
WillaKenzie, Pinot Noir, Estate Cuvee 2010
Blackbird Vineyards, Arise, Red 2010
Chauteau de Beaucastel, Chateauneuf-du-Pape 2005
Northstar, Merlot 2008
Feather, Cabernet 2007
Silver Oak, Cabernet, Alexander Valley 2002
Silver Oak, Cabernet, Napa Valley 2002
Trader Joe's, Chardonnay, Grower's Reserve 2012
Silver Palm, Cabernet, North Coast 2010
Shingleback, Cabernet, Davey Estate 2010
E. Guigal, Cotes du Rhone 2009
Santa Margherita, Pinot Grigio 2011
Alamos, Cabernet 2011
Cousino Macul, Cabernet, Anitguas Reservas 2009
Dreaming Tree Cabernet 2010
1967, Toscana 2009
Charamba, Douro 2008
Horse Heaven Hills, Cabernet 2010
Lorelle, Horse Heaven Hills Pinot Grigio 2011
Avignonesi, Montepulciano 2004
Lorelle, Willamette Valley Pinot Noir 2011
Villa Antinori, Toscana 2007
Mercedes Eguren, Cabernet Sauvignon 2009
Lorelle, Columbia Valley Cabernet 2011
Purple Moon, Merlot 2011
Purple Moon, Chardonnnay 2011
Horse Heaven Hills, Cabernet 2010
Lorelle, Horse Heaven Hills Pinot Grigio 2011
Avignonesi, Montepulciano 2004
Lorelle, Willamette Valley Pinot Noir 2011
Villa Antinori, Toscana 2007
Mercedes Eguren, Cabernet Sauvignon 2009
Lorelle, Columbia Valley Cabernet 2011
Purple Moon, Merlot 2011
Purple Moon, Chardonnnay 2011
Abacela, Vintner's Blend No. 12
Opula Red Blend 2010
Liberte, Pinot Noir 2010
Chateau Ste. Michelle, Indian Wells Red Blend 2010
Woodbridge, Chardonnay 2011
King Estate, Pinot Noir 2011
Famille Perrin, Cotes du Rhone Villages 2010
Columbia Crest, Les Chevaux Red 2010
14 Hands, Hot to Trot White Blend

The Occasional Book

Phil Stanford - White House Call Girl
John Kaplan & Jon R. Waltz - The Trial of Jack Ruby
Kent Haruf - Eventide
David Halberstam - Summer of '49
Norman Mailer - The Naked and the Dead
Maria Dermoȗt - The Ten Thousand Things
William Faulkner - As I Lay Dying
Markus Zusak - The Book Thief
Christopher Buckley - Thank You for Smoking
William Shakespeare - Othello
Joseph Conrad - Heart of Darkness
Bill Bryson - A Short History of Nearly Everything
Cheryl Strayed - Tiny Beautiful Things
Sara Varon - Bake Sale
Stephen King - 11/22/63
Paul Goldstein - Errors and Omissions
Mark Twain - A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court
Steve Martin - Born Standing Up: A Comic's Life
Beverly Cleary - A Girl from Yamhill, a Memoir
Kent Haruf - Plainsong
Hope Larson - A Wrinkle in Time, the Graphic Novel
Rudyard Kipling - Kim
Peter Ames Carlin - Bruce
Fran Cannon Slayton - When the Whistle Blows
Neil Young - Waging Heavy Peace
Mark Bego - Aretha Franklin, the Queen of Soul (2012 ed.)
Jenny Lawson - Let's Pretend This Never Happened
J.D. Salinger - Franny and Zooey
Charles Dickens - A Christmas Carol
Timothy Egan - The Big Burn
Deborah Eisenberg - Transactions in a Foreign Currency
Kurt Vonnegut Jr. - Slaughterhouse Five
Kathryn Lance - Pandora's Genes
Cheryl Strayed - Wild
Fyodor Dostoyevsky - The Brothers Karamazov
Jack London - The House of Pride, and Other Tales of Hawaii
Jack Walker - The Extraordinary Rendition of Vincent Dellamaria
Colum McCann - Let the Great World Spin
Niccolò Machiavelli - The Prince
Harper Lee - To Kill a Mockingbird
Emma McLaughlin & Nicola Kraus - The Nanny Diaries
Brian Selznick - The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Sharon Creech - Walk Two Moons
Keith Richards - Life
F. Sionil Jose - Dusk
Natalie Babbitt - Tuck Everlasting
Justin Halpern - S#*t My Dad Says
Mark Herrmann - The Curmudgeon's Guide to Practicing Law
Barry Glassner - The Gospel of Food
Phil Stanford - The Peyton-Allan Files
Jesse Katz - The Opposite Field
Evelyn Waugh - Brideshead Revisited
J.K. Rowling - Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
David Sedaris - Holidays on Ice
Donald Miller - A Million Miles in a Thousand Years
Mitch Albom - Have a Little Faith
C.S. Lewis - The Magician's Nephew
F. Scott Fitzgerald - The Great Gatsby
William Shakespeare - A Midsummer Night's Dream
Ivan Doig - Bucking the Sun
Penda Diakité - I Lost My Tooth in Africa
Grace Lin - The Year of the Rat
Oscar Hijuelos - Mr. Ives' Christmas
Madeline L'Engle - A Wrinkle in Time
Steven Hart - The Last Three Miles
David Sedaris - Me Talk Pretty One Day
Karen Armstrong - The Spiral Staircase
Charles Larson - The Portland Murders
Adrian Wojnarowski - The Miracle of St. Anthony
William H. Colby - Long Goodbye
Steven D. Stark - Meet the Beatles
Phil Stanford - Portland Confidential
Rick Moody - Garden State
Jonathan Schwartz - All in Good Time
David Sedaris - Dress Your Family in Corduroy and Denim
Anthony Holden - Big Deal
Robert J. Spitzer - The Spirit of Leadership
James McManus - Positively Fifth Street
Jeff Noon - Vurt

Road Work

Miles run year to date: 319
At this date last year: 172
Total run in 2013: 257
In 2012: 129
In 2011: 113
In 2010: 125
In 2009: 67
In 2008: 28
In 2007: 113
In 2006: 100
In 2005: 149
In 2004: 204
In 2003: 269


Clicky Web Analytics