The First Things First crew is like a Francesconi-for-Mayor reunion party.

One is slack-jawed at the selfless generosity of this quietly strong group of civic stewards, magnanimously sacrificing so much of their worldy resources to preserve and protect our political system.

I looked up Democracy Resources and their is no active business registry for them. A listing for Democracy Resources Inc. lists their primary place of buiness in Washington State. Look it up here for yourself:

http://egov.sos.state.or.us/br/pkg_web_name_srch_inq.show_detl?p_be_rsn=1137586&p_srce=BR_INQ&p_print=FALSE

For this tater, I was most suprised by seeing Michael Powell's name on the list, but that is just me. It was interesting to see the companies and then their officers give to this campaign. Plus why does somebody in Yacolt Washington need to give to a Portland campaign?

And nice to see a Goldschmidt associate have his sticky fingers involved as a donor and as an expense.

Jack, you roundly criticized us for getting Council to adopt this rather than putting it on the ballot. I think convincing Council that this is a good idea is a much more honest way to shape public policy than throwing $350K at signature gathering and $???K at a campaign.

But it's going to be on the ballot and we will take our fight to the home court of the big money folks. We'll almost certainly be outspent, but I think we have a good chance, because at core this is about fairness:

- Fairness for a good candidate with support in the community to run a real race and get his/her message out city-wide without needing to have friends with $350,000.

- Fairness for contributors, because my $5 should count just as much as $5 from a downtown business baron.

So I hope you'll join us at VoteNoPowerGrab.com.

Too bad the council didn't refer this to the voters itself. If it had, "clean money" would have a better chance of survival than it has right now.

Did the Clean Money Act solve Arizona's campaign finance issue when David Smith had to step down as the elected representative of his district when he over spent by $6,000?

While it looks good on paper, finance reform unfortunately appears to give the political parties and non-profit interest groups yet another method to collaterally attack the election results with litigation.

Also, I cringe anytime a small group of people (in this case the city counsel) think they know what is best for me because they are worried I'll be beguiled by "big money."

So, for those two reasons I have yet to make up mind on this issue but I prefer that this decision is made after I'm able to vote on it.

BTW, Michael Powell of Powell's Books really wants to redirect traffic on Burnside so it is no surprise that he is involved.

We elect representatives to make decisions, rather than pass the buck to the voters on every money issue. You can bitch about the "clean money" pricetag, but it's really quite small compared to budget decisions made all the time, and pales in comparison to the tram and the armory.

I think it has a better chance of passing now that there is a clean money poster child, Amanda Fritz, who qualified for funding--Jeez, Jack, even you kind of like her.

I'm still waiting for Phil Stanford to round up his 1,000 contributors. You'd think a guy with a newspaper column could get those sawbucks pretty easily--if he talked to more than, say, a dozen people.

it's really quite small compared to budget decisions made all the time, and pales in comparison to the tram and the armory.

"We already waste hundreds of millions of your money, so what's another million a year?" That's a losing argument at the polls -- you'll see.

This question has come up twice as I've met with local organizations that endorse candidates. My answer is simply that opponents of "voter-owned" elections wait and see what happens.

If there is abuse or frivolous use of tax dollars because the barrier to receiving the funds is too low, then you can always raise the bar. If 1000 x $5 is too low, make it 1000 x $20 or 2000 x $10 or whatever. My problem with the movement to kill voter-owned elections is that it doesn't seem aimed toward making sure candidates are worthy of the funds, it seems aimed toward making sure that candidates who aren't networked into Portland's political-donor class continue to be locked out of the game. My experience in 2004 basically taught me that money is the name of the game in Portland politics. Potter may have got by on limited contributions, but he was definitely tied into the establishment by virtue of the publicity he was given to the exclusion of James Posey and other worthwhile candidates.

Ginny Burdick, the ghost candidate for Commissioner #2, has made it known she won't go for the "clean money" and intends to make it a wedge issue. Fair enough, but it would be nice if she would actually file for office, since she declared her candidacy in early November. Meanwhile, she's free to fly under the radar of controversial issues like the aerial tram. The "West Hills Network" seems very concerned about people who may grab .0075% of Portland's budget to run with the proper paperwork and oversight, but don't seem to mind stealth candidates like Burdick and Francesconi who collect hundres of thousands of dollars without ever filing for office.

"Also, I cringe anytime a small group of people (in this case the city counsel) think they know what is best for me because they are worried I'll be beguiled by "big money.""
Travis, they're not worried that YOU will be beguiled by big money. They're worried that THEY will. And what's more, they're right.

Okay, Jack, what does the city waste money on? Could a lot of that waste be going to stuff the West Hills fat cats want the rest of us to pay for?

So given we live in an imperfect world, would you be willing to chance a buck or two on clean money elections in order to save hundreds of dollars wasted on dirty money boondoggles?

I'm still waiting for Phil Stanford to round up his 1,000 contributors. You'd think a guy with a newspaper column could get those sawbucks pretty easily--if he talked to more than, say, a dozen people.

For anyone at the Tribune to be writing to more than a dozen people, I think they'd need to be writing somewhere other than the Tribune.

would you be willing to chance a buck or two on clean money elections in order to save hundreds of dollars wasted on dirty money boondoggles?

As long as clean money's beneficiaries include incumbents like Erik Sten, it's not going to change anything.

First - The Voter Owned Elections are a goofy setup of rules that seriously prove once again how needlessly complex Erik Sten and the Auditor's office can make something. Looking over the rules you can see why the Water Bureau Billing system had so many bugs. I'd be more for it if the program actually was simple and easy to implement. I also would be more supportive if it gave no money in the primary and if someone had filed with 1000 small donors of various denominations would qualify for the money if they make it to the general. Someone with real grass-roots support should be able to make it into the general and the qualification alone would bring media coverage for the candidate.

Second - Word around town is that Erik Sten is actually having trouble rounding out his 1000 signatures. I hypothisize that without the reciprocity and the cocktail party fundraising no one feels compelled to donate to Sten. It may be easier for Erik to rais $500k between 300 donors than $5K from 1000 normal votors.

What have you heard????

You may not like Eric, but clean money campaign or no, there's no way he's going to lose. So that's an irrelevant objection.

"There's no way he's going to lose"?

Weren't they saying that about Franscesconi way back when???

there's no way he's going to lose.

Keep telling yourself that... He'll be in a runoff, and the wheels may keep coming off all summer. Ginny Burdick will have a boatload of dough, and she's got real government experience, and lots of friends in high places.

What have you heard????

I heard he was hitting people up for money for himself and Hillary, and he was asking for more than five bucks for himself. I have no idea whether the latter is true, but I'm pretty sure he did get his name high up in the Hillary hoopla. Actually, some kind of coordinator for Hillary's Presidential run would be the perfect job for him.

Actually, some kind of coordinator for Hillary's Presidential run would be the perfect job for him.

"Steny, yer doin' a heck of a job!"

Some interesting things:

1. The fonts and typography (all lower case--and oh so very hip and very creepy) are virtually identical to the Pinnell-Busch report on the [rimshot]. Coincidence? Or foil-hat conspiracy?

2. Wayne "Portland Spirit" Kingsley lists a Neskowin address. I guess he doesn't pay the I-TAX.

3. Now I know why Ginny Burdick doesn't take "clean money"--Gard & Goldschmidt (er, Gerber) ponied up $9,400!!!!!!!!!

Erik is going for the public financing. I got a sign up sheet with a fundraising letter in the mail just a few weeks ago (I'm planning on posting it if I ever get time).

Regional or Statewide Campaign Coordinator for Hillary 2008 campaign? Not being a large fan of anything Clinton and cheering for her to lose I'd say that's the best news I've heard all year. Erik Sten seems to unable to do much successfully. Winning a large campaign beyond the city of Portland's perimeter looks like yet another failure to chalk up on his resume.

I would also like to point out againg the needless complexity of his voter owned campaigns proves why he continually fails. He losses sight of reality and falls in love with the details.

Gil - Using an argument like lets throw $1M at this when we toss $55M at a tram really ignores that most of these projects start out small and then get bigger once they put the first nail in.

I mean PDC, Metro and the tram all started out as minimum expenses and now these things are budgeted at probably close to $1B.

Voter owned elections will not break the mindset that is controlling this city. These contributors will still have lunch with and bend the ears of Sam/Erik/Randy/Tom regardless of stopping them from giving $5K to a campaign.

If we had a way to monitor their using influence wouldn't that be more direct then throwing $1M+ at candidates?

Yes, that list is quite the eye-opener...the usual cast of big-money scumbags (e.g., the Goodman Mafia) and typical anti-government cranks.

All it would take for this group to completely soil themselves (but hey, I'm sure Peter Stott and feeble Melvin Mark have housekeepers/nannies that can clean them up) is if a couple of candidates such as Amanda Fritz were elected and gained a 3-2 edge on Council.

Will it happen? Probably not but the sheer thought of it sends shivers down the spines of the spineless big business wannabes in this town.

"Oh, the humanity...."

Hey, where's Tom Moyer? Did someone forget to send him an invitation to the party?

Or maybe he's here after all...in costume.

"We already waste hundreds of millions of your money, so what's another million a year?"

" - That's a losing argument at the polls -- you'll see."

I think there's a better argument that goes like this - The City spends $Billions of your money, much of it going to consultants, contractors and developers with deep pockets and a willingness to contribute $$$$$ for Mayor & Council candidates' campaigns. Do you really want your Mayor & City Councilors beholden to these folks?

I think the clean money elections, or voter-owned elections will pay its own freight in the long run. Spending decisions won't be so clouded by relationships with the fat-cat campaign contributors.

Arguably, there's a better way to do it. Perhaps the Ordinance needs some fine tuning. I think we should give it a chance.

Spending decisions won't be so clouded by relationships with the fat-cat campaign contributors.

As far as I can tell, the fat cats now hate Sten, and Potter doesn't need them. Maybe the cheaper way to go is just to get rid of Saltzman.

Jack - Saltzman has his own money. I don't think he's beholden to anyone. He's also not dependent on the revolving door to survive after his City Council term is up.

Saltzman may have his own money, but he's sure in favor of spending ours on lots of linchpins [rimshot].

$470 million for a fiber optic network? Please.

And no one's even talking about the Big Pipe that the EPA isn't even convinced will function properly. It's currently a $1.4 BB project. Even if it "only" doubles in cost, that's 1 1/2 years worth of city budgets.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of not swimming with "soft logs" in the Willamette, and in fact the Big Pipe is at least an infrastructure project as opposed to a private park 'n' ride [rimshot]. However, with Portland ticking off the EPA and the State and the EPA looking at the project saying, "Er, I don't know if that'll work..." you gotta start getting nervous.

By the way, thanks to Anna Griffin for her coverage in the inPortland section today. I know you read this blog Anna, so, thanks.

As I understand it, this is supposed to be a trial run for "clean money" before it goes before voters. Frankly, I'd rather test out a system and see its flaws/successes (and REAL potential costs) before voting to include it as a (semi)permenant feature in local government. At least then it can be tweeked or tossed altogether before the time, energy and money go into fighting over it. Nothing wrong with a test drive in my opinion.

Jack,

After just a first superficial pass, I counted 13 names with addresses that did not hav a "W" as the second alphabetic character. Of those, nine were either businesses or were located in Vancouver. I was generous and counted the two Clackamas county addresses as "E" residents.

Amazing. This really is the West Hills Gang.

Sorry. that's 13 names of approximately 100 donors. 5 / 100 are residents who live on the east side of the Willamette; 3 (this may be an undercount) look to be Portland residents living in either the NE or SE.

As I wrote above. Wow.

I wonder if these guys would have donated money if they knew thier home addresses would show up on the net.

My new blog partner is an advocate for clean elections...likely due to this very thing. The whoring out of our system isn't going to change as long as this kind of dirty money keeps flooding the coffers of the campaigns.

Sorry if I'm whoring a little here...but here's my partner's take on the whole thing.

If the West Hills Gang is so concerned about the economic impact of clean money, maybe they'd like to sponsor a public vote on removing absurd tax increment financing schemes and their prescious tax abatements?

My suggestion is to make the offices of the City Council and the Multnomah County Commission "ceremonial" in nature. They would not be paid or given any benefits other than their offices and expenses. (This would immediately solve the campaign finance problem.)

The actual running of the city and county would be done by the department managers, under a designated "lead manager" who would be elected by the other managers on a periodic basis.

County commissioners and City Council members would hold open sessions, but would have NO authority to allocate funds nor hire and fire employees in their respective governments.

Then, things like Diane Linn's gay marriage license proposal, and Erik Sten's PGE buyout proposal, would have been "things we thought of in our meetings" and certainly would not have involved actual tax dollars or been seriously considered for implementation.

Their duties would be limited to things like visiting senior centers or holding cry sessions from rich developers (over which they would have no authority to appease).

Yes, the people supporting 'clean money' are dim, naive and left-leaning.

Yes, the people opposing this are elite, snooty, possibly not even Oregonians, and possibly crooked.

So, since both sides have very, very dirty hands, let's look at the principle, as Jack and others have done, and not be confused by the people and personalities involved in this battle.

Look at campaign finance reform, beloved by liberals. Has it worked? Are we better off? No.

Look at term limits, another sure-fire way to fix our crooked politicians, according to conservatives. Has that worked? No.

All of these proposals are simply moving dice and chips around on a tilted table. The game will always be rigged in favor of big money. The best thing we have going for us, and the reason Jack probably likes Oregon better than New Jersey, is that we have the initiative and referendum and recall. Wonderful tools, when used correctly.

I realize the Oregon Supreme Court is in the process of dismantling these controls, but I think it would be easier to fix that than to make politicians honest and smart. Don't you?

Based on the comments you received, I guess your readership thinks it makes sense to refer to some of the most successful business people in the area as "villians". I guess you think that people who have built businesses and created wealth and jobs for people represent "everything that's wrong with Portland." I think your attitude and the approval of your commenters is a lot closer to what's wrong with Portland. Good luck trying to accomplish anything useful around here if you start the process by expressing your views that many of the people who are creating wealth around here really ought to go somewhere else.

I told myself I was going to quit reading this thing because all it does is irritate me, and writing comments only makes it worse. I need to take my own advice.

Bob Wiggins

Bob: Creating wealth around here? I think you mean creating wealth for themselves. By using political connections to create lucrative backdoor deals (with little oversite and paid for by the public)) and then hiding behind a dishonest campaign to protect that sleezy political connection they have made themselves out to be "villains." They don't need any help. That gang doesn't believe in free markets, they believe in raiding the public coffers in the dark. We're pissed because we're footing the bill while they hide behind the banner of "development." Not all business folk are evil jerks (pulling more from than community than they get)-- just a select group who have used political connections instead of hard work and innovation to become successful. Obtaining wealth & success isn't the issue here--- HOW you obtain it IS.

oops-- "pulling more from the community than they give.." typo

OK, this time is my last comment for real. I know a lot of the people on that list. I don't know all of them, but the ones I know are not villians or evil jerks.

And for what it's worth, if you want to stop private parties from receiving the benefit of public subsidies, take away the ATM card from the city council. If you're worried that they'll hand money to people you don't want to get it, keep them on task--funding only things that clearly and unambiguously are governmental obligations--roads, schools and jails come to mind, and electric companies and political campaigns do not. The so-called "clean money" system is just one more example of why we should have cut their credit cards a long time ago, and I applaud the public-spirited citizens who care enough about the city to try to fix the mess we're in.

Bob

Well, Bob, then maybe we should privatize (outsource?) the whole election process: registration, ballots, polling places (oh, right, we don't need those), vote counting, etc., if it's truly not a proper function of the government. I know some of those people, too, and I agree that they are upstanding folks. But anyone who thinks they're not buying influence (and that includes the donors themselves) is a mite detached from reality.

Wiggins said:

"Good luck trying to accomplish anything useful around here if you start the process by expressing your views that many of the people who are creating wealth around here really ought to go somewhere else."

If you take a look at the paperwork that our host linked to above, you will find that a respectable percentage of the folks paying to ensure their places as the "back door men" of the Portland city government already have gone somewhere else, as in Lake O, Clark County, Neskowin, etc.

Bob:

You're right. Government should do it's limited thing and leave the rest to business. But I agree with the notion that the "big money" interests backing the repeal are indeed trying to make sure they can continue to have a hand in the cookie jar.

And, for the record, I'd LOVE to take away the ATM cards. I'm a no-frills government guy. I believe that if the City of Portland's process for starting a business, developing land, or expanding business wasn't so hostile and adversarial, we wouldn't need to spend over a quarter Billion dollars a year on economic development... (that's the PDC's budget, and for what?)

Let's let democracy work. Run 'em out on a rail.

I'm up against Saltzman and I know there's a few people up against the Sten-cell (with apologies).
Vote for us instead of the incumbents for a change . . .

I hate to point out the obvious to all you folks who hate the "West Hills Gang" and the fat cat business people but has it occurred to anyone that if these two groups were really buying elections in the city of Portland, we wouldn't have Erik Sten (Mr. I-want-to-buy-PGE-so-I-can-run-the-it-as-well-as-I-did-the-water-bureau) and Randy Leanard (As-long-as-the-Unions-benefit, I-don't-care-what-you-think) on the council?

The West Hills Gang and the business fat cats (most of whom have moved to Vancouver to avoid the I-tax) HATE the current city council and guess what, they were ALL elected without so-called "clean" money.

When we talk about fair campaigns, why does no one mention unions? Unions contribute far more to campaigns than most fat cats and if one needed any proof that a candidate can be bought by them, all you need to do is look at Randy Leonard. Unions may not be fighting clean money campaigns but let me tell you, they have a lot more power in this community than the Mark's or the Goodman's.

They're not buying the election. Just the candidates.

Bob Wiggins:

Roads, Schools, and Bridges? BORING!

Besides, the School Board gets to hold the silver shovel at the groundbreaking ceremonies for new schools. And the County is in charge of underfunding bridges: they use a three handled silver shovel, and a silver sickle (assuming Lonnie isn't invited).

Which leaves the City in charge of Police, Fire, water, sewer, culture, and road resurfacing. What fun is that? Not many groundbreaking opportunities there: a fella needs to build a monument or two if he's going to get reelected or meet some developers for post elected employment. Retired politicians have to eat, don't you know.

While the 'Clean Money' process has it's problems, comparing it's cost to boondoggles misses the point: if cancelled, the chances of real reform being enacted in future would be considerably lessened.

The main problems with the program are that it's underfunded, and not mandatory.

Until the amount of taxpayer money invested political processes exceeds the amount coming from private industry (to which we willingly contribute when we buy goods and services) we won't be able control our public officials with a larger bribe.

Campaign funding reform is considerably cheaper than competing head to head in that market.

Mark

Really, people... it's pretty difficult to blame the evil-doing fatcats from the hills for all of Portland's problems when virtually ALL the people in city government right now, from the Council to the mayor, are not their candidates.. in fact, they virtually hate them all... the way things have been going, in fact, I'd be in favor of those guys running this city for a while... the hippies doing it now are certainly screwing it up

Bob Wiggins,

You seem to be taking the Pat Buchannon line of "why hurt the most productive people in society"--which in modern conservative speak generally means the rich and the justification for "trickle down" economics.

The problem is that a great society is composed of more than just good, honest, businessmen (and I know they are out there). However, it also needs good, honest nurses, policemen, garbage collectors, social workers, firemen, teachers, secretaries, etc., who make career decisions based on other reasons than creating wealth and jobs. They need to be equally represented, but when politics becomes a game where points are scored with dollars, priorities and representation become imbalanced.

Patrick B,

You're assuming that the same kind of dysfunctional network doesn't exist in the upper management of the City, but it does. That needs to get fixed before your idea will ever work. I thought Potter might be the guy to do it, but I'm having doubts.

Since I am running a campaign for one VOE candidate hopeful my opinion is definately biased I will admit. Without this system however Lucinda Tate would not and could not run. If you know anything about Lucinda you would agree she is the poster child for who this law is supposed to help. She is a woman, a minority, and holds down a working class job serving disinfranchised people living paycheck to paycheck. Not usually the type of person you see in major races in Portland politics.

She would not run without it because in her own words she would rather be beholding to the average citizen that gave her a $5 donation then chase down big donations from individuals or organizations that she, if elected, would be working hard to reduce their influence.

I agree with many posters that have said let the system run, at least for one cycle, to see how it actually works and not destroy it on assumptions.

Want candidates that run on issues and not platitudes? Support VOE. Want candidates that spend their time talking to citizens rather then at fancy lunches with "big money"? Support VOE. Want to see for yourself the difference? Come read Lucinda's Blog Common Sense
and ask yourself, when is the last time a candidate has said anything so concrete before being elected.

Mac,
This is truly astounding:

Yes, the people supporting 'clean money' are dim, naive and left-leaning.

Yes, the people opposing this are elite, snooty, possibly not even Oregonians, and possibly crooked.

So, since both sides have very, very dirty hands...

So let me get this straight. On the one hand, you have possibly crooked, possibly not local opponents. And on the other hand you have "naive" leftists. But they both have *equally* dirty hands?

Gosh, when did idealism get equated with corruption?

Looks like SR earned a cut by getting clients to donate.

Breaking news:

Clean money repeal may not qualify for the ballot.

In spite of paying $8.00 per signature, there were not enough valid names turned in to qualify this measure. Multnomah County is in the process of doing a recount.

Would have bet on that one -- if they don't want you on the ballot, they'll make it very, very tough to get on the ballot. It's happened before.

Either way, it's hysterically funny when you think about it.

Paul, you asked: when did idealism get equated with corruption?

That's easy to answer. It's when liberals support urban renewal and other unlimited spending on projects with no accountability just because the cause is 'good' or 'for the children" - that's when. When libersls then get mad that allegedly crooked developers and Goldschmidt-style dealmakers make money off of said cause.

Yes, both sides have dirty hands on the 'clean money' issues.

I see the clean money initiative may not get on the ballot because there allegedly weren't enough valid signatures. Am I right, or am I right about the dirty hands?

I agree with Honest John: if they don't want you on the ballot, they'll make it very, very tough to get on the ballot. It's happened before.

Tex asked about Democracy Resources Inc.

That's the company that did the signature collection for the measure. I disagree profoundly with the FTF folks on this, but the Democracy Resources folks are good people -- might be the only honest signature folks in Oregon.

(And don't take my word for it. After all, I was paid almost nothing to build their website. Instead, read what CEO Ted Blaszak wrote on BlueOregon.)

Mac wrote, Look at campaign finance reform, beloved by liberals. Has it worked? Are we better off? No.

Um, Mac... what campaign finance reform? We don't have any in Oregon. Heck, even in Vegas (from whence I just returned) there's a $10,000 donation limit. Not here in Oregon. Wanna give $450,000 to a single candidate in a single election? Go right ahead.

Just to put this in perspective... we're arguing over what? $100,000? $1 million?

On the other hand, PGE and Pacificorp (aka Enron and Scottish Power) billed Oregon ratepayers 8.5 percent for taxes that the companies were not actually obligated to pay.

These phony charges cost Oregon ratepayers $80 million in money that should have gone toward state taxes in 2000 and 2002 (the 2003 budget shortfall was $500 million) and more than $1 billion all told (i.e., more than $1000 per Oregon family).

Since it's private corporations taking our money in the Enron case, there's no ready-made meme like "Throw the bums out!" or "Vote it down!" Instead we have to get our minds around tricky issues like the declining percentage of state tax paid by corporations versus individuals and the responsibilities of corporations that benefit from controlled markets.

OK... back to "Throw the bums out!"

Regarding the high-rolling contributors to the "First Things First" Campaign: Try cross-checking them with Ginny Burdick's C & E's when they are available. Might be some illuminating correlations.