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.