VOE is utter nonsense. Portland needs to go to elections by district with the mayor being picked from among those elected at the district level.
Yes I know we tried it just recently, but it was the mostly poorly written initiative in recent years.
M. the LIB

How did Tate get a "free pass" given that she was rejected?

No one in the press even mentions her little fling with Doctor Vladimir any more. Not even worth mentioning.

Amanda Fritz's comment on your May 23rd post is a good illustration of the difference between Tate and Boyles. The "free pass" was because she didn't prepay a one year lease or pay Vlad a ridiculous sum for "services".

Of course, one could assume that if she'd received the money....

What Boyles did with the money when she got it is the evil that the city's crowing about, but to me turning in fake signatures under highly suspicious circumstances was much more serious misconduct. Tate also did the latter.

The original promise of "clean money" was that it would bring many new faces into politics.

Right. How dare they expect people to swallow that?

There is only one way to bring new faces in, and that is for old faces to go out. And since old faces are generally unwilling to voluntarily step aside and get a new job, and because the power-grabbers have gamed the system to hobble anyone who dares challenge an incumbent, the only chance for new faces is an open seat due to death or retirement. Don't hold your breath.

Oh ... one other remedy remains. City Term Limits. Most everyone is willing to give an incumbent one shot at reelection. But, after that, it's time for a new face. Like with the President, Governor, MultCo commissioners, etc. - does anyone in their right mind want to get rid of those term limits?

At least we have a chance to reinstate term limits for the state legislature, because petitioning for that is going on right now.

"Free pass"

She used the same signature fraud as Boyles, including the same paid signature gatherer, but they disqualified Tate on an unrelated technicality so they wouldn't have to fund Tate.

Which is a polite way of saying Blackmer realized he'd screwed the pooch by forking over $144k to Boyles, but didn't want to admit it.

Easier to simply prosecute Boyles for the WAY she spent the money, not how she fraudulently obtained it.

And leave the system open for the same shenanigans when Fireman Randy comes up for re-election.

Well, as Amanda Fritz learned, you can't beat an incumbent without outspending him or her.

And as Ginny Burdick learned, it's darn difficult to beat an incumbent even by outspending him [let's drop the nice "or her" and get real - there have been only 6 women on the Portland City Council in its entire history, and as of now all the incumbents continue to be "him"]. Ginny found that even with the name-familiarity of a popular Legislator with a solid liberal voting record, campaigning against the incumbent's perceived negatives with the corporate media on her side, she wasn't able to force a runoff even with Dave Lister's considerable contribution.

I don't believe the answer is term limits or districts. With term limits, Big Money just puts up its next candidate and makes sure he (in Portland) gets elected. And districts would divide and conquer the neighborhoods even more. The answer lies in recognizing the power - and firm grip on power - of the Establishment, and working together to overcome it. The Campaign Finance Fund can and should be part of that work -- and only part of it, not the whole solution.

It's incorrect to say that a few calls to union buds can gather 1000 donations of $5. I can give you details of why if you like, but trust me as a union member and someone who's collected the donations -- it doesn't work like that.

The problems Emilie brought to light can and will be fixed. I'm glad Erik didn't take money from the Usual Suspects. I'm disappointed Dan did. Public financing of campaigns is still better than any alternative.

What Boyles did with the money when she got it is the evil that the city's crowing about, but to me turning in fake signatures under highly suspicious circumstances was much more serious misconduct. Tate also did the latter.

I totally agree with Jack. The difference between the two is like if I wrote a bad check and walked out of the store with my ill-gotten goods, or wrote a bad check and they refused to accept it. Writing a bad check is serious business and it'll get you busted regardles of whether you scored the loot or not.

I for one, welcome our new city commissioner overlords, all hail Emporer Sten. May they bestow on us peasants more benevolent acts similar to VOE. Perhaps we should build trams and convention center hotels to honor their infinite urban planning wisdom. I hear they serve kool aid at the church of sten.

I'm glad Erik didn't take money from the Usual Suspects.

Of course he did. Homer et al provided the "seed money." The taxpayers provided the balance of the money that Homer et al would've otherwise had to pony up. Yet another subsidy for those folks. And I say that as someone who respects Eric and was glad to see him win.

You need to take credit, Amanda, for not taking tainted seed money, and really distinguishing yourself from the Usual Suspects.

seed money is OK as long as it is from favored developers....right?

Can we apply the apparent new standard, fair market value, to each and every expenditure that crosses the desk of the Auditor himself? Cool. What about a look back period, where the passage of time reveals a prior judgment call to be based on dreams and dreams alone, and conclusively wrong as a matter of law (in hindsight)?

If Ms. Boyles' personal judgment can be second guessed, as a factual (yeah, quasi-judicial) matter, then so too can that of sitting council members. It was treated as some sort of conclusion of law, either that or it was nothing more than a policy disagreement (about "fair market value") between the ALJ and Blackmer versus Ms. Boyles.

I still cannot tell if the payment to a 16 year old was a conclusive violation as a matter of law or whether it was the payment to a relative, regardless of age, that was a violation as a matter of law or rather whether it was just lazy drafting by the ALJ -- (or strategic) so as to say both at the same time and say neither at the same time.

Some would say the Piss Christ was not art, in the context of federal funding to the National Endowment of the Arts. The question is who decides. Here, Mr. Gary Blackmer asserts a power greater than that of even Mr. Jesse Helms. I don't think Mr. Helms was any more bold in his demand than to call for an end to the future funding for the whole program (offensive to him), and used that particular expenditure toward that cause.

Campaign signs on the public right of way come immediately to mind as more amenable to a violation as a matter of law, and is wholly void of the vagaries of the exercise of Blackmer judgment. I want a standard other than Blackmer judgment.

The contemplated remedy, it seems, is the give even MORE power to the Blackmer-judgment test, with a backfire response of asking him whether a 2 dollar pencil rather than a 50 cent pencil is OK (for a "no-action" letter). Image if Mr. Helms were given veto power over any NEA project and he could send out a private army of little private scouts to find all the piss to veto.

Will the Auditor disallow any further expenditure to Mr. Sten? If not why not and provide me a standard.

Amanda wrote:

"With term limits, Big Money just puts up its next candidate and makes sure he (in Portland) gets elected."

Did big money elect Potter?

Term limits cause open seats. Open seats lead to competitive elections.

Fish v. Adams was open and competitive.

Saltman v. Fritz involved an incumbent and was a blowout.

Fish v. Adams was open and competitive. Saltman v. Fritz involved an incumbent and was a blowout...

I disagree with that characterization. Saltzman's victory was hardly a blow-out, especially considering the advantages of incumbency that essentially includes the ability to skirt campaign spending limitations.

When you can spend $70 grand, as reported by Willamette Week, from Children's Initiative money to put a "report card" --and your name-- in every mailbox in Portland, and that's not a campaign expenditure,I think that's another problem with Voter Owned Elections, and the uneven playing field that it seems to promise.

I'm having trouble understanding what the problem is with wide-open and unlimited private campaign financing, but with manditory full disclosure of all sources of funding and contributions. If a candidate gets his or her funds from dubious sources, then his or her opponent is free to hammer it unmercilessly, even demagogue it if he or she wishes. It all comes out in the wash.

And that's basically how Potter beat Francesconi, is it not? Rightly or wrongly, Francesconi was perceived as a bagman for assorted business interests, and his sporting of a brimming campaign warchest seemed to confirm that perception. And that was flushed out in the campaign with dispatch. Twern't no VOE needed there neither to do it.

I'm having trouble understanding what the problem is with wide-open and unlimited private campaign financing, but with manditory full disclosure of all sources of funding and contributions. If a candidate gets his or her funds from dubious sources, then his or her opponent is free to hammer it unmercilessly, even demagogue it if he or she wishes. It all comes out in the wash.

And that's basically how Potter beat Francesconi, is it not? Rightly or wrongly, Francesconi was perceived as a bagman for assorted business interests, and his sporting of a brimming campaign warchest seemed to confirm that perception. And that was flushed out in the campaign with dispatch. Twern't no VOE needed there neither to do it.

Tom Potter already had name-brand recognition and insider status as former police chief before running for Mayor. Sam Adams likewise was a known name and longtime city employee. So your examples, PanchoPDX, seem to reinforce the notion that something else is needed to make even open seats truly open to those whose work experience is outside City Hall.

Frank, thank you. I was indeed the only successful VOE candidate who didn't take seed money from the people who traditionally fund campaigns. I didn't take seed money from anyone. I hope everyone will look at our final campaign Contributions and Expenditure report when published next week, too. You'll find we were careful about every penny spent. If using the Campaign Finance Fund becomes the norm for Portland, it will give a very good indication to voters about where candidates are supported (from neighborhoods in which they collect donations) and how they will take care of public money if elected.

If a candidate gets his or her funds from dubious sources, then his or her opponent is free to hammer it unmercilessly, even demagogue it if he or she wishes.

Hammer it how? How do you reach the audience. The radio ads, tv spots, and mailings cost huge bucks.

If we eliminated all the bs sound-bite advertising, had a media that really was willing to give some semblance of fair and proportional publicty to candidates, and elections were decided on real policy choices, not illusions...well, sure.

The world don't work that way though.

Potter did it deftly on a veritable shoestring.

Yeah, but mostly Francesconi self-destructed.

Burdick had name recognition galore, and sufficient funding too. So did Linn. And Francesconi had name recognition and a truckload of cash. But there was nothing but hard cheese there for any of those. The voters divine what they want, somehow distinguishing between a hapless and inept twit like Sten and a hapless and inept twit like Linn, keeping one against worthy comers, while unceremoneously jettisoning the other. Those are the dynamics people should be analyzing. Meanwhile, money qua money is more hinderance than help in PDX politics. It's not how much a candidate has that carries the day, it's where it came from and, most importantly, how it's spent.

money qua money is more hinderance than help in PDX politics

I can't agree with that one.

Frank Dufay: Yeah, but mostly Francesconi self-destructed.
JK: He wasn't an incumbent either. That is the big difference.

Thanks
JK

Amanda Fritz: And as Ginny Burdick learned, it's darn difficult to beat an incumbent even by outspending him...
JK: Did she outspend him? The Auditor's web site shows he was eligible for more money several times in the later days of the campaign. I don't see consistent notations if the money was actually dispersed.

Amanda Fritz: The answer lies in recognizing the power - and firm grip on power - of the Establishment, and working together to overcome it.
JK: Right on!! Take away their power to do anything except run the bureaus. Maybe even elect them by bureau. I'd just love to hear the head of the PDC at, election time, justify $½ billion for the SoWhat, Sam's Tram, 1/4 billion for the Pearl, millions for the convention center hotel and property tax diversions to UR districts for the next 20 years to pay for it.

Amanda Fritz: The Campaign Finance Fund can and should be part of that work -- and only part of it, not the whole solution.
JK: What else would you suggest?

Thanks
JK

Jack wrote "...but to me turning in fake signatures under highly suspicious circumstances was much more serious misconduct."

Isn't there still an AG's investigation into both Boyles and Tate for the signature problem?

Supposedly. Tate says she's already been told she's in the clear, and they'll never be able to pin a criminal charge on Boyles. Maybe Vladimir will get slapped, but no one's shown me what state criminal statute he could be convicted of violating.

Ledbury asked I still cannot tell if the payment to a 16 year old was a conclusive violation as a matter of law or whether it was the payment to a relative, regardless of age...

I'm pretty sure it was that she paid her back wages for volunteer work performed prior to getting qualified for VOE funds.

Ginny was such a wooden and ineffective candidate, I don't know that outspending Sten three to one would have won the election.

THINKING CAP TIME! If you want to unseat an incumbent, it's not solely a question of how much money you spend. You also need a strong candidate with a message the voters can embrace.

Fritz was a strong candidate, but her message was lame (paraphrasing): Saltzman is doing a fine job, but I'm closer to the neighborhoods, and we need somebody like me on the council. Yawn.

If you had Fritz as the candidate, with a combination of Ginny's/Lister's (ex-Republican) message, and $700k to $800k, it would have been a much more competitive race. I'm not saying Fritz could have won outright, but advancing to the general election would have been guaranteed.

Sam Adams WAS the incumbent (despite the fact it was, technically, an open seat), but he chose to run as an outsider.

I assume this benefitted his campaign in two ways:

1. It reduced the "guilt by association" of being Vera's Chief of Staff.

2. It gave him some energy and "let's shake things up" credibility that he might otherwise have found difficult to muster.

[let's drop the nice "or her" and get real - there have been only 6 women on the Portland City Council in its entire history, and as of now all the incumbents continue to be "him"].

Oh please...feeling a little sour?
I thought I had heard it all with Portland politics, but now its a gender bias thing?

If you want to unseat an incumbent, it's not solely a question of how much money you spend. You also need a strong candidate with a message the voters can embrace. Fritz was a strong candidate, but her message was lame.

You also need an incumbent with strong negatives...which Francesconi earned for himself with several misteps. Saltzman didn't have that kind of baggage; he's been generally seen as effective, if low key, and even his flip-flop on the Tram got spun into a man-of-integrity schtick.

Amanda also elected not to go negative, which shows a lot of class, but absent the above, the voters don't get presented a clear choice. And when folks like the League of Coservation voters and Willamette Week endorse the incumbent, where's the traction for change?

Also, instead of being the poster-child of campaign finance reform, and what it might accomplish, that whole scenario got wiped out by the Boyles/Tate disaster. That Sten, the longest serving incumbent, was now also a "voter-owned" candidate took the "this is the way to change the world" out of the equation.

Kari -- patronage jobs would have been a more sophisticated way to reward past volunteer support, yes. If we apply a standard of review like that of pay for any city employee then there is a lot of staff that presently get paid an amount that translates not to fair market value but to advance payment of run-money when they get found out. 80, 90, 100, 120, 200 thousand per year for consultants or to get out front, politically, for the PPS, or the PDC, or OHSU, is all politics and run money -- not fair market value. KiwiWit employees worked in Feb(roo)ary without the benefit of valid authority to continue work on the city's dime and the city ratified this past expense. But this was sold as part of a risk of lawsuits to the tune of upwards of 31 million dollars. The key thing is the skill at framing a question. Ms. Boyles' daughter, if she stays focused on the present controversy over then next ten years, will have gained a priceless bit of experience that cannot be replicated precisely in an academic environment, sort of like baby Erik having a lawyer dad and couple of experienced coaches in his early years. The sheer arbitrariness of it all is the lesson that we have all learned. It is an Anarchist's dream, almost. Assassination in the political sphere is oh-so-slow and might be too-slow for some. Expect plenty of more high school aged activists and bi-polar's in our future with even less temperance than yourself; but you can be proud for leading them in that direction.

Jim K, yes, Ginny outspent Erik - so much in the last few days of the campaign that he was unable to find ways to spend all the matching funds he received, and will be returning some of them.

It was interesting in The Oregonian's article yesterday that they chose to use numbers for funds raised from Sept 1 through the last reporting the week before the election. This enabled them to give numbers implying Dan raised less than I did, whereas in fact he raised about $70k last summer and spent over $10k more than I did.

I have many, many suggestions on how to improve both the Campaign Finance Fund and challenge of incumbency advantages. I meet with the Commission on VOE next week; I have four pages of comments so far with more to come. I plan to post the ideas on my revised web site.

Mister T, how do you see me raising $700,000? Also thanks for the smile - an "ex-Republican message" might indeed have been more successful in my race, but Amanda Fritz is not the candidate to deliver such a message. If the press had given more coverage to Sharon Nassett's much more conservative message than mine, however, that would indeed likely have pulled votes from Dan and perhaps resulted in a runoff.

money qua money is more hinderance than help in PDX politics

I can't agree with that one.

Unknown candidates have very little chance, regardless of money. I'd rank the success factors like this:

Name familiarity + "correct" positioning
= win

If you've got those things money doesn't matter all that much.

And one gets name familiarity by running a few times and getting out and pounding the pavement, and winning something somewhere.

I'm open to being persueded otherwise.

Jon -- feeling a little Pollyannaish?

Come on -- you're going to tell me only 6 women in the council's history is just a product of random coincidence?

If it quacks like a duck...

So let's do a statistical analysis. What percentage of men who've run for city council have been elected and what percentage of women who've run for city council have been elected?

Come on -- you're going to tell me only 6 women in the council's history is just a product of random coincidence?

Maybe. Or just a lack of viable female candidates.

But it sounds like you are saying the voting bloc of Portland is guilty of gender bias...like they look at a ballot at purposely pick the male over the female?

I suppose that since most of those on the City Council are white, there is a racial problem too?

Interesting discussion.

A few random thoughts.

1. Its tough to beat an incumbent in a low turnout primary.

2. Money isn't everything. I was outspent in my primary 2 years ago and received 55,000 votes, as many as Tom Potter received.

3. Clean $ vs. dirty $. Like Ted Wheeler, I had over a 1000 contributors. I spent a lot of time dialing for dollars, meeting with potential donors, etc. I learned a lot in the process. With one exception (where I did not get any money), no one ever linked a contribution with a vote or a position. Everyone, however--including small dollar donors and organizations--wanted a chance to educate me about their issues and concerns, and wanted access later.

4. Open seats provide outsiders with more opportunity. Sam and I got a lot of coverage in the press, especially in the newspapers. I thought the coverage of the May 2006 primary was pretty limited and superficial.

5. Name recognition takes time and money. Challengers have to spend a lot of money to get it. I'm not sure $150,000 is enough to beat an incumbent.

6. I think Potter took a principled stand announcing that he would not take VOE $ in his reelection. It avoids the appearance problem of voting to subsidize your own reelection with public dollars. I still think Erik's initial plan to put VOE on the November, 2004 ballot was the right call.

7. Jack--VOE is really a distraction from more important issues. It almost reminds me of the Defense of Marriage nonsense coming out of the White House. Both play well to a small audience (eg the base). I am more interested in how we save the schools, expand the job base, maintain the social safety net, pave the roads, maintain the parks....less sexy issues, maybe, but more important to my quality of life in Portland.

Nick Fish

Nick Fish makes some interesting comments about "quality of life issues" in the city.
An African-American co-worker of mine will put in 16 hours today on two different jobs and take time out to take his child to ball practice as well. Things being what they are he has been stopped by the police in this city wanting to ask him questions more than once. But better training for the police doesn't show up on many list of issues even though a significant report on the issue was just put out. Will anyone do anything?
I doubt it.
Get a baseball team, get a tram (yes it gets a rimshot), convert a armory into a theatre, streetcars, lite rail, talk about affordable housing, protect the environment,outlaw snout houses, etc.etc., but ignore the basics.
The next time some member of a minority group gets shot a blue ribbon panel will produce a report and it will be in the papers, and then ignored. Just as like the past.
It gets old and you wonder why people are turned off by the system.
Money for VOE, but how much for improved and continuing police training?
The politicians in Portland need to get out and meet some people for a change and not just the usual suspects, (read political gadflies).
Michael Wilson