Second Things Second?

Charlie Burr

Burdick’s Big Money VOE Foes to Try Again for NovemberWanttobelieve

From the Portland Tribune this morning:

The business-backed committee seeking to repeal Portland’s new public campaign finance plan has decided to try again in November, according to spokeswoman Ellie Booth.

County elections officers said the First Things First Committee failed to collect enough valid voter signatures to qualify the measure for the May primary election ballot.

The May primary is the first election for which city candidates can qualify for public funds. So far, three candidates have collected the 1,000 individual $5 contributions to receive public funds: Commission Erik Sten, challenger Emilie Boyles and Amanda Fritz, who is running against Commissioner Dan Saltzman.

Discuss.

  • Betsy Wilson (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Um, your constant linking of this to Burdick is bullc--p.

    She's a VP at a firm that helps run the campaign, she may be friends with some of the campaign's leaders, she may want voters to vote on the issue, but it's not her campaign. So stop it or I'll have to vote for her just because what you're doing is slimy.

  • (Show?)

    Ginny Burdick is the one who constantly makes the link - and is putting the VOE repeal effort at the center of her campaign. That's her choice, and of course it's a campaign issue since she is offering it as a reason for voters to support her.

    An example from the Senator's website and announcement speech: "I am raising money to get my message to voters the old-fashioned way....."

  • Anonymous Democrat (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Ginny Burdick is the one who constantly makes the link - and is putting the VOE repeal effort at the center of her campaign. That's her choice, and of course it's a campaign issue since she is offering it as a reason for voters to support her.

    I don't see anything wrong with Charlie pointing out that Burdick is part of a coordinated campaign to kill voter-owned elections and knock out Erik Sten in a bid to restore the Goldschmidt political machine back to prominance in Portland.

    What's slimy is that she's bashing Portland's public financing of elections while using the state's public financing system as an incentive to contribute to her campaign.

    Having said that, she's clearly financing her campaign the old-fashioned way ... by throwing in with well-financed special interests.

    People-powered Ginny, she is not. And I'm glad that the Multnomah Dems voted to oppose her candidacy for that Sten's seat on the Commission.

  • Betsy Wilson (unverified)
    (Show?)

    OK. Let's get this clear. Part of Ginny's message is that voters should have voted on public financing. That's one of five or six points she makes, but it's not on her home page, thus I would argue it is not "front and center."

    But the campaign against public financing is not a campaign run by Ginny -- which is what your post states: "Burdick’s Big Money VOE Foes...."

    There are Big Money VOE Foes, but they don't belong to Burdick. Nothing I've seen from their campaign uses Ginny as a spokesperson, etc.

  • (Show?)

    Of course it's on her home page.

    I have taken on a tough challenge running against 10-year incumbent Erik Sten, who is funding his campaign with tax dollars taken from city budgets, including fire, police and parks. I am raising money to get my message to voters the old-fashioned way, gathering support from you and hundreds of others.

    Her web page only has five pages -- and bashing VOE (or Erik Sten for his support of it) is on three of them.

    Front and center.

  • (Show?)

    Argh, her "web site only has five pages" -- own pet peeve, and I step right in it.

  • (Show?)

    Here's the truth: PGE, Qwest and a lot of downtown real estate interests don't like Voter Owned Elections. The system reduces their power and influence and creates a more even playing field for community activists and candidates. So it's not a great deal for them.

    To push back, they raised a historic amount of money for the failed repeal effort and actively recruited candidates to run against Erik Sten. 10-year incumbent Senator Ginny Burdick, as far as I know, was their third choice - but she jumped in.

    If any fair minded person has ANY doubt that the big money repeal effort is not front and center in the Senator's race, just go back and read her announcement speech. Or her press clippings since then. It's the central defining feature of her big money campaign.

  • Alice (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Charlie:

    We are so glad to see the TRUTH was revealed to you, and you have generously bestowed it upon the BlueOregon elite. Everybody else has opinions, but CHARLIE HAS SEEN THE TRUTH and the TRUTH IS GOOD! Thank you, Charlie, for sharing the TRUTH!

    Here's an alternative TRUTH: many Portland voters with no connection to PGE, Qwest, Gard & Gerber (or any other well heeled interests) are pissed off the City Council would divert public tax dollars to fund political campaigns at the same time they are underfunding public safety and poor mouthing Portland Public Schools.

    I would happily endorse VOE if it were funded by a payroll tax on all City employees. Better yet, since all City and County pensions were exempted from the I-tax, perhaps a special surcharge could be levied on all retired City of Portland employees to fund Clean Government? If the City were able to solicit donations from civic minded individuals or businesses, even better. But to divert money from bureau operating budgets to fund more yard signs, bumper stickers, and attack ads? PLEAAASSSSEEE!

    To levy a tax on all taxpayers is to require them to fund candidates which they DO NOT support. At a minimum, they should have referred V0E to the voters in advance of implementation. Having failed to seek the consent of the governed, having (in Erik Sten's case) diverted public funds to his personal use (his reelection benefits him more than it benefits the general public), and having set the bar for "qualifying donation" so ridiculously low that my 18 month old son has made a qualifying $5 donation (signed in Crayon), this ill conceived initiative deserves a quick death at the ballot box.

    November will work just fine.

  • jim karlock (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Alice | Mar 14, 2006 10:56:34 PM We are so glad to see the TRUTH was revealed to you, and you have generously bestowed it upon the BlueOregon elite. Everybody else has opinions, but CHARLIE HAS SEEN THE TRUTH and the TRUTH IS GOOD! Thank you, Charlie, for sharing the TRUTH!

    JK: Alice, do you have any financial interst in this issue? Are you, or do you work for, an entity that has contributed more than $1000 in any election cycle? Do you get any income from any election related activities?

    Persionally I am aginst government giving money to anyone (except the needy), but I am starting to see some advantages to this scheme of finance. It is a lot cheaper than giving many millions to well connected developers to screw over Portland with their politically correct high density garbage "new neighborhoods" that are bleeding this town dry of money needed for basic services like police, fire and schools.

    It is becoming a lesser of evils thing for me.

    Thanks JK

  • curious (unverified)
    (Show?)

    VOE is a good thing because it gives the little guy a leg up for some equal footing, but don't you think it should have been put to a voters before enacted?

  • Alice (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The only financial interest I have in VOE is not seeing my tax dollars wasted on Erik Sten's reelection. I have never contributed a $1,000 in any election cycle. My employment has nothing to do with elections, real estate, or any issue that might come before the City Council.

    I am tired of paying high property taxes while my neighborhood streets, schools, and sewers are crumbling. We don't need new taxes in the City of Portland, we need new priorities. Voter Owned Elections will only expand the pool of candidates; VOE funds are intentionally inadequate to beat an incubment. Amanda Fritz has the best chance of proving me wrong: I expect Saltzman to get more than 55% to 60% of the general election vote (and he could win in the primary).

    If they wanted to level the playing field, the challengers would be provided with twice as much money as the incumbent in order to overcome the tremendous advantages of incumbency. Just because everybody gets the same amount of money doesn't make it fair. You are naive if you believe otherwise.

    But I digress, Charlie already explained the TRUTH: my knee-jerk rightists opinions can't handle the truth.

  • (Show?)

    VOE is a good thing because it gives the little guy a leg up for some equal footing, but don't you think it should have been put to a voters before enacted?

    Well, let's look at how this reform was enacted - it wasn't just created in a vacuum by the City Council, it was the result of hundreds of Portlanders working hard and lobbying for this change. Groups like the League of Women Voters, Western States Center, Money in Politics Research Action Project, Oregon Action and many others all supported and lobbied the council for a more fair system. Over 100 people packed the city council chambers, with comments in favor running 2 to 1.

    Voters will get a chance to vote on this, but only after a few cycles to see if it's a system we want. I think that's fair. Also, the reality is that there are a lot of big money opponents to this system - and yes, WBA2/Alice, that is the truth, so I wouldn't be surprised if it does come up for a vote sooner, thanks in part to the paid petition gatherer industry.

    PGE, Qwest and others had over $350,000 to get under 28K signatures, and they came up short. If there was an authentic grassroots revolt over this, they should have been able to get twice the signatures with half the money. That didn't happen. But I expect Second Things Second to spend more for November, but the coalition of LWV, MIPRAP, Western States Center, labor organizations and others will be ready for the debate.

  • curious (unverified)
    (Show?)

    pardon me Charlie but I have another question for you

    you said:

    "Voters will get a chance to vote on this, but only after a few cycles to see if it's a system we want. I think that's fair."

    why is that fair though? why shouldn't the city council have refered it to voters in the first palce. If your changing the rules of demcoracy shouldn't all of it's participants have a say so before you do so?

  • (Show?)

    Curious:

    We live in a representative democracy, and elected officials pass laws all the time without refering them to the voters. It was voters who lobbied for and ultimately passed this - and I do think that it's reasonable and appropriate to give the system a chance to work before a big money campaign to repeal it.

    I'm not saying that you are necessarily a Ginny Burdick supporter, but I do think it's disingenuous for the Senator's allies to hang their hat on the 'voters should have their say' argument. If respecting voters was truly important to Senator Burdick, she would have allowed soveign immunity to come up for a vote last legislative session. As I wrote in an earlier post, the result of Measure 35 may have been close statewide, but in Portland - and Ginny Burdick's district - voters rejected capping damages for medical malpractice victims by a margin of 60-40.

    So, 60% of the Senator's constituents voice their discomfort with medical malpractice caps, but as chair of the Judiciary committee, Burdick refuses to allow the bill to dismantle OHSU's cap for even a hearing. Doesn't seem like she's respecting voters to me.

    Also, as a politician who actually voted for public financing before she voted against it, Burdick should know that in Multnomah county voters supported a nearly identical financing system by a 58 - 42 margin three election cycles ago.

  • curious (unverified)
    (Show?)

    charlie -

    its weird though, I don't know of anytime else when the rules of a demcoracy were fundementally changed without popular consent. Vote by mail, term limits, campaign finance reform, for example all were or are being put in fromt of voters

    also I have nothing to do with Burdick, Im just saying I wonder if VOE should have been approved by voters first instead of taking years to get use to it first, it's like we can't be trusted

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Alice,

    You seem to be on the right track with your final statement. As to your desire to see challengers get twice as much money as incumbents, well, hmm, that's worth discussing. Realize, though, in the traditional way of funding campaigns, incumbents almost always outraise and outspend their challengers. Parity is not a bad starting point for now.

    Since you disapprove of much of what the city council does, why not get off your butt and run for office. With the Voter Owned Election system in place, there's no reason you can't get your message out and see if the voters agree with you.

  • (Show?)

    Curious -

    I don't think we're going to see eye to eye on this from a process perspective, but all of the above changes you listed are mandated and required of all candidates running for public office. This system isn't - candidates can opt in or choose to run outside the system. Still, there is a mechanism for voters to have their say on this with an up or down vote after a few cycles. If they hate it, all the money in the world's not going to convince them to stick with this experiment.

    I wasn't trying to imply that you were with Burdick's campaign btw, but that is the argument her limited group of supporters usually makes.

    For what it's worth, the debate about whether or not this should be put up for a public vote is really kind of a philosophical conversation; the most likely outcome is that that VOE foes will spend what it takes to place this on the November ballot. I'm looking forward to the debate, and expect voters to see through the Gard & Gerber rhetoric and spin.

  • Cardy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    If VOE is optional, can I opt not to have my tax dollars support it?

    For what it's worth though, I agree with Charlie in that I don't think that measures i support that have been passed through the city council (or legislature or what have you) should ever come up for a vote. Or at least not come up for a vote until I've had my way for a couple years. Anything i disagree with though should be put up for a vote immediately (as long as polls show the majority backing my opinion).

    Wow, it's amazing the things I can justify that way.

    And since it seems the current council can't legally force a future council to put this up for a vote, anyone want to start taking bets on whether we ever see this on a ballot?

    I actually support VOE by the way, whole-heartedly. It scares the bezeebees out of me though to see Enron as a defender of democracy. It should have been put to a vote from the beginning to avoid giving people the idea that the good guys are afraid of seeing this on the ballot. I hate being embarrassed by people I agree with.

  • (Show?)

    Wow, it's amazing the things I can justify that way.

    Well, I'm not justifying and rationalizing working against an issue I believe in to the tune of about 200K. Right, Ted?

    [Editor -- off topic comment deleted]

    You know, we've been on the opposite sides of plenty of issues, but I have NEVER accused you of fraud, crime or conspiracy. And if you should be embarrassed about anything, it's the tin-hatted, bizzaro theories coming out of your failed petition drive, not the reformers on the other side.

  • (Show?)

    To other readers: Sorry if the above comment was a little inside baseball, but "Cardy"="curious"=Ted Blazak. As a housekeeping note, we welcome divergent opinions here, and even anonymous ones, but do ask commenters to use the same screen name when they post.

  • curious (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Charlie - I just don't know how you can advocate changing a system fundementally without getting voters approval first. To say well in a few years you will get a chance to have a democratic vote to decide if you like what we've already done seems wrong, smacks of dictatorship.

    On the otherhand I truly do love the VOE model and would like to see it implemented, but I believe you made a mistake by not refring it to voters yourself. And for that reason whether it was Ginny Burdick or whomever gathers sigantures to vote on this, it still seems liek a good idea to me.

    I hope you don't lack in confidence that the voters would approve it with the initial presentation of the idea. I too am looking forward to the debate too only sadly it may not happen for several years.

  • (Show?)

    Umm... would you please stop alternating between the screen names "curious" and "Cardy"??? You've posted plenty here under your own name, but if you're going to switch to another, just switch and stick to it.

    To Ted Blazak of Democracy Resources and all other good blueoregon folk, we welcome opposing viewpoints here, and anonymous comments are fine too, but we do ask that you post under the same screen name from post to post.

  • curious (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I am curious, I am not Ted Blaszak or whoever, and I did not post under the additional name of Cardy. I do not know why you think I am or have. I would like to remain annoymous and was merely trying to dicuss the issue, but I will refrain from any future postings as you seem more interested in a personal political struggle than a open discussion.

  • (Show?)

    I realize you are not posting with your home address like Laura Imeson, but all of your posts have the same IP address. And you're using the same language - ie "dictatorhip" - interchangably, btw.

    It's not like this is a new thing for the First Things First Committee:

    From this week's Willamette Week:

    Among the biggest recent skeptics of publicly financed city elections on the Portland political blog www.Bojack.org was a reader named "Murphy." But when Murmurs placed its cursor over Murphy's name, the return email address was for Laura Imeson, campaign manager for the First Things First Committee. That's the committee that, in a recent Murphy's Law-like campaign, failed to place a repeal of publicly financed elections on the ballot despite spending nearly $350,000. Imeson says her comment criticizing the public-finance system for failing to track donors' citizenship was her doing, not the committee's. As for Murphy? That's the name of Imeson's late 14-year-old Labrador.

    You're welcome to post here all you want, but just use the same damn screen name. It's not a lot to ask.

  • curious (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Charlie,

    I wish you would stop this witch hunt - I am not Ted Blaszak! I am on Wi-Fi internet at my college along with 2,500 other students. I just wanted to have a disscusion on a blog about an important issue - but if all you have to fall back on is a witch hunt then forget about it.

    btw

    how did you get my ip address - and would you please respect my wish for privacy.

  • (Show?)

    I'm happy to have a discussion about the merits of this "important issue" but commenting under multiple names on the same post is lame and dishonest. Pick a name and stick to it - not that hard.

  • Alice (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Charlie:

    Imagine if the City Council voted to spend $1 million annually on an incentive compensation program, payable to the top five Portland Police Officer's (as elected by their peers). Call it the Pride, Integrity, and Guts bonus. If you agree that our City Council was elected to provide oversight of the Police Department, would you support giving $200k bonuses to five of the boys in blue?

    I can imagine that many Portlanders would object to five police officers receiving $200k bonuses: it's money that can't be spent on patrol cars, or training, or more 911 operators. Some citizens might suggest the City Council lacks the authority to divert operating funds for the PIG bonus. Others might feel it discriminates against dedicated firefighters, civil servants, and road maintenance crews. Undoubtedly, the guys from NORML would be opposed to the idea: they might even try and gather enough signatures to put a repeal initiative on the ballot.

    Would you support putting the PIG Bonus program up for a vote? Would you criticize the guys from NORML for being "anti-democratic" or trying to micro-manage the City Council?

    Sorry Charlie, but I think you would be standing in Pioneer Courthouse Square, gathering signatures with the OSPIRG kids.

    There are certainly five members of the Portland Police Department that are far more deserving of public subsidy than all of the political candidates that will ever qualify for VOE funding.

    Granted, a million bucks a year is not very much money in the grand scheme of things: less than one-tenth of one percent of Portland's budget. So why not fund both VOE and the PIG Bonus?

  • alsis39.75 (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I don't know if VOE could pass if the issue had gone directly to voters. I've worked on more than one good measure that went down in flames during the campaign. That' because in general, the good folks don't have any money for a barrage of media ads, and the bad folks do. The truth is, folks like Burdick represent powers that routinely do an end-run around the democratic process, because they control the means by which the public learns about the issues. To a lesser degree, a lot of voters are to blame for this as well, because they think that signing a petition to get something on the ballot, watching some ads and then voting "yes" or "no" is the full spectrum of participation. But if they don't pony up the bucks to get the "yes" side they sympathise with out to the rest of the public, they are engaging in a battle with one hand tied behind their backs.

    Burdick and her pals had their own methods turned against them, and now they're whining about it because their traditional method of manipulating the masses --ie, monopolization of the local media-- was unavailable to save their bacon. Stuff it, Ginny. It's bad enough that I have to pay bills every month to the same jaggoffs who are sending you out to disempower me even at this miniscule level. Hell, Enron doesn't pay its taxes at all, and your camp has the utter gall to whine that a few dollars of the taxes they don't even pay might go to VOE. Please.

  • alsis39.75 (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Sorry. Not Enron. PGE. Freudian slip ? ;)

  • (Show?)

    Alsis39.75:

    You're right that PGE, Qwest and Gard & Gerber would have run a slick, misleading big money campaign against Voter Owned Elections. And it most certainly would be close, no question about it. But I really do believe that the League of Women Voters and other reformers would have prevailed - albeit by a slim margin.

    This isn't just wishful thinking; the same consulting team enlisted to defend Portland's reform was the media firm I worked with to defeat Measure 35 (They have something like a 41 and 3 track record on ballot questions). Ted B was on the other side of Measure 35 too (Vive la difference, right?), but despite being outspent by nearly $3 million dollars, we prevailed.

    Ballot measures usually come down to trades: you trade higher taxes for better schools or libraries. Or with measure 35, you trade away some of your jury rights for lower insurance rates. Voters didn't buy it - and we narrowly defeated 35 in the closest statewide campaign in several years. The more voters look into Voter Owned, the better the tradeoffs look.

    <h2>I expect these guys to be back, and in a way, I look forward to it. As long as we have a minimum amount of money to get out our core message we win. It will be a classic hope vs. fear campaign, and as Alice has said, November will work just fine.</h2>

connect with blueoregon