Phil Stanford, You Lose

Kari Chisholm FacebookTwitterWebsite

Phil StanfordWell, the ides of March have come and gone - and unless Tribune columnist Phil Stanford has real big surprise up his sleeve, he's missed the deadline for a free dinner and drinks on me at Morton's.

Last fall, Stanford was crusading against the Clean Money initiative proposed by city commish Erik Sten and city auditor Gary Blackmer. Phil's basic complaint? That any Joe Schmo could easily whip up 1500 checks in $5 amounts - and thus qualify for $200,000 in public funding.

As I've said many times before, I've got all kinds of concerns with the proposal - but it's too easy to qualify ain't one of 'em. Phil's just flat wrong on this.

But, just in case he wasn't, I offered him this wager:

If you can raise 1500 $5 checks for charity by March 15, I'll buy you a steak dinner at Morton's. Drinks, too.

Ya gotta follow the rules as described in the proposal, including the seed money rules (for expenses, you can raise money, but only in $100 increments - including from yourself.) Only Portlanders allowed, and each person can only give one $5 check. Oh, and you can't use your newspaper column or do anything from your Tribune office -- after all, you wouldn't be allowed to use it if you ran for mayor. Feel free to launch your own blog, though.

Well, Phil, it's March 16. Looks like no steak dinner for you.

As far as I'm concerned, the question of whether the 1500-check requirement is too easily accomplished is settled. Feel free to argue the merits of the Clean Money proposal - but let's not hear "it's too easy" anymore.

  • Becky (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Based on my experience, it seems the kind of checks you have to worry about (the ones with strings or the ones that tend to involve back room deals and other shady goings-on) are never under $1000, and typically start at $10,000, though I've seen group efforts where people pitched in as little as $2500 appiece to accumulate a meaningful enough chunk to change someone's direction or mind on issues. Limiting contributions to $5 and seed money to increments of $100 is, in my opinion, ludicrous. Even taking into consideration the size of the race - local vs. statewide or national - it's ludicrous. In a local race, perhaps a $500 contribution might be tied to some future favor, but it would be a terribly cheap politician, in my mind, who would sell his soul for that.

    Since the purpose of the 1500 small contributions seems to be to ensure the candidate is serious, or earns broad-based support, can't we learn that on election day? Or is this just an attack on the Jada Mae Langlosses (or whatever her name is) that run every election solely for the purpose of obtaining a platform for their views? After all, we can't be giving the same public support to those odd people that we give to the respectable candidates, can we? What it really comes down to is a serious infringement on people's right to speak politically, both by running for office and by giving their financial support to the candidate of their choice in in exchange for a publicly financed campaign system. Talk about taking the pressure off candidates to win real broadbased support. The fact is our big businesses do have legitimate concerns that affect us all and are not always malevolent. The Supreme Court has ruled that they, too, have a right to speak.

    I've seen the money pour in to a campaign office when the person is popular and their ideas are popular. And I've seen it slack off when the opposite was true. Anyone who doesn't have popular ideas and can't manage the media is lacking in the political skills necessary to be in office, in my opinion, which is why I don't support public funding of campaigns. Since we can't force campaign contribution limits, I think we're all better off with quicker, more thorough reporting of contributions, and better coverage of contributions by the press - then let the people decide if they like who's buying favors from the candidate. And a little investigation of pass-through contributions would also be nice. In today's world of blogging and liberal talk radio, I think we have a better chance than ever to hear the truth about who is supporting whom. I'd like to give this new daylight a chance to work before we take such drastic steps to limit political contributions.

  • (Show?)

    Becky, an important thing to note here is that the Clean Money initiative is an entirely voluntary system.

    If you wanted to run for the Portland City Council and spend your own personal millions - or the millions of your five favorite deep pocket boys, that would be just fine.

    I do think it's legitimate to try and find ways to distinguish between real candidates and the vanity candidates like Jada Mae (may she rest in peace) - especially if we're going to be giving away public funds.

    That said, the point of the $5 checks is that anyone can give $5. If you can collect 1500 of them, then you've real community support. I think the proposal would empower those candidates with community support that don't have access to big money people. For example, in the last Portland mayoral, folks like James Posey and Phil Busse. Lots of supporters, but no money.

  • Steve (unverified)
    (Show?)

    That said, the point of the $5 checks is that anyone can give $5. If you can collect 1500 of them, then you've real community support.

    My comment: How many AFSCME members are there? Raising 1500 checks from them should be no problem. That way the regime can continue to defend their great PERS plans and benefits.

    I really don't think Mr Stanford cares about your challenge to be honest. If you can't see this as a solution for a non-existent problem, then I doubt if anything would change your mind.

  • Jay (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Was there ever any indication from Phil that he cared about your "wager" Kari? Did he really "lose" if he just ignored you?

    If a wager falls in the forest and no one's around...

  • (Show?)

    Steve & Jay... You're right. Phil completely ignored the earlier post.

    Maybe it's best called a "challenge" rather than a "wager". After all, by losing, he doesn't owe me anything.

    The point is this: He claimed it is an easy thing to just whip up 1500 checks. So easy that any yahoo could do it - and we'd be giving away money to con artists, flim-flammers, and vanity candidates.

    If it's so damned easy, then it wouldn't have taken him much effort at all -- a free $200 dinner would be his. Easy, easy.

    But, by ignoring the challenge he proves my point: it's rather difficult to pull this off, to organize and mobilize 1500 $5 checks.

  • Steve (unverified)
    (Show?)

    You ignored my point - One AFSMCE union rally for 1500 checks @ $5 = $7500 which means $500K to Mssrs Sten, Leonard et al. A lot of gratitude and constant reminders to Mr Sten and his now "clean money" brethren will reinforce this point (that is if they know what is good for them.)

    This should be no problem for the union once they realize the rate of return (about 70:1). Which means a lot of payback and leverage for the union - and none for fixed income grandma and the guy working two jobs to pay his mortgage.

    So now we have this one special interest group calling the shots for these guys as opposed to the general population and the city is out $500K.

    Explain to me again - what problem this is fixing besides out poor city councilors actually having to go out and meet people (besides the one union rally) and raise money?

  • (Show?)

    Steve.... I actually think your scenario is a positive thing for our politics. Remember, our goal is to boost candidates who have popular support. That applies to unions, enviros, pro-lifers, anti-UGBers, pro-UGBers, yadda yadda yadda.

    Anybody who can find a crowd of 1500 people and get them all so excited that they whip out their checkbooks, well, that's a strong candidate.

    Hell, not even Ralph Nader could pull that off here in the People's Republic of Portland. And he just wanted a signature, not a check. Remember the fiasco at Benson High School?

    The Clean Money plan will allow candidates to spend their time meeting actual voters - not just the kind that give money. And it will allow electeds to do the same AND actually govern - not spend all their time raising money.

  • (Show?)

    The union thing is largely irrelevant, it seems to me.

    So for one or even two candidates the job is to influence a bunch of union members all at one time rather than going door to door over time. If you can do that, that still makes you a serious candidate. It's still 1500 people you have to convince. The Portland Business Association could probably hold a meeting and get 1500 contributions too. So what?

    Candidates won't be able to hide how they raised their contributions and that can become part of the campaign. When each contribution is only $5 no point in paying your secretary or your relatives to give your money under their names.

    There will be alternative candidates people can vote for who didn't raise their contributions that way. Tom Potter being the single exception to the rule, under the current system all the candidate have to take big bucks from someone to have a chance to win.

    As an incumbent, it's a whole lot easier to dump your 1500-contribution-providing supporter than your big money donors. If you can convince the public you are doing the right thing, at next election time you always have the alternative of getting your 1500 from someone other than a special interest power base.

  • Steve (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Doretta - My issue is this. I am Erik Sten and I am for sale.

    Which is easier - I roll over totally at a AFSCME rally or a PBA meeting and promise them exactly what they want in one shot and get $500K immediately OR spend the time and actually court voters in smaller more diverse groups to get to the limit?

    Next time young Erik steps out of line, here comes Mr PBA president to hastily remind him how he got his $500K. These guys are going to be beholden to one contributor. I still don't see how this prevents big donor buyoffs - It only consolidates them.

  • Marshall Runkel (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Here's the two part problem statement:

    The current campaign finance system virtually guarantees victory to the better funded candidate.

    The ante to run a credible campaign for city office is being able to take a six month sabbatical from work and raise $250,000.

    And, witness Becky's post above, people view all politics through the cynical veil of campaign finance. In this environment, it is extremely difficult to tackle our most difficult problems.

    Marshall

  • Marshall Runkel (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Steve...1000 (City Council or Auditor) or 1500 (Mayor) $5 contributions are not going to buy anybody or entity a candidate.

    PBA or a union will be able to help a candidate bundle qualifying contributions. So will a PTA group, softball league, or neighborhood association. That's the idea. Candidates work hard to demonstrate a broad base of support to qualify for the system, then run a campaign based on their ideas not their ability to continue to raise money.

    Will now stop signing my posts at the bottom like a rookie.

  • (Show?)

    Steve writes: How many AFSCME members are there? Raising 1500 checks from them should be no problem.

    Doretta writes: The Portland Business Association could probably hold a meeting and get 1500 contributions too. So what?

    Neither AFSCME nor PBA has EVER had a political meeting in Portland that Im aware of in which more than 1500 people where there at one time. It just doesn't happen.

    To think any local non-profit or business group could easily pull together this much interest shows a misunderstanding of the challenges of local politics, albeit a bi-partisan misunderstanding apparently. Organizing large events is difficult folks- just ask anyone who has ever done an event with over 250 people.

  • James Bennett Saxon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Clarification:

    The purpose of the $5 contribution is NOT to raise money, but to enroll the general constituency in the political process. So that any constituent no matter how poor, can become involved. That's the benefit.

    The $5 is also to establish general support. Not Union support... That would be a foolish political choice for a "Clean" candidate, yes?

    If it requires too many signatures, true, that would be a problem. A lower signature threshold, not so bad (but potentially more costly). It has to be the right number of signatures based upon the number of residents.

    But the contribution is NOT the goal. That's just to establish the candidacy. That's where the fun begins, not ends.

    There is no FUNDRAISING for voluntary Clean Candidates because the funds are a simple bank account. So, DO NOT think "Fundraising". "Dialing for Dollars" is no more. That's the point.

    Simply, candidates get a bank account with enough money to run a fair, competitive leveled playing field "issue based" campaign, not a "money based" campaign. Ideas rule the Clean Election.

    That is the key. If you can allow people to run for office WITHOUT STRINGS, you have improved the democratic process. Period. That is currently not a viable option in 99% of the cases.

    The goal of Clean Elections is to find people who wish to cast off the strings and run on their own ideals. If it's not Erik Sten, there are certainly many many other civic minded people (teachers, women, minorities, housewifes, people who care) who wish to do the right thing and serve their city fairly and evenhandedly.

    This is what Clean Money can provide. Shooting holes is always possible, but in Arizona and Maine, most of those concerns prove not to hold water. The approval of Clean Elections in those states is very high after two full elections cycle. The outcome has been partisans working together in unique ways.

    They call "Red State" Arizona purple for a reason... It's because of Clean Elections...

    Try it, you'll like it.

    Sincerely,

    James Bennett Saxon

  • (Show?)

    I just want to briefly elaborate on the difficulty of getting 1500 folks together in the room.

    Each election, the Sec of State prints and mails a Voters' Pamphlet containing ballot measure arguments for and against each initiative facing voters.

    Each statement costs $500- or is free with 1,000 signatures.

    It's not uncommon for unions to file 30 or so of these per election, and not once have they ever turned in signatures instead of money. If it is so easy to get these folks together, you'd think they'd just have a big rally with a line of tables containing each signature sheet.

    But they don't do that, even though it would in theory save them 15K per cycle. Why? Because it is exceedingly difficult to organize this.

    Increasing the number needed by 50% and adding a modest financial contribution makes it even more unlikely.

  • Gracie (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I've just never been convinced that we end up with better elected officials through clean money proposals. Do clean money systems make campaigning less of a headache? Perhaps. Do the folks who have been elected in Maine and Arizona make better decisions than those elected under other systems? I've seen no evidence of it.

    Of course, there's no qualifying exam to do be elected and make laws, except running campaigns. There's no need to show you can make thoughtful public policy decisions.

    So I guess I just think clean money is the wrong (or at least not a central) answer to the question of "how do we get good decisions?"

  • (Show?)

    One way to get better decisions is to allow for more time to develop ideas and public policy during a campaign, as opposed to spending all of your time dialing for dollars.

  • (Show?)

    Gracie: I don't think any system will ever be perfect, and instead of the exceedingly high standard of "does this solve all of our problems?" a more reasonable standard may be "is this better than our current system?"

    Yes, the jury's still out on this one, but as mentioned in Kari's original post, the idea that 1500 contribs is too easy is really off the mark.

  • (Show?)

    Well, if you want a clean money campaign...

    Tomorrow a fellow will announce his candidacy for Governor (taking on Kevin Mannix in the Republican primary) who will have a self-imposed $200 per person limit on campaign contributions.

    He will challenge Ted Kulongoski and Kevin Mannix to limit their contributions likewise.

    Any bets on whether either of them will take the pledge?

    You heard it here first.

  • (Show?)

    Well, if you want a clean money campaign...

    Tomorrow a fellow will announce his candidacy for Governor (taking on Kevin Mannix in the Republican primary) who will have a self-imposed $200 per person limit on campaign contributions.

    He will challenge Ted Kulongoski and Kevin Mannix to limit their contributions likewise.

    Any bets on whether either of them will take the pledge?

    You heard it here first.

  • (Show?)

    I'm even more impressed with the Republicans' "No-Win" pledge for the general.

  • Tenskwatawa (unverified)
    (Show?)
    <h1></h1>

    Posted by: Charlie Burr -- One way to get better decisions is to allow for more time to develop ideas and public policy during a campaign

    'Time to develop' such as the time taken together, candidate and voter, to effect a reassurance given and a five-spot contributed. 'Time to develop' such as the time to consider an issue, formulate a position, explain it in writing and post it for voters on the candidate's part, and, on the voter's part the time to read it and consider and refer.

    By way of saying that a ban on broadcast political ads, (making Bush's taped propaganda bits illegal to air) as a campaign spending reform which would bolster writing and reading for political campaigns' main media, is a proposal that plays nicely with campaign funding reforms, including some public money funding. I support both expenditures and contributions regulations.

    The ones mainly claiming voters could not know candidates without radio and TV advertising are not voters ... they are broadcast salespeople. It's like quitting cigarettes or any drug -- the pusher loses and gripes. Just say No to fly-by broadcast politics, in order to have healthier -- saner! -- politics.

    The richly informed sense of a candidate from reading their writing, is demonstrated here on BlueOregon and all over blogville every time each of us sees something to consider about a person in what they wrote. No doubt candidates bereft of broadcast illusions of grandeur could hire ghostwriters for slick campaign papers. That leaves an impression about the candidate, too: Illiterate.

    And like with Phil Stanford, what I think of his position on public money for qualified candidates is completely based on what he wrote ... or didn't. And because he put it in writing my thoughts of him are stronger than if he had broadcast his counterpoints via radio or TV.

    <h1></h1>
  • (Show?)

    Er, I'm having trouble reconciling "This levels the playing field" with "It will be pretty hard to qualify."

    How about "This way Dan and I won't have to work too hard raising money. We can bulldoze any serious challengers even easier than ever before."

    Just be sure to put "clean money" up for a popular vote. If you don't, I suspect Lars will. And it will go down in flames.

  • Steve (unverified)
    (Show?)

    One last comment as far as the union goes, they don't even need a meeting.

    Message to AFSCME Members - For a $10 (or whatever) discount on this month's dues, please write a $5 check to the campaign of Erik Sten so we can manage him. This means he will get $500K without having to meet one voter.

    I am not picking on Mr Sten in particular, but he is pushing it.

  • (Show?)

    JackBog: Er, I'm having trouble reconciling "This levels the playing field" with "It will be pretty hard to qualify."

    I don't think it will be impossible to qualify, I just don't agree with Steve that getting 1500 contributions would be no big deal. BTW: Steve's last example- a discount on dues- would be a violation of the proposal. Also, for what its worth, AFSCME- or any other union for that matter- doesnt give discounts on monthly dues for political contribs. Just doesn't happen.

  • allehseya (unverified)
    (Show?)

    If you can allow people to run for office WITHOUT STRINGS, you have improved the democratic process. Period. That is currently not a viable option in 99% of the cases.

    Yes. That was 'the key' for me -- which is why I'm all for the Clean Money initiative. James -- you seem like the right person to ask (because I'm too lazy to research it and I'm guessing that you already know the answer) -- where does the money that Arizona and Maine use in their models -- come from?

  • (Show?)

    Don't know where the $ came from in Az & Maine, but the Clean M<oney ballot measure from 2000 (Measure 6) was financed through savings from the repeal of the Oregon political tax credit.

    Btw: as to jackbog's "go down in flames" comment- he's right that measure 6 went down, although it did pass in multnomah county, albeit not by a whole helluva lot.

  • (Show?)

    Dont know why my comments were cut apart like that- my apologies- but basically, in 2000, Oregon had a statewide Clean Money measure, which was paid for through savings in the General Fund from getting rid of Oregon's political tax credit.

  • (Show?)

    Steve,

    I think you have a really rosy view of grassroot participation.

    Asking union members to actually write a check for $5, find an envelope and a stamp, get the address right and actually mail the danged thing, I'm guessing from my personal experience with grassroots work, that you'd get a return of maybe 8 to 15% no matter what the incentive.

    That percentage would be pretty much the same if you asked them to send an email or make a phone call too.

  • (Show?)

    If you're getting 8 to 15% on your fundraising mailings I should hire you for my next campaign! Look out insurance industry....

  • (Show?)

    Pat's right on throughput - more traditional direct mail is more like 1 to 2%... nevermind that Steve's scenario would basically be a felony: since the actual funds are coming from the union.

    As for Jack, trying to reconcile "level the playing field" and "hard to qualify"... Let me tell you a little story about a girl with golden hair and these three bears she met in the forest. It's a long story, but the upshot is that she found porridge that was neither too hot nor too cold.

    That's right: The goal of a measure like this would be to find a number of $5 checks that is neither impossible to achieve (say, 10,000 checks) nor completely easy to achieve for any yahoo (say, 100 checks).

    The number of 1500 for mayor and 1000 for council came out of a long process that tried to figure out what "substantial community support" means. It doesn't mean, "so much support that they're a sure winner" and it doesn't mean, "a roomful of cranky people".

    I continue to maintain the basic point: 1500 checks is pretty tough to achieve, but not beyond the pale for 3-5 serious people with community support and a willingness to work. In the last mayoral election, the people who could have qualified probably include Jim Francesconi, Tom Potter, Phil Busse, and James Posey. You'd still have your 15-20 vanity candidates, but they'd be on their own.

    Look, the proposal doesn't fit anyone's idea of perfect, but it's a damned fine improvement over the present situation. (Closer to perfect for me would include multiple step-ups to qualifying - 1000 gets you $X, 2000 gets you $2X, etc. More people = more money. But they chose against that in favor of simplicity.)

    Look at it this way, if you've got Commissioner Joe Schmo facing an election in a couple of years. He knows he's gotta raise $200,000 to be competitive. Over 24 months, that's $8333 a month. Even if he's collecting that in $500 checks, that's 17 one-hour meetings a month. (plus phone calls, thank you letters, and oh yeah - the one-hour meeting that results in a "call me later".) So, we're really talking about 30-40 hours a month. When Commissioner Schmo is supposed to be working for us.

    Nevermind the corrosive effects of having your commissioner spend all his time with people who have $500 checks, just think of the time involved.

    For that same $200,000, the city can buy the commissioner's time back: He'll be out there meeting real people, working on policy problems, talking to community organizations, etc. etc. etc.

  • James Bennett Saxon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Allehseya:

    I believe, in Arizona (statewide elections) it's funded in two ways. One is a $5 checkbox on the state tax forms (Like the presidential one), but also with people having the option to give more. The second way is through a % surcharge on misdemenors and felonies (I believe 30%). So if you speed, speed in Arizona and help pay for Clean Elections.

    Gracie:

    I heard a speech by Meg Burton Cahill, an artist, housewife and now twice cleanly elected Arizona representative. She said that one year a newspaper gave a 100% rating on her voting record. She went back and reviewed choices and felt that even in retrospect, her votes were as they should have been. She felt no pressure to vote against her principles and she felt they were right for her constituents. I think that's a pretty positive thing.

    If you'd like to see testimonials on how it's working, there is a 12 minute video by Bill Moyers that shows Arizona and Maine post 2002 elections (results were even more solid in 2004), and a great 4 minute testimonial by Marc Spitzer (R) Elected under Clean Money that you can see here:

      http://www.CAclean.org/inspiration/video.php

    It's an inspiring video to see real results and the secondary and tertiary benefits of such a simple idea.

    BTW, this site is full of information about Clean Elections and how it's working and has a library of articles about the problems and the solutions. It's worth checking it out:

      http://www.CAclean.org/problem/

    Sincerely,

    James Bennett Saxon

  • Gracie (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I've seen all the stuff. Here are the claims, then, from the California site: • Candidates speak with voters more • More qualified and diverse candidates run • Turnout increases at the polls
    • Voters show overwhelming support

    Voter turnout doesn't indicate that we're getting better government; voter support of clean money doesn't show we're getting better government; more candidates running doesn't mean we're geting better government.

    And one newspaper loving a legislator is anecdotal evidence that doesn't mean anything to me. Lots of legislators would claim they felt no pressure, were happy with all their votes, and their votes served their constituents.

    The only claim that I think can be verified is that "candidates talk to voters more." This may or may not be true, and may or may not increase the quality of decision making. I'm thinking of all the "candidate forums" and the types of conversations that candidates have when they walk door-to-door to talk to voters. Those conversations don't really tend to be very informed, very thoughtful, etc. Maybe a "clean money" candidate can follow the mood of the voters correctly, but who says that's a good thing?

    Does it mean candidates will follow the discrimination of Measure 36 and the legal quagmire of Measure 37? That's what voters did, and it's not a good thing.

    Again, no evidence of better decisions that I can see. Instead of advocating for clean money, we need to be doing the HARD work of connecting citizens into public decisions. You can't buy a good democracy, even with nice taxpayer-funded campaigns.

  • Erik Sten (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I think this type of debate is very good, and I'm glad to have provoked it, as both a sponsor and a character in the various scenarios.

    Thank goodness I'm not as cynical as Jack Bog thinks I am. I wouldn't like myself at all. I honestly think this will improve our city over time. There are many reasonable arguments on all sides of this. The idea that it better protects incumbents is not a great one.

    Steve, I see your theory, but it's just that. You aren't close on how political fundraising actually happens. The idea that unions are going to have a larger impact on the city than the folks who give huge contributions is just not true.

  • (Show?)

    FYI, on the upcoming Council agenda items, this proposal is listed for April 7 at 2:00 PM.

  • (Show?)

    Erik:

    Worse case scenario- even if your proposal isn't enacted it has already affected local politics and races in an interesting and positive way. Keep up the good work!

  • James Bennett Saxon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Gracie:

    You make a excellent point about the HARD work. It is essential that people are brought into the system.

    That's where both the $5 contribution, and the increased voter turnout become catalysts to changing people's ways.

    More citizens become involved and enrolled when ponying up their money to help launch a candidate. It gives them civic pride. Citizens learn that their $5 truly can make a difference and then so will their vote.

    Clean Money also spreads out people's involvement across regions. Contributions come from a wide array of zipcodes rather than a couple rich, white areas. E.g. in AZ all the money came from Phoenix, but now folks out in the boonies flex their power too. This is reinforced as Clean Candidates have twice as much campaign time to spend meeting voters instead of trying to meet political "investors".

    Polls also show an increase in people's "trust" of government. This coupled with the increased voter turnout to me indicates a true sense of participation rather than a hands off approach.

    Apathy on the other hand is a symptom of a disease of "disconnect" that occurs when "wonky" policies do not reflect the wishes of the voters. How does that happen? Follow the money... A big campaign contribution by a lobbyist and suddenly an obvious vote gets missed.

    Could such a scenario happen? It's the only game in town right now. The question is not if, really, but how often. There are certainly good folks out there, but they're forced to deal with this nonetheless. On the other hand, lobbyists, don't even bother Clean Candidates.

    When representatives are free from the policy "wonkers" and don't have to meet them, and don't have to think about them, don't have to return their calls first, they can do their job better. They can launch the task forces, they have no conflicts of interest.

    So, Clean Money definitely involves more people in politics. And if even one politician is more responsive to the people (focusing on issues, spending more time on issues, not being briefed by specially interested squeaky wheels), the result is positive.

    Arizona has a balanced on-time bi-partisan budget. Maine has enacted publicly demanded universal health care over the pleas of the freshly declawed industry lobbyists. But most everywhere else, eighteen year olds fall into a swirling drain of disconnect as they cast their first vote, eventually growing justifiably apathetic. It seems pretty clear that with Clean Money, though, people become more involved instead.

    So, I think Clean Money is the key to the beginning of people doing the hard work. I think it will become clear in time that publicly funded elections mean better, more responsive, more precise, more focused government.

    Sincerely,

    James Bennett Saxon

  • (Show?)

    I don't think Erik is a cynic. The prompt posting of the campaign finance reports on the internet, which he and Blackmer have engineered, is a bold move that will check corruption. It deserves nothing but praise.

    But the fact of the matter is, the majority of voters in town don't believe property taxes should go toward political campaigns. And I'm with them.

  • allehseya (unverified)
    (Show?)

    But the fact of the matter is, the majority of voters in town don't believe property taxes should go toward political campaigns. And I'm with them.

    Which brings me back to the qustion --- where does the money for the Clean Money initiative come from?

    For instance, Jack -- would you object to it coming from other sources such as the way it is in other models (assuming James is accurate in his research) in Arizona (statewide elections) it's funded in two ways. One is a $5 checkbox on the state tax forms (Like the presidential one), but also with people having the option to give more. The second way is through a % surcharge on misdemenors and felonies (I believe 30%). So if you speed, speed in Arizona and help pay for Clean Elections. ?

  • Erik Sten (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'm glad to accept Jack at his word that he doesn't think I'm proposing this for cynical reasons. Thank you for that.

    It is true, however, that you continue to tie many of your arguments against this to a sense that I'm doing it to further my own self-interests. I've never feared running for office and putting myself out there for all the critiques under any system.

    I find it interesting that perhaps the most vehement critic of the city stands up for the unlimited contribution system. Not irrational, mean-spirited, or self-serving, just interesting. I continue to honestly say this is an important and good debate.

    As a small matter of fact, the funding mechanism we have proposed is a charge to the city overhead model that spreads citywide costs to all fund. We project that the total cost would be about one-tenth of one percent to each fund. A citizens comm. would be empowered to review and adjust it as experience proves worthwhile.

    That mechanism means that all funds would pay, because all funds are governed and set by the winner of the elections. By that math, and I'm not being exact, but I'll be in the ballpark, the property tax share of the fund is probably below $200,000. Rest comes from everything else from building permit fees to PDC revenue, etc. If there is interest, I will get an exact number of the property tax share.

    Not perfect, but a far better way of paying the cost than having those large interests that benefit from city policy picking up the tab.

    <h2>On with the argument.</h2>

connect with blueoregon