Sho Dozono to Run for Portland Mayor
The Oregonian reports that businessman Sho Dozono, owner and CEO of Azumano Travel, will officially announce his long-speculated candidacy for Mayor on Monday morning:
Portland businessman Sho Dozono will make it official Monday morning: He's going to give Commissioner Sam Adams some high-profile company in the race for mayor.Dozono, owner of Azumano Travel and well-known in civic and philanthropic circles, confirmed Sunday night that he will take the first step in qualifying for election by filing for public financing of his campaign.
If he collects 1,500 signatures and $5 donations by Jan. 31, he will be certified for the May primary election. He also could qualify for the ballot by filing a form, but chose the less conventional public financing route because he wants to take big donations out of play.
Dozono's candidacy has been the subject of intense speculation for several weeks and was not unexpected; he said one of his daughters has used the slogan, "It's Sho time."
Dozono is framing his campaign as the alternative to fellow candidate and City Commissioner Sam Adams:
Dozono said he discussed his candidacy thoroughly with friends and advisers and concluded Portlanders want a choice in an election that Adams might otherwise take in a walk-over.Although 10 others have filed for the mayor's post, Dozono zooms to the top of the list of contenders facing the favored Adams, who was chief of staff for former Mayor Vera Katz before winning election as commissioner.
"Coronation of a candidate is not something the citizens of Portland want to happen," Dozono said.
He said his business background has required him to carefully consider how money is spent and the importance of budgets. Dozono said he has "no bones to pick" over Adams' record, but believes his own leadership, business and civic experience qualify him for the office as well.
Dozono has been involved with a number of public issues. He has helped raise money for schools and United Way, organized trips by Portlanders to New York after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and did the same to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina struck.
Read the rest. Discuss.
|
Jan. 06, 2008
Posted in in the news. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Jan 6, '08
Great! A millionaire to get taxpayer financing.
One more reason I'm glad Sten is soon out the door. (Oh, check out message 37 in Jan 2's Sten article, and then ignore the contents like usual).
As for Dozono, he's also a privileged individual allowed by the city council (incl Sten) to own cabs (whether he knows the first thing about them or not), while three or four unemployed guys are not permitted to pool resources and start a 2-car cab company with each taking 12-hour shifts.
Bob Tiernan
Jan 6, '08
One early lesson of Portland's public campaign financing is that the signature/$5 donation requirement is much harder than it looks. Most candidates spend months trying to get those donations -- it sounds easy, but every voter willing to give you $5 wants to hear about your views on their top-3 policy issues. People see it as an endorsement of sorts.
Sho is leaving himself 24 days to collect 1,500 sigs/$5. That's more than 62 each day. Sho has a huge network, so maybe this will be easy for him, but I wouldn't bet on it.
I also don't really understand why he's running for Mayor if he has "no bones to pick" with Adams' record. Competition in elections is great, but presumably you're competing because you think you'll do a better job. It will be interesting to see if Sho can articulate that, or if this becomes a redux of the Ginny Burdick candidacy, where business interests pushed Ginny out front where she failed to articulate much of anything and promptly got trounced.
Jan 7, '08
Bob -- would love to check out the Jan 2nd article on Sten, but I can't tell which one you mean. Please provide a link or clarify -- is this on BO or the Oregonian?
As for a millionaire accepting public finance, would you rather than he just funded it himself? I'm not clear on what your criticism is. Why such a backlash against the public finance law in general? It seems like a great way to equalize political power across economic groups, though let's not kid ourselves: money still equals power.
Don't know Sho's politics: fundraising for schools and the United Way are nice and safe for anyone of any political affiliation and position. The United Way of the Columbia Willamette actually does get involved in politics, unlike the one down here (at least for now.)
8:32 a.m.
Jan 7, '08
I think that Sho is a great public citizen, but he better come up with a better reason for running than offering a choice. A choice of what?
Did he decide to run because of the Chavez street naming fiasco since he made his decision to run when that came to a head? What is it about Adams that he doesn't like? What would he do differently? So far his introduction of a campaign is very obtuse. There is an agenda there somewhere and he ought to let the citizens whose vote he is asking for in on his secret.
Jan 7, '08
I'm guessing the Jan 2 article is the one in the Willamette Week.
As for public financing, I think it's great that a millionaire is using it. It means he's limiting himself only to the amount other candidates are getting, even though he could afford to spend much more. I acknowledge that he could simply decide to limit himself without public financing (which I hope he'll do if he can't get the 1500 donations in time) and that his ability to finance a campaign without public financing gives him a leg up already, but seeking public financing shows he's committed to the public financing system and the public buy-in it requires.
Jan 7, '08
Why such a backlash against the public finance law in general? It seems like a great way to equalize political power across economic groups, though let's not kid ourselves: money still equals power.
Rose -- I support Portland's public campaign financing system, although I think it's been poorly implemented so far. But the most substantive criticism I've heard is that it's really an incumbent protection system. Whether the incumbent takes public financing (like Sten) or just voluntarily limits himself to the spending caps (like Saltzman), it is virtually impossible to beat an incumbent if you spend the same amount as he does. Given the incumbent's name recognition and their bully pulpit, to have any chance you have to either: 1) outspend them 2) wait for them to screw up, or 3) at the very least spend enough for a broad-based media campaign.
The $150,000 spending cap is enough to run a grassroots campaign, but too low to run an effective television/media campaign. For open seats, it should work well to level the playing field. But when there's an incumbent (or even just a big name) it's likely to just make it easier for them to hold onto their seats.
9:34 a.m.
Jan 7, '08
FYI.... For mayor, VOE provides $200,000.
Jan 7, '08
Rose Wilde:
Bob -- would love to check out the Jan 2nd article on Sten, but I can't tell which one you mean. Please provide a link or clarify -- is this on BO or the Oregonian?
Bob T:
The one in Blue Oregon.
Bob Tiernan
9:43 a.m.
Jan 7, '08
And more to the point: It's only an incumbent protection system if the amounts are too low.
Imagine for a moment that it the amount is $5 million. No problem getting the message for the challenger, right? It's all about where you peg the amounts.
It's unfortunate that some leading advocates for VOE think that reducing the amount of money for campaigns is a good thing.
I'm vastly more concerned with the source of money in our politics. It's simply untrue that we spend too much money on politics. In fact, I'd argue, we spend too little. (We spend more in this country marketing dish soap than we do on politics.)
The only problem with the quantity of money is when it's fundraised privately. Make it public financing, and all is well.
Personally, I'd like to see Portland's VOE system provide $200k for city council primaries, and $400k for general elections... and $400k for mayoral primaries, and $600k for the general.
Better yet, make it a single instant runoff vote in the fall - and make it $500k for council, and $800k for mayor.
9:47 a.m.
Jan 7, '08
For what it's worth, I've begun to think of the public financing component less as a way to get free money and more as a way to demonstrate viability. In every election cycle, we have someone enter who has a fairly high-profile name and gets a lot of press. By virtue of that, conventional wisdom often grants them "front-runner" or "viable-challenger" status. Sho has enough money and a big enough name to fundraise, so he could easily skip this. I will take him a lot more seriously if I know he can get 1,500 Portlanders to support him.
Reactionary conservatives like Tiernan (above) naturally hate everything to do with public financing. But this is Portland, and the effect on the public will be quite the opposite: I suspect it will become a major political chip to use public financing as time goes on. After all, if you're a good liberal who believes in public financing (as the vast majority of Portlanders do), you're not looking for the votes of folks like Tiernan, anyway. But you might allay worries that you're just a sock puppet for some entrenched interest.
10:51 a.m.
Jan 7, '08
I suspect it will become a major political chip to use public financing as time goes on ... you might allay worries that you're just a sock puppet ...
I agree, and thanks for articulating the point here, Jeff. Someone who convinces 1500 people to individually cough up cash and put their name on a publicly available list, is someone who just asked for and received 1500 endorsements. Which is quite a list, for any candidate.
After a review of those 1500 names for endorsement quality and diversity, many voters would be more likely to take a publicly financed candidate seriously than any millionaire stepping in with his own money, or a candidacy paid for by well-heeled special interest backers. I'm guessing that's a real fear for opponents of Voter Owned Elections.
Jan 7, '08
Kari, since we go into elections with the public financing system we have, rather than the public financing system we want, wouldn't you agree that the $150,000 cap for Commissioner and $200,000 cap for Mayor amounts to an incumbent protection system? As a media consultant, can you run an effective citywide media campaign for whatever is left of those amounts after other expenses? If all candidates limit themselves to those amounts, can you ever see an incumbent losing to a newcomer?
Jeff -- What do you think about the possibility that a leader of a mega-church could use Portland's system every two years to spread an evangelical message, with no chance of ever getting elected? It would be easy for this person to get 1,000 or 1,500 sigs/$5s. Would you still take him seriously because he got lots of Portlanders to "endorse" him?
12:28 p.m.
Jan 7, '08
As a media consultant, can you run an effective citywide media campaign for whatever is left of those amounts after other expenses?
First, I'm not a media consultant. At least not in the traditional sense - television. I do internet strategy, still the bastard stepchild of campaigns (though I'm doing my best to change that!)
If all candidates limit themselves to those amounts, can you ever see an incumbent losing to a newcomer?
Second, can I imagine a scenario in which an incumbent loses to a newcomer? Sure! An incumbent could be beset by scandal, a challenger could be a national hero, etc.
But that sort of proves your point: While not impossible, an extraordinary circumstance would have be in place.
Of course, Sam vs. Sho is not an incumbent/challenger race. It's an open seat. Admittedly, one with an incumbent city commissioner. But don't forget: Tom Potter's $60k defeated Jim Francesconi's $1 million. And there wasn't any scandal there for Jim, and there wasn't any national celebrity for Tom.
But I'll stand by original point: It's not VOE that's an incumbent protection plan - it's the amounts in it.
12:44 p.m.
Jan 7, '08
What do you think about the possibility that a leader of a mega-church could use Portland's system every two years to spread an evangelical message, with no chance of ever getting elected?
Abuse is a risk in any system. Once an abusive candidate's non-diverse signature source (mega-church, hemp rally, whatever) became apparent, that would be the public story, not their message.
Would you still take him seriously because he got lots of Portlanders to "endorse" him?
Portland's media have proved they're more than savvy enough about VOE to examine and discuss the source and diversity of candidate petition signers.
As with all endorsements, it's not just the volume, but the quality and diversity which drive media and public opinion.
Jan 7, '08
Miles,
If Portland's public financing amounts are too low to allow effective challenge of incumbents, perhaps support will build for increasing the caps. As it is, Portland's public financing is certainly superior to no public financing. Historically, incumbents almost always outspend challengers for public office. Those challengers who can raise more than the incumbent are generally puppets of wealthy interests - consider, for example, Ginny Burdick's campaign against Eric Sten, who pissed off PGE and the Portland Business Alliance.
Good government depends on being able to replace poor performing incumbents, not incumbents who resist giving wealthy interests what they want.
Jan 7, '08
Public financing? Not much time left to qualify. We'll have to see what happens, although it is a surprise considering his wealth and how recently he moved back to Portland after living and paying his taxes in Beaverton.
2:19 p.m.
Jan 7, '08
Amanda Fritz' two VOE election campaigns suggest a couple of the best possibilities of the system.
One has to do with getting access to the level of candidacy. Amanda F. has a pretty wide civic activism background as well as being a trade union activist (Oregon Nurses Assoc. OHSU). Conceivably she could have got backing to be a candidate under pre-VOE conditions, although she seems to think not.
At minimum, though, to have done so would have required a kind of networking with the politically connected & able to donate that creates the debts that have been the stuff of politics. Instead she has been able to leverage other networks that she's built up to become a candidate without entering as much into such prior debts with extant powers that be behind the scenes.
It's possible that if elected she'll face some sort of backlash against that, I suppose -- the existence of the forces that ginned up Ginny Burdick to run against Erik Sten out of pique over VOE suggest it could happen. But with only five commissioners it would be hard to marginalize her.
Once she's in, if she is elected, she'll end up being part of those politics inevitably anyway, to some degree, in horse-trading and in her own capacity to be a patron. But she (or anyone else elected that way who is so inclined) will have more resources for resisting the claims, pressures and seductions about what constitutes the inevitable and realistic that create cyicism at different levels of the system. And if she does indeed act as I expect her to if elected, working for a broad public constituency & for the principle of good governance to the end of a decent civic community, VOE might protect her as an incumbent against a campaign backed by financially powerful interests to knock her out.
So I think VOE does have the potential to open the gates to candidacy wider, esp. in open elections, and to reduce the gatekeeping capacities of insiders, many of whom may not be candidates at all, as well as the capacity of the well-heeled to get rid of people who are "too progressive" in the constituencies they serve.
A second point that Amanda F.'s campaigns raise is the power of repetition. This time around she has name recognition from the last time that will help her I think. While she's running for an open seat, the same would apply if she were running against an incumbent. Possibly this cuts a bit against the "incumbent protection" criticism.
2:26 p.m.
Jan 7, '08
What relationship does Sho Dozono have to the Portland Business Alliance and other downtown business interests?
Sam Adams has to a certain extent tried to position himself as "business friendly," relatively speaking -- how does Sho Dozono's entrance interact with that? Will Adams be pulled to compete for larger business support & away from more populist interests?
(Is Azumano Travel actually based in Portland, or is Sho D. the Portland franchisee or something? I first was aware of the company in New Haven, CT.)
2:32 p.m.
Jan 7, '08
No dog in this fight as I don't live in PDX, but I've been pretty happy with Adams so far.
That said, I'd give props to Dozono for going with the public funding despite having a sackful of cash available.
<hr/>Dozono probably has as much name familiarity as Adams, and he has the added advantage of his PR having been mostly favorable stories of private good works, while Adams has had to actually govern and take his lumps accordingly.
Jan 7, '08
Amanda Fritz' two VOE election campaigns suggest a couple of the best possibilities of the system.
Doesn't her sizable loss to Dan Saltzman also indicate a potential weakness of VOE? Fritz is exactly the type of candidate VOE is supposed to help -- community activist, tons of grassroots support, looking to break into the all-boys club. She gets her $150,000 in 2006, Saltzman voluntarily limits his spending to $150,000, and he trounces her 57.5% to 24.6%. In the PRIMARY.
It's always hard to beat an incumbent, but Saltzman doesn't exactly evoke passion from his supporters and doesn't have much of a positive or negative reputation. In that race, the fact that a qualified, serious VOE candidate couldn't even break 25% leads me to question whether the system could EVER reward those it was intended to help. Why wasn't Fritz able to get at least 35-40% of the vote? Because it is impossible to run a broad citywide campaign on $150,000. Incumbents are more than happy to limit their spending if it means the challenger has to limit her spending as well.
With the open seats this time around, VOE is going to have a positive impact because it helps people like Fritz, Branam, and Lewis become viable candidates without having to raise money from private sources. But I'll be interested to see if VOE ever results in an incumbent losing to a newcomer -- or even coming close.
Jan 7, '08
Does Sho have a website? I want to enlist in the Army of Sho.
6:21 p.m.
Jan 7, '08
If VOE does nothing but encourage newcomers to run and enable them to win open seats without becoming beholden to moneyed interests in the process then that will be good enough for me.
There are open seats periodically and that still gets us people on the council who would not have been there otherwise. If they do a good job they will have the advantage of incumbency the next time around and the opportunity to survive further still without big-money backing.
Jan 7, '08
Miles --
Fritz literally did not carry her home precinct in her lastouting or City Council.
Nor did she carry her home precinct in her attempt in the Demo primary for State Representative several years ago.
Fritz is our very own Harold Stassen.
Jan 7, '08
If VOE does nothing but encourage newcomers to run and enable them to win open seats without becoming beholden to moneyed interests in the process then that will be good enough for me.
That's a far cry from the initial claims of VOE supporters, and if that's all the system does, it may not survive the referral to voters in 2010.
Jan 8, '08
Jeff Alworth:
Reactionary conservatives like Tiernan...
Bob T:
If you're going to label me, then get it right. But then, labeling people serves a purpose and that's why you do it (just like many in the 60s used the label "gooks").
Whenever progressives have a chance to show that they're different, they don't.
Bob Tiernan
Jan 8, '08
I had never run for any public office before 2006. I did not run for State Representative, for School Board, for the County Commission, for Metro, or even for the Soil and Water Conservation Board - all traditional stepping stones for people who seek a career in politics and/or a seat on the Portland City Council.
Public Campaign Financing allowed me to run in 2006 without spending my children's college fund or begging from affluent insiders, and win almost 25% of the vote. I would not be running again without it. Few candidates seeking election to political office win on their first attempt, especially when challenging an incumbent without serious negatives.
Public Campaign Financing is NOT "voter owned elections". It is one necessary tool in the broad range of reforms needed in our political structure in order to return real power to the people. As Chris Lowe notes, if elected I will be able to work on other problems currently hindering good governance, because I am beholden to the people of Portland, not Politics As Usual.
11:33 a.m.
Jan 8, '08
I know what Amanda means. I'm starting up my run for Gresham City Council, and I certainly wish we had some funding, even if it were only a few thousand dollars.
You need money to make money, as you need to open a checking account, get remit envelopes, print flyers (even in-house ones), etc.
Jan 8, '08
Amanda -- I think the relevant question, though, is could you (or any other publicly financed candidate) EVER win with just $150,000 (plus another $150,000 if you make it to the general). You ran a very grassroots campaign in 2006, which partly was style but must have also partly been financial. Once you pay for your lawn signs, three or four mailers, and $10/hour for one or two staffers, is there anything left over for TV? Can you run an effective citywide campaign that reaches 500,000 people on $150,000? Most voters don't go to neighborhood association meetings, they don't go to house parties, and they don't log onto Blue Oregon. Without a campaign that reaches those people (i.e., TV ads), a challenger will never beat an incumbent.
I'm tempted to agree with Kari that maybe the VOE amounts need to be increased, but that might make it even less likely that voters will retain the system in 2010. Absent that, though, we may have just created a system that allows good people like yourself to run, but never to win. And if that's the case, is the system worth retaining?
1:20 p.m.
Jan 8, '08
"wouldn't you agree that the $150,000 cap for Commissioner and $200,000 cap for Mayor amounts to an incumbent protection system?"
No, I wouldn't. For one thing, there is no way to separate Sten and Saltzman's victories from a) the regular incumbent advantage, and b) their relative approval and satisfaction among the electorate. For another thing, a large part of the idea is to reduce the OVERALL amount of money being spent. That was successful in 2006. I'd much rather have an incumbent who proved he/she was still able to draw support from regular voters, and who was not heavily financed by the monied interests that could affect decisions in the next term, than the "old style" incumbent.
150K for a primary council race is not scads of money, but it's plenty to make yourself visible and run a full campaign. And as Amanda points out (and I reinforce here) the goals are not strictly to get rid of incumbents, but to reduce the influence of money (particularly special interest money) on the process, and give all citizens a fighting chance at earning office. Because the alternative, of course, is having almost ZERO chance.
Jan 8, '08
As Kari points out above, the problem with politics today isn't strictly the amount of money being spent (we spend a lot less getting our political messages out than we do advertising almost any product). Rather, it's where that money is coming from that has the corrupting influence. So I don't see reducing the amount spent on politics as a good enough reason to keep VOE if everything else is status quo.
I don't agree that $150,000 is enough to run a visible, full campaign. I'm not a campaign consultant, so I'd love to hear from one who says that IS enough. But it seems to me in a big city like Portland, you need to have quite a bit of tv and other media in order to really get your name out there. We love the idea of a "neighborhood activist" doing grassroots, retail politics, but that won't get you elected in a city with more than 500,000 people. Most voters will never hear from you or see you, and the natural inclination is to support the incumbent due to name recognition. Thus, the VOE system we've created is great for open seats, but does little for most elections except guarantee that the incumbent is reelected.
4:01 p.m.
Jan 8, '08
"Thus, the VOE system we've created is great for open seats, but does little for most elections except guarantee that the incumbent is reelected."
Miles, you still haven't offered the first clue to back that up. Let's assume for a moment VOE has no effect on incumbency (which is generous; you claim it actually makes it WORSE). That would still make it a rousing success in terms of open seat elections, the source of money, the screening of challengers, and the financial cleanliness of the candidates (since every last paper clip bought is scrutinized).
TV? I can't actually remember seeing many TV commercials for Portland City Council. Ginny Burdick had more money than God, and I think at most she did radio. I don't actually remember ANY candidate doing them, but maybe I have a short memory (Francesconi did one, perhaps--but he had a million bucks).
4:02 p.m.
Jan 8, '08
"Thus, the VOE system we've created is great for open seats, but does little for most elections except guarantee that the incumbent is reelected."
Miles, you still haven't offered the first clue to back that up. Let's assume for a moment VOE has no effect on incumbency (which is generous; you claim it actually makes it WORSE). That would still make it a rousing success in terms of open seat elections, the source of money, the screening of challengers, and the financial cleanliness of the candidates (since every last paper clip bought is scrutinized).
TV? I can't actually remember seeing many TV commercials for Portland City Council. Ginny Burdick had more money than God, and I think at most she did radio. I don't actually remember ANY candidate doing them, but maybe I have a short memory (Francesconi did one, perhaps--but he had a million bucks).
4:03 p.m.
Jan 8, '08
feh--said it didn't take, the first time. Sorry.
Jan 8, '08
It's a theory, so I can't prove it. And frankly I hope I'm wrong. But it seems to me that in order to beat an incumbent, you have to outspend them or at least spend enough to run a robust campaign. I don't think $150,000 (or $300,000 total for the primary and general) is enough for the 31st largest city in America. Thus we've set up an incumbent-protection system.
The only evidence we have so far is limited to 2006, but the fact that Amanda Fritz couldn't break 25% in a race against Dan Saltzman says something. Saltzman was coming off his disastrous reservoir-capping jihad, and basically didn't have much else to run on except the children's levy. I'm not saying he should have lost, only that he shouldn't have been able to waltz to reelection in the primary like he did. Had Amanda raised $300,000, I don't think he would have.
VOE was sold on two platforms: 1) it would reduce the amount of special interest money in city elections, and 2) it would give new opportunities to grassroots candidates, particularly women and minorities who have been shut out of the process. I agree that it's succeeding on point #1, but I think it's destined to fail on point #2 except when open seats come up where no big names are running, which isn't very often.
If VOE turns out not to be any help to grassroots candidates, is getting rid of special interest money enough? Are taxpayers going to be willing to repeatedly fund the campaigns of lesser-known people who always lose? I guess we'll find out in 2010 when we vote on it.
Jan 8, '08
in 2010 when we vote on it...
Actually, it will be in 2010 IF we vote on it. The council that enacted VOE had no power to bind a future council to bring it to a vote. We will only get to vote on it if the council decides we get to vote on it.
Jan 8, '08
Kari writes, The only problem with the quantity of money is when it's fundraised privately. Make it public financing, and all is well.
Crisp and clean and no Corruption: never had it; never will.
If a lobbyist donates money to an elected's favorite charity, or a consulting contract comes with a "hire the relatives" clause, or union members are encouraged to volunteer for a campaign, is public financing still the cure all? Based on our experience with VOE oversight in Portland, do you believe that "in-kind" contributions (and other considerations) will receive public disclosure.
Jan 8, '08
Enough already about VOE and Ginny Burdick and Bob Tiernan's thin skin. It's Sho Time!
Here's where to send your $5 (remember, you must be a registered Portland voter): Friends of Sho Dozono 2236 SE 10th Ave. Portland 97214.
Typical Adams...he wasted no time taking a shot at Dozono by calling him an "insider." Now watch as Adams, the ultimate insider, tries to recast himself as an outsider. Go Sho.
Jan 8, '08
If anyone cares, here is his website:
http://shoformayor.com/
Immigrant from a war wrecked nation (his Mom was a US citizen), teacher, civic leader, Cleveland High School grad, local and international businessman, husband, father, his wife is impeccable...what more do you need? They write movies about guys like Sho.
If you folks are serious about change...this is your chance.
Jan 9, '08
Tim D:
Enough already about VOE and Ginny Burdick and Bob Tiernan's thin skin.
Bob T:
I don't see where "thin skin" enters this at all. It's more like being opposed to being given inaccurate, coloring-book labels by people who claim to dislike assigning coloring-book, goo-goo ga-ga labels to identify people who don't agree with them 100%.
Bob Tiernan
Jan 9, '08
Jeff Alworth:
After all, if you're a good liberal who believes in public financing....you're not looking for the votes of folks like Tiernan, anyway. But you might allay worries that you're just a sock puppet for some entrenched interest.
Bob T:
I can easily vote for someone getting taxpayer financing, particularly if I think that person will be a good addition to the city council. I don't like this system of financing but my vote is not an automatic "No" for anyone getting such financing.
If you'd quit thinking you're bright enough to figure people out based on your stereotypes and profiling, you might actually impress me some day.
Bob Tiernan
10:34 a.m.
Jan 9, '08
Of course, Bob, Gresham doesn't have voter-owned elections - so you're all good.
Jan 9, '08
Tom Civiletti:
Those challengers who can raise more than the incumbent are generally puppets of wealthy interests
Bob T:
And to continue the previous message, and using your above observation, I'll point out that there was an election in Portland (May 16, 2000) in which two city council members were being challenged.
Position # 4 was held by Charlie Hales. His challenger was Ted Piccolo, known to some on this list as an anti- light rail activist. I voted for him, but he certainly had no campaign warchest to equal Hales', and had no Fat Cat backing of any real substance. His views would have been the ones needed on the city council so far as I was concerned (regarding a ton of issues), but I can tell you that the progressives flocked to Hales despite his Fat Cat backing because he was the candidate who was going to keep the Light Rail and New Urbanist Gravy Train running for scores of politically connected Fat Cats.
Position # 1 was held by Francesconi, and I voted for the challenger Gloria Harris. I wonder if any of you remember her. I felt that she would have added a needed voice to the status-quo city council but she was of course trounced because Francesconi, well funded by the usual politically connected Fat Cats, was the one who was going to keep the Light Rail, New Urbanist Gravy Train running.
And you guys talk about opposing such Fat Cat Gravy Trains!
The same thing was done regarding Measure 26-74, the North-South Light Rail ballot measure from Nov, 1998.
The Anti-26-74 PAC was outspent 10-1 and had no Fat Cats involved because there as nothing to gain for them by defeating this measure, and the pro-side had all of the Fat Cats because Light Rail is a Gravy Train for politically connected Fat Cats and assorted businesses. It lost by a hair, but should it have been defeated by a larger margin considering how obvious it was where the Fat Cat corporate money was going? Progressives by and large flocked to this measure, and have voiced no protests about the post-defeat decision to go ahead with this and other projects without a vote, all because the New Urbanist, Light Rail "vision" was getting implemented. And if the Corporate Fat Cats win, well, that'll just be overlooked.
Bob Tiernan
10:56 a.m.
Jan 9, '08
"If VOE turns out not to be any help to grassroots candidates, is getting rid of special interest money enough? "
You didn't really just ask that, did you? Is it enough to know that the candidate is not being financed by deep pocketed developers, PGE, OHSU or OEA (for example)? Is it enough to know the candidate will be actually campaigning rather than fundraising? Is it enough to know that when the candidate wins and becomes an elected official, I won't have to ask, "Did he just vote that way because he got $5000 from them in the election?"
I sure think so.
Jan 9, '08
Back to the topic at hand: Sho Dozono as Portland Mayor. Dozono has a certain "Mr. Nice Guy" image. Not sure the image doesn't have a darkside.(WW article by Jacquiss from 30 October 2002.)But given that he is as he appears, activist, concerned businessman. Why would I want another good-guy, lets all vision together, whoop-whoop, occupant of the Mayors' office? Due to the wierd way the citizens of Portland set up their city government, you need someone in the Mayors seat that can actually get things done. Adams has demonstrated repeatedly that he knows the city system and understands how to make things happen. He has served a long apprenticeship for this job. We desperately need a mayor who can hit the ground running, otherwise we will be facing the same set of problems four years from now. As far as I am concerned, Dozono is a "NO Sho" for Portland"!
Jan 10, '08
Give me a break, does Sho really think it is legit to ask for $5 donations without providing a summary of his positions on the "real" challenges facing the City -- transportation, schools, environment, police, etc.. This is even more of an issue due to his leadership on charter reform. We know he doesn't agree with the majority of Portlanders regarding the structure of the current government, we need to hear how he will make this form of government work. I would encourage all Portlanders to demand some straight talk on how Sho will solve real problems before they part with their $5 -- please don't let us get Pottered again.
1:52 p.m.
Jan 11, '08
Bob T., while in principle I agree with you about labels, in practice I don't think anyone in current debates has very clean hands on this one. If you are honest you will have to acknowledge that pinning labels on people and then attacking the labels has been the bread & butter of conservative politics for decades. It's highly prevalent on blogs ("the XYZ crowd", false equations of liberalism with socialism, and now, with fascism in promoting Jonah Goldberg's monument to stupid historical interpretation) but also in print media; Brainstorm NW is quite happy to invoke "limousine liberals" and to ignore the equally or more numerous cappucino conservatives and Lexus libertarians.
More to the point, you have engaged in it here. I support light rail and it is not because of my support of "fat cats." That attribution of motive is as much of a label as calling you reactionary.
I support light rail as a mode of transportation because of my own experience with it. Likewise I am intellectually persuaded by new urbanism, on the whole. I don't have a financial interest in it, nor any friends who are developers.
And it's not like there aren't fat cat developers who benefit from the modes of urban-suburban development focused on highways and autos and paving farmland favored by opponents of new urbanism. These debates aren't about fat cat developers vs the people. Very largely at that level they are about which set of fat cat developers will benefit.
On 1998, you have an excellent point. I thought that was a terrible campaign for "my" side that reflected a profound arrogance on the part of liberal policy elites in Portland and the Metro area. Basically all they did was say, "look at the list of people who support this." They did not actually campaign on the benefits or try to persuade people why they would benefit.
It is a great pity because we could have had a better system sooner funded substantially with federal money. Instead we have had a slower development of an inferior system that relies much more on "public-private partnerships" which are particularly susceptible to fat cat political logrolling.
Jan 11, '08
It doesn't matter who you are or how much money you have: it's easier to run a campaign by asking 1,500 supporters for $5 each (and receive $200,000 of "clean money") than ask 100 people for $2,000 each.
Sho can't win the primary if he only spends $200,000. But he can force a runoff, without spending $200,000 of his own money. Then he gets another $400,000 of "clean money".
Then he just has to wait for Sam Adams to do something stupid (like send a new tax and a new bond issue to the November ballot) to make it a competitive race in the general election.
Better yet, Sam will have to either:
A). Participate in VOE, which looks self-serving, since he knew he would run for the mayor's office when he voted for VOE.
B). Fundraise the old fashioned way, and become the dirty money candidate. Plus, if he outspends SHO, it will generate more free money for Sho.
Tram Adams looks like an opportunist either way, and the whole VOE fiasco reveals it's fatal flaw: entrenched politicians usually beat the newcomers, unless they are truly boneheads (like Francesconi).
Jan 14, '08
January 13, NewsRelease: For Immediate Release
SHO DOZONO COLLECTS HALF THE NEEDED SIGNATURES DURING WEEKEND RALLIES
PORTLAND- Community businessman and activist Sho Dozono spent the weekend at several Eastside Portland neighborhood and grassroots events in his race to qualify as a candidate for Mayor of the City of Portland under public financing laws.
Just a week after announcing his intention to run, Dozono gathered several hundred signatures at Woodstock Wine and Deli, the Asian Reporter, on N Killingsworth, and The Bus Project's Rebooting Democracy Conference -- pushing his totals over the half-way mark, in his race to collect 1500 signatures and $5 contributions before the January 31 deadline.
"It is clear that Portlanders want a choice for Mayor and I'm grateful that so many people think I can provide the new kind of leadership they are looking for" said Dozono.
NEXT UP: On Saturday, January, 19, at 10:30 a.m, Dozono will be at Grant High School -- where he taught and coached for many years -- to collect more signatures and thank the dozens of volunteers who are helping him reach the qualifying goal.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
www.shoformayor.com
Jan 17, '08
I will second Betsy G's comment. Portland lets not get Pottered again! I see Sho has Potter's wife listed prominently on the website as an active volunteer for "Sho for Mayor." Nothing personal against Mayor Potter or his wife. They are nice people, but, Portland, don't you get it? You need someone who can actually stay in a council session when things don't turn out the way you want. Portlanders' who actually have to live with the results of these people's actions might prefer a mayor who is capable enough to avoid a train wreck in a council session in the first place. Just a thought. Capable and competant is not what I think of when I hear Sho for Mayor. NO SHO FOR PORTLAND!
Jan 18, '08
So, when Sho burns up the public funds. Will he take funds from a small child again to fund and support him self through this? Is that not your M.O. Sho ?
Jan 21, '08
INCORRECT ADDRESS FOR SHO FOR MAYOR IN PREVIOUS POST by Tim D
Tim D - you posted an incorrect address for the Sho for Mayor headquarters which is fraudulent. Why did you do this?
You all can verify at the http://www.shoformayor.com website that the temporary headquarters is at
Sho for Mayor headquarters 320 SW Stark, Suite 601 Portland, OR 97204
If you want to sign a triplicate Qualifying Contribution Receipt you will need to pick one up at the campaign headquarters, and bring your $5. Don't trust anyone who is giving out a random address and asking you to send in $5. The Qualifying Contribution Receipt form must accompany your $5 contribution.
Thanks to all of you out there who want to see a competitive Mayor's race in Portland
Jan 26, '08