Campaign Finance Reform & the River Tax Vote

[Double A]

Here's how it's worked in Portland Oregon:

Portland, OR: Voter Owned Elections A Success

In the first primary elections held under Portland, Oregon's Voter Owned Elections law on May 17, publicly funded City Council candidate Erik Sten won his race. In addition, the new law helped make Portland elections fair, open, and accountable with a more level playing field, less campaign spending, reduced influence of special interests, and new options for genuine participation in politics by typical residents from nearly all city neighborhoods, according to the Friends of Voter Owned Elections.



With at least 3,500 ballots still outstanding, Sten, who as city commissioner authored the Voter Owned Elections law that the City Council approved a year ago, won just over 50 percent of the vote. If his margin of victory holds, he will avoid a run off race in the fall. His closest opponent was Ginny Burdick, who spent more than $170,000 in her race, and got 30 percent of the vote.



"Portland voters said no to big-money politics in their vote for Erik Sten over a candidate recruited by Portland's big business elite," said Janice Thompson, executive director of the Money in Politics Research Action Project (MiPRAP).



Amanda Fritz, a nurse and neighborhood activist, lost her race against Dan Saltzman, an incumbent who has served in the city council since 1998, and garnered 57 percent of the vote. Saltzman, however, did voluntarily limit his spending to $150,000 and his contributions to $500. Saltzman supported Voter Owned Elections when the City Council voted last May.



Portland's Voter Owned election candidates received $150,000 to run their campaigns after qualifying for the program by collecting 1,000 $5 contributions and agreeing not to take private contributions.

[Double A]

Here is a link to the Portland Auditors website with links to the PDF file of their ordinance.

[RecycleMichael]

$150,000 per candidate sounds like a lot of money. I can't imagine how many yard signs that would buy. Our rights-of-way will be filled from curb to curb.

If I had $150,000 free money to spend and all it took was 1000 people giving me five dollars each...

I would rent out the Cain's, charge a five dollar cover, and blow the entire $150,000 on kegs of beer, live music, and something fun like party hats.

Vote for the only party that really parties!  

[Bledsoe]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael



I also don't think that that many elections are being bought...at least not yet. There was no big campaign money in any of the council races and most of the state representative races were won by regularly paid folk.

If only rich people win, how did Maria Barnes, Jeannie McDaniel, Roscoe Turner, Jack Henderson, Dennis Troyer, Eric Proctor and others win?

Michael, I think you are not seeing the forest for the trees.  I am not saying rich people will always win.  The ability to raise money from large contribution from a relative small base of donors is what I think is at the root of the problem.

Certainly we have elected some good people.  Jeannie McDaniel, for example is a profit in courage, IMHO, often taking principled public policy positions that are in the immediate present at odds with the short-term thinking of the majority of folks in her district.

Yet every person who aspires to office and who wants to get re-elected, in the present system, must constantly think about raising large sums of money.  If you are lucky enough to be in a safe district the present system also gives you the opportunity to form a PAC and raise money for your favored friends. This system enables the Boss Hogg or Tammany Hall syndrom--ala  Todd Hiett and Lance Cargill.

Recent campaign finance stories ripped from the headlines serve to document this problem:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070921_1_A1_hItap15656
Tulsa World : Probe targets GOP finances

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070829_1_A13_spanc47868
Tulsa World : Campaign records, jewelry seized in searches linked ...

The clean government public financing system lessens this every increasing load.  I believe principled representatives like McDaniel should welcome relying on a large base of small donors and public financing rather than a much smaller pool of "fat cats" who can give the $5k max.

Don't you remember the Adelson/Barlett Dist. 33 race in 2004 where over $1 million was raised and spent.  I think it set a record for a state senate race.

Finally, let's look at the money in the 2006 Troyer/Mautino race in East Tulsa, Tulsa City Council Dist. 6.  It is clear to me that much of Troyer's money cam from developers and those allied with this special interest.  Troyer is certainly not rich, but his contributors seem to be more in that catigory.

See:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=060301_Ne_A6_Other
Tulsa World : Other fundraising reported
 
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=060328_Ne_A1_Elect57954
Tulsa World : Election costing lots of money
____________

District 6: Democrat Dennis Troyer, who missed deadline and filed his report Tuesday, has raised $850 and spent $174. He lists two contributions, one for $800 and one for $50, but his report does not list the sources of those contributions.

Republican incumbent Jim Mautino, who missed the deadline and filed his report Tuesday, has raised $3,495 and spent $883. He reported $420 from contributions of $200 or less and a $3,075 loan to himself.

Note:  Most of Mautino's money, here and below, came from his own funds.  Also, remember Mautino had a primary--Troyer did not.
________________

District 6 Council

Republican incumbent James Mautino has raised a total of $5,110.23, with $1,615 raised during the second contributions reporting period. He reported $615 in donations of $200 or less.

Among his donors of more than $200 were Bonnie and Frank Henke and James Hinkefent, giving $500.

Democrat Dennis K. Troyer has raised a total of $9,175.14 this election cycle, with $8,500 raised during the second contributions reporting period.

Among his donors of more than $200 were the David Patrick Campaign, which gave $1,500; Re-elect Auditor Phil Wood and Friends of David Patrick, which each gave $2,000; and Grow Tulsa, which gave $3,000.

Note:  Auditor Phil Wood later corrected this news report.  He gave $200 to Troyer (and every other democrat council candidate)--not $2K.  He said these contributions were to assist with his signs.
________________

Grow Tulsa raised $4,000 this election cycle and had a carryover balance of $18,000. Its $4,000 donor was from World Publishing Co.

The committee gave $4,829.36 to the David Patrick campaign, $4,837.29 to the John "Jack" Wing campaign and $3,000 to the Dennis Troyer campaign.

[RecycleMichael]

I hate to be so dense, but these are relatively small amounts of money and most of the guys you mention lost.

If the money was flowing to David patrick and Jack Wing, why did they lose in the primaries?

Your examples all showed that council races are being financed in Tulsa for small amounts of money and the winners and losers for municipal elections barely spend six figures.

If a candidate can't raise $10,000 in a district of 60,000 people, can they accomplish anything for the district? We trust them to approve a half a billion dollar budget, but don't want them to actually be responsible to raise any of the money they need for their own campaigns?

I am a little worried when a state senate race costs so much money to win in midtown, but all the other state senate races in the Tulsa area spent less than than combined.

Pardon me for being such a simpleton, but I can show you example after example where average wealth people win race after race. The occassional Mayor's race or state senate race that pits two very wealthy people is not enough of an example to me to want to throw out the way we fund campaigns.

I just have a real problem with MY money going to a candidate I do not support. Public financing of elections means that my tax money gives candidates I dislike money to send me literature I don't want, yard signs that make a city ugly, and television ads that interrupt my shows.

I don't want a system that makes me pay for candidates I don't like the opportunity to annoy me.  

[tim huntzinger]

The first step in campaign finance reform is to do away with State-sponsored primaries.  I do not see why one penny of my taxes should go to helping the Parties figger out who their candidates should be.

I disagree with the notion that all losers in elections are the equivalent of Tay, Burns, or Jenner.

[Bledsoe]

Michael have you even read the clean campaign and common cause web sites?  If you will I think most of your questions will be answered and fears set aside that flake candidates would get public money.

The real problem is undue influence from a small group of large donors.  What I want to attract are good candidates that are motivated by public policy and who raise money with a larger base of small donors.

The Dist. 6 race is a good example of the present problem even with small amounts of money--43% of one candidate's funds basically came from one allied group.  The opportunity for undue influence is obvious.

As for these races being small money things--look at Dist. 9--Carter raised over $51K and his primary opponent Stava raised more than $40K--that is more than $91K just for a City Council race.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by Bledsoe

Michael have you even read the clean campaign and common cause web sites?  If you will I think most of your questions will be answered and fears set aside that flake candidates would get public money.

The real problem is undue influence from a small group of large donors.  What I want to attract are good candidates that are motivated by public policy and who raise money with a larger base of small donors.

The Dist. 6 race is a good example of the present problem even with small amounts of money--43% of one candidate's funds basically came from one allied group.  The opportunity for undue influence is obvious.

As for these races being small money things--look at Dist. 9--Carter raised over $51K and his primary opponent Stava raised more than $40K--that is more than $91K just for a City Council race.

Mr. Bledsoe:  

Thank you for posting this topic.  It definitely needs to be discussed in its own thread.

Having NO LIMITS on what a group advocating for higher taxes of which certain of their members will gain immense financial benefit just turns democracy on its ear.

There need to be reasonable campaign limits on so-called Non-Partisan campaigns, just as there are limits for elected office.

Period.

[:O]

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

$150,000 per candidate sounds like a lot of money. I can't imagine how many yard signs that would buy. Our rights-of-way will be filled from curb to curb.

If I had $150,000 free money to spend and all it took was 1000 people giving me five dollars each...

I would rent out the Cain's, charge a five dollar cover, and blow the entire $150,000 on kegs of beer, live music, and something fun like party hats.

Vote for the only party that really parties!  

I think something along the lines of say taking the cumulative average of the totals spent on all Council races combined in the last 2 cycles dividing that by nine and I think that would be a fair number to settle on. Follow the same equation for issues, Mayor, and Auditor campaigns.

I really like that in order to qualify for clean election money, candidates would first have to collect 1,000 $5.00 donations from individual donors. The Paul Tays of the world(God love 'em) will have a whole lot harder time collecting those donations than mere signatures, which addresses Spincycle's problem with that.

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

$150,000 per candidate sounds like a lot of money. I can't imagine how many yard signs that would buy. Our rights-of-way will be filled from curb to curb.

If I had $150,000 free money to spend and all it took was 1000 people giving me five dollars each...

I would rent out the Cain's, charge a five dollar cover, and blow the entire $150,000 on kegs of beer, live music, and something fun like party hats.

Vote for the only party that really parties!  

I think something along the lines of say taking the cumulative average of the totals spent on all Council races combined in the last 2 cycles dividing that by nine and I think that would be a fair number to settle on. Follow the same equation for issues, Mayor, and Auditor campaigns.

I really like that in order to qualify for clean election money, candidates would first have to collect 1,000 $5.00 donations from individual donors. The Paul Tays of the world(God love 'em) will have a whole lot harder time collecting those donations than mere signatures, which addresses Spincycle's problem with that.

how many signatures do they have to collect right now? 1000?

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

$150,000 per candidate sounds like a lot of money. I can't imagine how many yard signs that would buy. Our rights-of-way will be filled from curb to curb.

If I had $150,000 free money to spend and all it took was 1000 people giving me five dollars each...

I would rent out the Cain's, charge a five dollar cover, and blow the entire $150,000 on kegs of beer, live music, and something fun like party hats.

Vote for the only party that really parties!  

I think something along the lines of say taking the cumulative average of the totals spent on all Council races combined in the last 2 cycles dividing that by nine and I think that would be a fair number to settle on. Follow the same equation for issues, Mayor, and Auditor campaigns.

I really like that in order to qualify for clean election money, candidates would first have to collect 1,000 $5.00 donations from individual donors. The Paul Tays of the world(God love 'em) will have a whole lot harder time collecting those donations than mere signatures, which addresses Spincycle's problem with that.

how many signatures do they have to collect right now? 1000?

300 to get on the ballot.

[Shadow6]

The problem is not in free speech.  I'm very uncomfortable with limits on spending on campaigns, and I've got problems with campaign finance reform at the Federal level.

The huge, frustrating problem is that we are having this election in the first place.  Three county commissioners have the power to call an election.  

At the southside library "public meeting" called by Fred Perry, one of our Self-Appointed Movers and Shakers made a statement like, "No mater how you stand on this issue, we should let the people decide."  At that point, I realized what was going on.  With 300 million on the table, the "Vote Yes" side could easily raise a million bucks (and it looks like they will raise more than that), and have a massive media blitz. With the typical blend of misinformation, lies, and dirty tricks, they could turn a no-brainer into a close election.  

So I am very upset with my Republican county commissioners.  We never should have had to go through this.