On Thursday of this week, the "clean elections" program passed by Portland City Council will be implemented. Now known somewhat euphemistically as "voter-owned," the proposal to front candidates financially if they agreed to spending ceilings and a ban on private contributions over $5 passed 4-1 in May. If you want the details, here's the City Code language (known by the even more droll moniker "Campaign Finance Fund") and the shorter administrative rule set along with some pointers in case you're moved to file for office.
As the B!x post above indicates, there is not insubstantial resistance to the implementation of the reform, particularly along the lines of concern about legislative fiat and economic priorities. The Big O predictably picked up both themes in its dismissal of the idea amidst a larger "Portland is becoming anti-tax" argument; they use a Hibbitts poll from that time to show 56% opposition, and suggest that the fiscal expenditure is "tone-deaf" without voter micromanaging.
The problem with both of these arguments is that, well, they suck. When did we have the job of passing laws and policies handed to us? I thought that's what the elections were for: so they would do it on our collective behalf, and we would elect new people if we didn't like their laws. Not to disparage the valued tool of the citizen's initiative, but attacking a program's worth simply on the basis that we weren't consulted is complicated by two things: no one ever said we had to be consulted, and the money we're being asked to consult on is at pittance level.
Notwithstanding the lengthy public hearing process that most cities aren't even blessed to have, there was no popular vote on the Bridgehead Project, or the South Waterfront, and millions were doled out from City funds for both. Heck, if you want to talk about micromanaging assets, why didn't we get to vote on the Water Bureau account management software before it was installed and ended up costing everyone so much wasted money?
If there is a popular uprising against reform, it's coincidentally (cough) among those who are most well practiced at manipulating the current system. Coalition or cabal--take your pick--varied individual members of the Portland Business Alliance have chosen the former high-profile lobbyist from AT&T, Laura Imeson, to organize on their behalf. I'm sure one of the largest telecommunications companies in the world never had any cause to contact the policymakers in one of the most advanced telecom cities in the world. Never. Even if all the allegedly aggrieved were actual Portland residents, it still looks like a move of self-preservation--which tells you all you need to know about whether to support campaign reform, IMO.
However, in a somewhat unusual situation for an initiative fight, there appears to be reasonably well financed support for the law as well. It certainly won't be as well funded as the business coalition--and the donors are open to the same charges of "imported help," actually with more substantiation.* But this is not exactly high-powered help; their web site just oozes 'underfunded web advocacy budget.'
Other groups supporting the issue are better funded and better organized however, and they are benefitting from empirical successes as the focal thrust of their arguments. Maine and Arizona have held multiple elections under "clean money" rules, leading to increased candidacies and vastly increased female and minority candidacies, high buy-in rates among current legislators, and subsequent legislation that rebuffed the interests of particularly generous donors from the past. North Carolina and Vermont have also adopted clean money for judicial races, and New Mexico is using a pilot program to study the phenomenon.
How does it work, and what does it involve? A great introduction is this set of short videos and documents that lay out the concepts, answer the questions and rebut the negative arguments. Are you interested in pushing your locality towards clean money elections, or simply reading how to sell the idea where you live? This is another excellent resource.
I'm going to keep an eye on this story to see if the repeal initiative takes hold. The signature threshhold is pretty low--about 26,000--and the backers have money to hire people for soliciting Hancocks. But now is the time to get ahead of the repeal argument and explain the solid investment it represents in producing more of what we want out of candidates and their campaigns.
*I suppose I should mention that I am not a Portland resident, but a daily commuter into and public servant for the City. I was born at Emmanuel, and as long as I don't go trying to file any initiatives I think I'm within rights to argue on behalf of good legislation for what I consider my hometown.
--TJ
It's worth pointing out that while there is some outside foundation money supporting Voter Owned Elections, it was strongly supported on a local basis by a variety of organizations that a decidedly community-based, including Oregon Action, City Club and the League of Women Voters.
Posted by: Chris Smith | August 29, 2005 at 18:39
Certainly so, Chris. I operated from the understood premise that both sides have most if not all of their efforts from local support. However, while the "illegal filing" against the PBA was pretty much a technicality (and one of them owned a Portland business), it is true that fairly big chunks of money have come from out of state to support the reform. Nothing necessarily wrong with that, but it should be info that is out there.
Thanks for the important comment.
Posted by: Torrid | August 29, 2005 at 19:58
hey Joe:
Another Portland, Emanuel (note the single "m") Hospital born, non-resident echoes your thoughts. It's sad that the capitalist money-changers thrown out of the temple are attempting to use the petition system to create some unrecognizable "outrage" about this decision. You're exactly right that we elect officials to implement most change; not to continue to refer everything to us in referenda. Now if we could only get the legislature to behave a little more responsibly as the Portland city council...
Posted by: activist kaza | August 29, 2005 at 22:27