‘Clean’ complaints left something out
December 7, 2004

   Recent columns by Phil Stanford (‘Clean’ money never cost so much, Nov. 23) and Promise King (Clean campaign idea falls short, Nov. 23) on the clean campaign proposal included inaccuracies and questions that have been thoroughly reviewed and addressed in our two years of research and public discussions.
   One problem is failing to acknowledge the public hearings that have occurred on this topic, as well as election season questions on reform options and community discussions such as the City Club of Portland’s recent forum on campaign finance reform. This is hardly an attempt to slip something through.
   King does explain the new way that candidates — incumbents and newcomers alike — must qualify by collecting large numbers of $5 contributions. His statement, however, that the reform allows union leaders to pass out 5 bucks on behalf of members is inaccurate.
   King’s more general concern that organized groups would not be eliminated is accurate and should be celebrated rather than derided. One of my co-speakers at the City Club was Arizona Corporation Commission Chairman Marc Spitzer. Spitzer has written that “clean elections do not exclude interest groups from political campaigns. That’s like removing bubbles from champagne. Indeed, clean elections’ appeal for grass-roots, $5 contributions empowers anti-abortion, pro-choice, pro-gun, anti-gun, teachers, retirees, real estate agents and myriad ‘enlightened’ interest groups in the best tradition of American democracy.” I agree.
   As an early skeptic, then the first candidate to run for statewide office under Arizona’s clean elections system, Spitzer also spoke about the difficulty of gathering the required number of $5 qualifying contributions. People who gave $5 took it very seriously, making a conscious decision to support his campaign, unlike the hired lobbyists and others who saw big contributions as a cost of doing business.
   As a fiscal conservative, Spitzer turns around the cost question. He said, “Prior to clean elections, I had trouble looking into the eyes of children and telling them that the government belongs to them.” Spitzer’s final comment was that “the people of Portland cannot afford not to change the system.”
   I agree with Spitzer and believe that public funding of campaigns will address the doubts raised by Stanford about City Council decisions regarding property development, a key source of campaign contributions.
   Studying Tom Potter’s success as a financial underdog who set his own caps on campaign contributions also has been done. Potter’s case is the exception, since the highest-spending candidate for city office has won 87 percent of the time for the last 34 years. In addition, self-imposed contribution limits worked for Potter because of name recognition from many years of public service and an opponent whose fund raising became the story, rather than his record.
   Potter’s campaign succeeded because it openly defied the power of money, which resonated with voters, but it did not change the underlying system.
   Two final clarifications. In my last race, where I spent less than $2,000, I was unopposed; under the new reform option I would have been ineligible for any public funding.
   Far from being an incumbent protection system, public funding programs — according to an analysis by University of Wisconsin political scientists — have increased the pool of candidates and the likelihood that an incumbent will have a competitive race.
   My conclusion is that clean campaign reform will create voter-owned elections in Portland and will benefit candidates, constituents and public policy decision making.
   
   Gary Blackmer is Portland’s city auditor. He lives in Southeast Portland.