‘Clean money’ plan revised to avoid abuses
‘Serious’ candidates in city elections would get thousands in public funding
By JENNIFER ANDERSON     Issue date: Tue, Mar 29, 2005
The Tribune

   No, candidates won’t be able to run away to Maui with taxpayers’ money under the public campaign financing proposal for Portland.
   They won’t be able to use it to pay their mortgage, buy clothing (other than campaign T-shirts), pay their athletic club dues or strategically band together to oppose one candidate. (Six people did so in the race against Commissioner Randy Leonard last year.)
   About a dozen such stipulations are laid out in the new, slightly revamped “voter-owned elections” proposal, up for review by the City Council on April 7. The public hearing is set for 2 p.m. at City Hall, but a vote likely won’t happen for several weeks.
   The major changes in Commissioner Erik Sten and City Auditor Gary Blackmer’s proposal, formerly called “clean money,” includes the section addressing safeguards against potential abuse, which many in the community were wary of.
   There also is more detail on the seven-person “citizen campaign commission” that would be appointed by the auditor or an independent selection committee to monitor the system and hear disputes as they arise.
   Another change is the way Sten and Blackmer want to implement the system. If approved, the system could begin Sept. 1 and run for three election cycles (2006, 2008 and 2010) before it was referred to voters.
   “This is an innovative approach to limit the escalation of campaign spending,” said Blackmer, noting that in the 114 city campaigns since 1970, the highest-spending candidates won all but 15 times. “Voters would be able to see how it operates and best be able to judge it after three election cycles.”
   As proposed, the system would grant public funds to candidates for city auditor, City Council and mayor. City auditor and City Council candidates would receive $150,000 in the primary election and $200,000 in the general election; mayoral candidates would receive $50,000 more.
   To qualify for the funding, candidates must gather 1,000 $5 checks from the community. (Mayoral candidates must collect 1,500 checks.)
   Candidates could then raise seed money from contributors for things such as printing materials and part-time staffing in contributions of $100 or less, not to exceed 10 percent of the public funding they receive for the primary election.
   The funding, of course, is the biggest sticking point.
   The city Office of Management and Finance has figured three scenarios, the most likely costing $1.3 million per year. That scenario would fund one “serious” challenger to the incumbent mayor and auditor, and two serious challengers to each of the two commissioners in the primary election and one or both in the general election.
   A “serious” candidate is defined as someone who gets more than 7,000 votes, qualified as such “to filter out candidates who run a campaign as a hobby rather than a serious endeavor,” Blackmer said.
   A third of the funding, $435,000, would come from overhead charges to the city’s general fund bureaus, including police ($178,000), fire ($95,000) and parks ($65,392). The amount required to fund the system for the first year is included as a place holder in the proposed city budget.
   Other elements of the proposal include:
   • Granting publicly financed candidates additional funding in the case of a wealthy candidate who opts out of the system. If that candidate spends more than the public financing limit, the publicly financed candidates would split that amount, not to exceed a total of $150,000.
   • Contribution reporting requirements by both participating and nonparticipating candidates. The city technology office estimated it could develop an immediate online reporting system at a cost of between $16,000 and $22,000, with annual support costs of $5,000 to $10,000.
   • The auditor’s office would add one full-time worker to monitor the system through random samples of contribution and expenditure reports by all candidates. Lawbreakers could be held personally liable for fines issued, be required to repay the public money, or be disqualified as a candidate.
   Opposition to the proposal — much of it related to its cost — has started to trickle in. “In times of financial strife, I wonder about funding at this time,” said Ken Turner, manager of Eastport Plaza.
   Support in the community, meanwhile, includes endorsements by more than 3,000 individuals and 30 to 50 business organizations, backers say.
   Yet many have mixed feelings. Amanda Fritz has the same question as many critics: How can the city afford it?
   “I’m concerned about the effect on the city budget at a time when we’re cutting parks and other services,” said Fritz, a part-time registered nurse and mother of three who is considering running for office in the future.