|
917 SW Oak St. #422, Portland, OR 97205 (503) 283-1922 Fax (503) 283-1877 miprap@oregonfollowthemoney.org |
It's now certain that an initiative to overturn Portland's progressive publicly-financed election system will be on the ballot in May. KINK Considers getting what we pay for.
The City of Portland has an all-funds budget of a billion dollars. So why is a group of downtown business and development interests focusing on just one one-thousandth of that budget as irresponsible spending that merits a ballot measure? Portland has a newly reformed campaign finance system for city elections. Serious candidates for Mayor or Council who raise a thousand five-dollar contributions on their own can qualify for public funding. The cost to the city will be an estimated one-point-three million dollars a year, just over a thousandth of the the all-funds budget. But a group of special interests called the First Things First Committee has filed to overturn the system because it likes the old system better, a system under which its members have substantial influence.
The question is a simple one: Is it better to fund candidates with special interest money or with public money? To us the answer is clear. It is far less expensive to use public money for election campaigns. For example, the City is spending hundreds of millions on developments like the Pearl District and South Waterfront. Some of that public investment is necessary, but we’ve gone too far. Do we really want the people who directly financially benefit from city investment funding the campaigns of officials who decide where that investment goes?
Some supporters of the initiative to overturn publicly-financed elections say corporations and other organizations that fund campaigns don’t really want anything in return for their money. But look, for example, at the Oregon Restaurant Association, one of the endorsers of the initiative. The association’s political action committee web site talks about how much money it raised for a recent legislative session and, to quote the site, what it got. What it got was legislation limiting the minimum wage and reducing corporate taxes, among other things. When it comes to election campaigns, taxpayers can pay one of two ways, directly or indirectly. We think the direct way is cheaper.
KINK welcomes your feedback.
Posted by Jacob Lewin
Article posted: Jan 18, 2006