Friday, May 21, 2004
Op-Ed on Portland Reform
Following up on Ned's blog from yesterday, the Portland Tribune has printed an op-ed here that I co-authored about the money spewing into their mayor's race and what options citizens have for reigning it in. Here's a sampling:
Following up on Ned's blog from yesterday, the Portland Tribune has printed an op-ed here that I co-authored about the money spewing into their mayor's race and what options citizens have for reigning it in. Here's a sampling:
Imagine for a moment that the Portland Trail Blazers chose referees the same way we choose legislators. Rather than having refs hired by the league, each team would simply offer competing salaries to prospective referees, and the team that spent the most would pick most of the refs. The officials might earnestly claim that their judgment was not influenced by which team chose them, but well-financed teams like the Dallas Mavericks would still have the ability to choose referees whose style was to their liking. No fan would believe for a minute that those officials were impartial enforcers of the rules.
Yet in elections, arguably more important contests than professional basketball, we let big money rule. According to city Auditor Gary Blackmer, the candidate who has spent the most money has won 97 out of the last 108 Portland elections. That gives the biggest donors pretty good odds of having the officials of their choosing, even if every call doesn’t go their way.
Thursday, May 20, 2004
Tom Potter For Mayor
Last March, the political consultants around Portland, Oregon were skeptical. They said Tom Potter, a former police chief running for mayor, didn't stand a chance against local lawyer and City Commissioner Jim Francesconi in the May primary. Why? Because Francesconi was on pace to amass a record-shattering campaign warchest of $1 million, while Tom Potter was raising funds only in contributions of $25 or less.
As reported by Henry Stern in The Oregonian, on Tuesday, 41% of the folks in Portland voted for Potter, while 37% voted for Francesconi, triggering a runoff between the two men in November.
What happened? Potter must have changed his tune, right? Started to accept bigger contributions, talk to bigger wallets, you know, play the game? Nope. He stuck to his guns, raising around $63,000 for the election in the end, all in small donations.
Well, some scandal must have cost Francesconi at the last minute then. Nope. The local pol did receive a few contributions in the thousands of dollars from folks with business before the City Council, but nothing illegal, nothing 'wrong'. Just business as usual. (See here for Derek's March post on the race.)
And yet Potter won. I guess one of the things about their candidates that matters to folks in Portland is where they get their money.
Well, those same people that said Tom Potter didn't stand a chance will probably also tell you that small contribution limits don't work. You just can't get out your message, they'll say. You just gotta have big money for the system to work. Uh-huh.
Tell that to the folks in Portland.
Tell that to Tom Potter.
Last March, the political consultants around Portland, Oregon were skeptical. They said Tom Potter, a former police chief running for mayor, didn't stand a chance against local lawyer and City Commissioner Jim Francesconi in the May primary. Why? Because Francesconi was on pace to amass a record-shattering campaign warchest of $1 million, while Tom Potter was raising funds only in contributions of $25 or less.
As reported by Henry Stern in The Oregonian, on Tuesday, 41% of the folks in Portland voted for Potter, while 37% voted for Francesconi, triggering a runoff between the two men in November.
What happened? Potter must have changed his tune, right? Started to accept bigger contributions, talk to bigger wallets, you know, play the game? Nope. He stuck to his guns, raising around $63,000 for the election in the end, all in small donations.
Well, some scandal must have cost Francesconi at the last minute then. Nope. The local pol did receive a few contributions in the thousands of dollars from folks with business before the City Council, but nothing illegal, nothing 'wrong'. Just business as usual. (See here for Derek's March post on the race.)
And yet Potter won. I guess one of the things about their candidates that matters to folks in Portland is where they get their money.
Well, those same people that said Tom Potter didn't stand a chance will probably also tell you that small contribution limits don't work. You just can't get out your message, they'll say. You just gotta have big money for the system to work. Uh-huh.
Tell that to the folks in Portland.
Tell that to Tom Potter.
Wednesday, May 19, 2004
Proposed Increase of Campaign Contributions Threatens Democracy in Livermore
This past Monday, the City Council of Livermore, CA planned to consider a proposal to increase the city’s campaign contribution limits from $100 per election cycle to $250 per cycle. An earlier attempt in April was tabled for a month to address concerns that the public had received neither adequate notification of the proposal nor opportunity to comment upon it. This time around, the Council again took no action, postponing discussion until June 7.
The 2003 City Council campaign was the costliest on record. The Mayor’s race alone saw over $100,000 spent, Mayor Marshall Kamena outspending his opponent Tom Vargas by nearly $25,000 to win by some 700 votes. In the City Council race, the five candidates spent over $65,000 between them. As in the mayoral contest, the two candidates who spent the most, Lorraine Dietrich and Marjorie Leider, also happened to be the candidates that won.
Now, six months later, there's a proposal to increase the limits. As we said in a story by Bonita Brewer in The Contra Costa Times:
Only 28% of the voting-age population of Livermore voted in the 2003 election, and that was with contribution limits at the $100 level. Raising the contribution limits to $250 threatens to alienate many potential voters who can’t afford nearly that much, widening the gap which already exists between ordinary folks in Livermore and the democratic process. If donating money to candidates is one way of expressing our political opinion, all people should have the opportunity and means to express themselves at roughly the same level. That's what democracy is – one person, one vote.
This past Monday, the City Council of Livermore, CA planned to consider a proposal to increase the city’s campaign contribution limits from $100 per election cycle to $250 per cycle. An earlier attempt in April was tabled for a month to address concerns that the public had received neither adequate notification of the proposal nor opportunity to comment upon it. This time around, the Council again took no action, postponing discussion until June 7.
The 2003 City Council campaign was the costliest on record. The Mayor’s race alone saw over $100,000 spent, Mayor Marshall Kamena outspending his opponent Tom Vargas by nearly $25,000 to win by some 700 votes. In the City Council race, the five candidates spent over $65,000 between them. As in the mayoral contest, the two candidates who spent the most, Lorraine Dietrich and Marjorie Leider, also happened to be the candidates that won.
Now, six months later, there's a proposal to increase the limits. As we said in a story by Bonita Brewer in The Contra Costa Times:
"While increasing the limits on campaign contributions might be in the best interests of some members of the council, and maybe some wealthy donors, it is not necessarily in the best interests of the entire citizenry."
Only 28% of the voting-age population of Livermore voted in the 2003 election, and that was with contribution limits at the $100 level. Raising the contribution limits to $250 threatens to alienate many potential voters who can’t afford nearly that much, widening the gap which already exists between ordinary folks in Livermore and the democratic process. If donating money to candidates is one way of expressing our political opinion, all people should have the opportunity and means to express themselves at roughly the same level. That's what democracy is – one person, one vote.
Tuesday, May 18, 2004
Bait-n-Switch, Akron-Style
In 1998, the folks of Akron, Ohio decided they'd had enough with the loosey-goosey world of behind-the-scenes money in local politics. With over 60% of the vote, they passed a ballot initiative which instituted a $300 limit on campaign contributions to candidates for Mayor and At-Large Council, and a $100 limit for candidates for Council Ward.
Their mayor didn't like it though, going so far as to direct the City of Akron Law Department to oppose the initiative in court. So much for representative democracy.
The citizens of Akron persevered though, eventually winning the case at the Sixth Circuit of Appeals in 2002. In 2003, the Akron City Council enacted enabling legislation to make the law official.
As Julie Wallace reports in the Akron Beacon Journal, the victory for the folks in Akron wasn't what they thought. City lawyers (the same department that opposed the initiative), inserted some language in the enabling Ordinance which effectively doubled the contribution limits by applying them to the primary or general election, not the two combined.
Mayor Plusquellic took advantage of this switcheroo to accept more than $300 from multiple contributors in winning the mayor's race last November, even though he had no challenger in the primary. He was just following the law. Now he wants to appoint a panel of experts to take a look at the law. Make it more "user-friendly".
Shoot. The citizens of Akron made things pretty clear six years ago - they don't want big money influencing their elections. Maybe it's time the mayor talked with them instead of the lawyers.
In 1998, the folks of Akron, Ohio decided they'd had enough with the loosey-goosey world of behind-the-scenes money in local politics. With over 60% of the vote, they passed a ballot initiative which instituted a $300 limit on campaign contributions to candidates for Mayor and At-Large Council, and a $100 limit for candidates for Council Ward.
Their mayor didn't like it though, going so far as to direct the City of Akron Law Department to oppose the initiative in court. So much for representative democracy.
The citizens of Akron persevered though, eventually winning the case at the Sixth Circuit of Appeals in 2002. In 2003, the Akron City Council enacted enabling legislation to make the law official.
As Julie Wallace reports in the Akron Beacon Journal, the victory for the folks in Akron wasn't what they thought. City lawyers (the same department that opposed the initiative), inserted some language in the enabling Ordinance which effectively doubled the contribution limits by applying them to the primary or general election, not the two combined.
Mayor Plusquellic took advantage of this switcheroo to accept more than $300 from multiple contributors in winning the mayor's race last November, even though he had no challenger in the primary. He was just following the law. Now he wants to appoint a panel of experts to take a look at the law. Make it more "user-friendly".
Shoot. The citizens of Akron made things pretty clear six years ago - they don't want big money influencing their elections. Maybe it's time the mayor talked with them instead of the lawyers.
Monday, May 17, 2004
Bush Entertains (Some Of) His Supporters
Probably not you though. Even if you're a dyed-in-the-wool Republican and one of the President's biggest fans, chances aren't too good you got an invite to the party down at the Greensboro, GA Ritz-Carlton last month. As reported in The Washington Post by Thomas Edsall, Sarah Cohen and James Grimaldi, the event at the Ritz was in celebration of the 2004 Bush Pioneers and Rangers - folks who have collected at least $100,000 and $200,000 respectively in campaign contributions for Bush-Cheney '04.
These good ol' boys from Wall Street and Texas played a little golf, were entertained by Dennis Miller, and if they were a Ranger, got to meet with President Bush himself. After making it clear that $200,000 means a meeting with the President whereas $100,000 only gets you some golf and some yuks by a one-time SNL star, it was time to get down to business. Some 300 Pioneers and Rangers met in a windowless conference room (no media allowed!), where they heard the news:
It was time to give more money.
A new category of donor was unveiled - the SuperRanger. Admission required raising $300,000 for the RNC. Not everyone in the room was thrilled. As one relatively poor attendee said:
You'd think the guy just lost his paycheck at Santa Anita.
Well, now he knows how the rest of us feel. We can't afford to give a Presidential candidate the $2000 allowed under McCain-Feingold, so we don't get invited to any Thanks a (Half) Million celebrations at the Ritz. We don't have thousands of dollars to give, so nobody checks with us about who we think ought to run for office, or what their stand should be on the issues. I don't know too many folks who have "Exploratory Committee" on their resume. I guess if they're going to ignore the interests and issues of average Americans when they're in office, that makes sense.
I wonder what the pols would do if everybody could only give $100. Imagine all the people they'd have to talk to then . . .
Probably not you though. Even if you're a dyed-in-the-wool Republican and one of the President's biggest fans, chances aren't too good you got an invite to the party down at the Greensboro, GA Ritz-Carlton last month. As reported in The Washington Post by Thomas Edsall, Sarah Cohen and James Grimaldi, the event at the Ritz was in celebration of the 2004 Bush Pioneers and Rangers - folks who have collected at least $100,000 and $200,000 respectively in campaign contributions for Bush-Cheney '04.
These good ol' boys from Wall Street and Texas played a little golf, were entertained by Dennis Miller, and if they were a Ranger, got to meet with President Bush himself. After making it clear that $200,000 means a meeting with the President whereas $100,000 only gets you some golf and some yuks by a one-time SNL star, it was time to get down to business. Some 300 Pioneers and Rangers met in a windowless conference room (no media allowed!), where they heard the news:
It was time to give more money.
A new category of donor was unveiled - the SuperRanger. Admission required raising $300,000 for the RNC. Not everyone in the room was thrilled. As one relatively poor attendee said:
The rest of us, who don't have members or clients with deep enough pockets to come up with $25,000 said, 'Oh, [expletive].'
You'd think the guy just lost his paycheck at Santa Anita.
Well, now he knows how the rest of us feel. We can't afford to give a Presidential candidate the $2000 allowed under McCain-Feingold, so we don't get invited to any Thanks a (Half) Million celebrations at the Ritz. We don't have thousands of dollars to give, so nobody checks with us about who we think ought to run for office, or what their stand should be on the issues. I don't know too many folks who have "Exploratory Committee" on their resume. I guess if they're going to ignore the interests and issues of average Americans when they're in office, that makes sense.
I wonder what the pols would do if everybody could only give $100. Imagine all the people they'd have to talk to then . . .
