SHARE THIS SHOW:
RELATED CONVERSATIONS:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
This November, Portlanders will have a chance to decide whether or not to continue the city's public campaign financing program, also known as "voter-owned elections." The program provides between $150,000 and $200,000 (depending on the election) to any candidate running for city commissioner, mayor or auditor who is are able to collect five dollar donations from 1,000 people. Sitting commissioner Amanda Fritz has been called the "poster child" for publicly-funded campaigns. Fritz ran two campaigns with public dollars (she lost the first one to Dan Saltzman in the primary). She's one of 10 candidates who have received funding from the city since the program started in 2005, approved through a city council vote.
Proponents of the measure to continue voter-owned elections point to Fritz's success and the fact that even candidates who are not part of the program have reduced their campaign spending. Those who oppose the measure question whether it's the best use of taxpayer money. They also bring up the scam perpetrated by an early qualifier, Emilie Boyles, who still owes the city more than $90,000.
Voters statewide will consider an unrelated ballot measure, Measure 76, that would also continue existing funding — in this case it's lottery money that goes to parks, natural resources and wildlife. The measure moves up a vote that would have taken place when the 15 percent allotment was scheduled to sunset in 2014. Advocates say it's necessary to vote on it now because planning for parks and natural resource-related projects occurs so far in advance. There is no organized opposition to the measure, partly because of a compromise between the Oregon Education Association and the measure's backers that was brokered by Speaker of the House, Dave Hunt. Some voters are concerned about the possible consequences of dedicating funding in tough times.
Do you know how you will vote on these measures? If you're still unsure, what do you want to know about them?
GUESTS:
- Brian Rohter: Co-chair fo the Yes on 26-1081 campaign and co-founder of New Seasons Market
- Jon Coney: Spokesman for Portlanders Against Taxpayer-Funded Political Campaigns
- Josh Alpert: Campaign manager for Oregonians for Water Parks Wildlife
- Ron Maurer: Oregon state representative representing district 3
Tagged as: 2010 election · budget · lottery · measure 76 · parks · portland · voting
Photo credit: A Manky / Creative Commons
-
Absolutely, I'll vote yes on Measure 76. With the grim budget forecast, there is legitimate concern about funding shortfalls for education and other services.
However, if Measure 76 does not pass, lottery funds will continue to be dedicated to parks, water quality and watershed protection through 2014. Therefore, Measure 76 does not change the budget situation for the 2011-2013 Oregon budget cycle.
Historically, every lottery dollar invested has been matched by an additional $1.48 in outside funding (federal, private, etc.) [1].
As the director of a watershed council in Portland, I personally can attest to the fact that lottery dollars inject money into the local economy, in terms of hiring local contractors, purchasing from local vendors etc.
[1] Institute for a Sustainable Environment, University of Oregon, Spring 2010. “The Employment and Economic Impacts of Forest and Watershed Restoration in Oregon.” Ecosystem Workforce Program Briefing Paper #23 and 24.
-
I urge everyone whop cares about Oregon to vote FOR Measure 76. This tiny bit of funding (about 1% of the state General fund and Lattory budget) has done so much good - and there is so much more to do to protect our treasured rivers, streams, woods, wild places and parks. I remember when the voters left funding these values to the Legislature - parks decayed and were in danger of being closed to the public, many of our streams were murky with sediment from run-off, our salmon were endangered of being listed as endangered, and people in Washington County had to go all the way to the coast before they found a state park. All that has changed - why would we go back to those days?
I want to leave a heritage of clean water, jobs in habitat restoration and special places for future Oregonians - join me and vote "YES" for Measure 76.
-
Of course, you work for the Nature Conservancy, which is campaigning for the measure and stands to benefit from millions of dollars set aside for the kinds of projects your organization funds. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, just that you have an interest you probably ought to have disclosed.
-
Public financing of elections is an important part of cleaning up corruption in the political system - campaign contributions are some of the best money private industry can spend.
The problem with this program is in giving such a meager amount and doing nothing to restrict the amount of money candidates can recieve from private industry it makes it little more than a token gesture.
-
The experience so far is that candidates that don't participate in the program voluntarily limit the size of campaign contributions that they will accept. It is one of the little noticed, accessory benefits of the program. It has dramatically reduced the cost of running for office, which has limited the leverage that campaign contributors have on city policy.
-
How can the PBA oppose this unless they simply want to keep everyone else from having an equal voice.
-
The issue of seperating candidates from campaign funding is crucial locally and nationally. The Oregon measure has strong suppprt fron the organizations Commmon Cause and the The Coffe party. We could be a great example for finance reform.
-
Isn't Jon Coney from the Portland Business Alliance? When did the PBA start caring about homelessness and funding core services? Street Roots is on the coalition in support of Voter-Owned Elections. Who should we trust when it comes to homelessness and funding core services?
-
The FACT is that this program HAS DRAMATICALLY REDUCED campaign spending and therefore special interest influence in our local politics. Before VOE there were candidates raising a million dollars to run in the city of Portland. How can you possibly think that has no impact on how electeds make their decisions?
Even non VOE candidates have self imposed limits because of the social pressure VOE has created.
It's a tiny cost to help makes sure that they people making decisions on billion dollar budgets are neutral and accountable to voters.
-
For many of us, the heart of Oregon is our incredible natural resources and state parks. We protect these resources with a relatively small investment of state funds and a lot of hard work and love from dedicated volunteers and the organizations that support them. Lottery dollars do more than just help parks and natural area, they help to build community. These funds bring in a lot of match dollars from outside grant sources that are then spent locally on projects important to communities all over Oregon.
-
Boy, this John fellow sure is an accomplished Fear-Monger, isn't he? He's Keeping the Fear Alive!
-
Jesse Cornett paid people to conduct direct voter contact, not to collect signatures. I think that is the best use of public money in a campaign. I know they don't want the money spent at all, but how would they rather see it spent under the current system?
-
Tom Potter is a strong supporter Voter Owned Elections.
-
I will support measure 76 and I rarely support any measure put on the ballot.
I refuse to frame supporting parks as taking money away from some other service that is also important.
For me, the issue is as simple. Parks have found their dedicated funding which is great.
Let’s make this permanent, cross parks off the “things to worry about” list and search for dedicated funding for all the rest.
NaTasha
-
I heard Jon Coney bring up Tom Potter, but Tom Potter himself is a huge supporter of Voter-Owned Elections. I also heard Jon Coney call Portland a "grassroots town," but the only grassroots candidate in City Hall, Amanda Fritz, is a Voter-Owned Elections candidate.
-
Normally, I strongly support public funding for parks and wildlife. However, in this specific case, I do NOT support it.
The public money derived from lottery funds that goes into OWEB (Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board) and then to watershed councils is COMPLETELY MISMANAGED WITH NO MEANINGFUL OVERSIGHT.
It was a great idea in theory back in the 1990's but very quickly deteriorated into an extremely corrupt system.
Public money being taken out of the public sector and shunted into supposed non-profits with no meaningful oversight. There is NO OPEN BIDDING and NO ACCOUNTABILITY and what's worse we have extremely dishonest people involved. They close the meetings to the public and refuse to hand over documents to the public that would show exactly what is happening. They chase away people who would dare to expose what is actually happening.
Certain contractors write their own grant, get them rubberstamped by the watershed councils, and then get handed millions of dollars of public money with no oversight and no open bidding/competition.
We need to bulldoze the current system, do away with OWEB, bring on completely new people, and start over. -
OWEB is one of the most accountable agencies in the state. They always pass their state audit, and all the documents are publicly available. They document grant funds awarded down to the penny. Many watershed councils use a public bid process and have open meetings.
-
Funding parks with lottery money has been a great solution to a problem that was long-standing and increasingly dire problem. The sollution has worked very well and should be placed on a permanent basis. I will absolutely support it and I urge ALL Oregnians to do the same.
-
IF THIS MEASURE CANNOT GET SUUPORT IN THE CURRENT FORM IT SHOULD NOT BE PUT ON THE BALLOT. LEGISLATIVE TINKERING AFTER A VOTE WOULD SIMPLY ADD TO PEOPLE'S CINICISM AS TO THE HONESTY AND BEHAVIOR OF THE LEGISLATRUE. I AM COMING TO THINK THAT MOST BALLOT MREAURES INVOLVING FUNDING SHOULD HAVE SUNSET PROVISIONS.
-
it will be on the ballot in its present form, but you are correct that there is some risk if the legislature starts "tinkering" with it during the enabling legislation process. You might also be relieved to note that there is a sunset provision in the ballot measure.
In tough economic times, there likely will be some legislators who will try to gut the measure as a manner of posturing to appease some of the interest groups to whom they owe allegiance. In reality, they will have difficulty doing anything substantive.
M76 is one that honestly reflects the sentiment of Oregonians, that their natural resources are a high priority. The state's general fund allocates less than 2% to natural resources.
-
We are business owners and supporters of the Voter-Owned Election system in Portland.
Although we would like to believe that participation in the political process and the value of free expression can't be counted in dollars, it can be. Without deep pockets to employ lobbyists or free time to walk the corridors of City Hall, local independent businesses often lack an effective voice at the political table.
Voter-Owned Elections has produced candidates that spend their time talking and listening to the people and groups that need a voice in City Hall: small business owners, neighborhood associations and everyday Portlanders who care about our community. Also, echoing the coments by Marshall Runkel and GreenNinja, VOE has reduced the cost of elections overall and, ideally, the influence of well-financed special interests.
These outcomes of limiting the cost of elections and allowing grassroots issues to gain visibility are the key reasons we will be voting yes on 26-108.
- Jennifer and Tony Fuentes
Milagros Boutique
-
While I understand a desire to save money it seems to me that elections and voter information are a central aspect of government. And that huge private expendatures are distorting the process.
-
This is a measure on which I am conflicted. It appears to be a no brainer but like CindyAshy, I have very serious objections to OWEB. It may be that they pass State audits but that is not the issue (for me). From my perspective, OWEB spends too much of its monies for administration and overhead and not enough for on-the-ground restoration projects. Further, local watershed councils in my area do not follow open meeting policies, have a very limited, almost cliquish membership and seem to have some pre-established, almost predetermined agenda. My opinion based on my experience relative to the grant application process is that it is biased and prejudicial. CindyAshy's statement that OWEB is mismanaged is spot on.
-
Comments are now closed.
Oregon's parks, watersheds, and wildlife resources are integral to our state's livability and quality of life. I hope voters won't think this election provides an either/or situation between parks & schools - we need both! And there's no certainty that taking the lottery money away from parks would automatically give it to the schools. My husband and I will both vote FOR Measure 76.
And of course campaigns should be publicly funded!