1) Why is Voter-Owned Elections important?
2) The problem?
4) How does Voter-Owned Elections work?
5) I thought we already had Voter-Owned Elections. Why is this on the ballot?
6) I hear Voter-Owned Elections was pushed through the City Council?
9) Is it successful? Ten “YES” answers
Success #2 – Reduced campaign spending
Success #3 – Large contributions rare – reduced special interest influence
Success #4 –Average contribution size much lower – reduced special interest influence.
Success #6 – More choices and competition
Success #7 – Harder working incumbents
Success #8 – No more war chest fundraising
Success #9 – People power from across Portland
Success #10 – More transparency and accountability
10) What can candidates spend the money on?
11) Can anybody just walk in and get the money?
12) How many candidates have used the program?
13) How much money is provided to certified candidates?
15) How do administrative errors get fixed?
16) Wasn’t the Emilee Boyles problem an administrative error?
17) What was that problem with some poll?
18) Isn’t Voter-Owned Elections just incumbent protection?
19) Doesn’t Citizens United pose a problem for the program?
20) Isn’t Voter-Owned Elections unconstitutional?
Answers
1) Why is Voter-Owned Elections important?
Voter-Owned Elections give everyday Portlanders a stronger voice in City Hall. Candidates can finally run and win because of their values, ideas and experience in the community, instead of their access to deep-pocketed campaign donors. This means that candidates are accountable to voters, not special interests.
Top
2) The problem?
The voices of everyday Portlanders had historically been drowned out in city elections dominated by major campaign contributors. Campaign spending was escalating including record fundraising in 2004, the last pre-Voter-Owned Elections campaign year.
Voter-Owned Elections is a proven solution to “politics as usual” because candidates can run for City Council without big money donors in a way that requires broad citizen involvement.
Top
4) How does Voter-Owned Elections work?
Candidates who choose to run under Portland’s Voter-Owned Elections program must demonstrate community support by collecting $5 contributions from a large number of Portland voters. (1,000 for council and auditor candidates and 1,500 for mayoral candidates.) Once they qualify, participating candidates are prohibited from spending or raising any money beyond limited public financing that they can only spend on legitimate campaign expenses in compliance with strict rules.
Top
5) I thought we already had Voter-Owned Elections. Why is this on the ballot?
The Portland City Council adopted Voter-Owned Elections in May 2005. Opponents, most of them major contributors to past city campaigns, didn’t defend their right to continue making large political contributions, but instead argued over the enactment process. The City Council, however, listened to the grassroots supporters of reform and adopted the Voter-Owned Elections ordinance. But they promised to send it to the ballot in five years and their referral is 26-108.
Top
6) I hear Voter-Owned Elections was pushed through the City Council?
The Portland City Council adopted a Voter-Owned Elections ordinance after 18 months of review and input. There were three public hearings in Council chambers packed with supporters, analysis by the City Auditor and the Office of Management and Finance, two comment periods, input from a technical review committee and expressions of support from businesses, community organizations, and 10,000 postcards from individuals.
Top
7) Who is supporting this?
A diverse and growing coalition: AFSCME, Alliance for Democracy Asian Pacific American Network of Oregon, Bus Project, CAUSA, Center for Intercultural Organizing, Citizens Utility Board, Coalition for a Livable Future Common Cause Oregon, Communication Workers of American Local 7901, Community Alliance of Tenants, Jobs with Justice, League of Women Voters of Portland, Linton Neighborhood Association, Multnomah County Democrats, Oregon League of Conservation Voters, Onward Oregon, Oregon Action, OSPIRG, Partnership for Safety and Justice, SEIU, Street Roots, VOIS Business Alliance, Western States Center
Top
8) Who is opposing this?
The Portland Business Alliance and Portland Metro Association of Realtors were the major organizations that testified against Voter-Owned Elections in 2005. These groups gave $21,500 and $19,875, respectively, to city candidates in the last pre-reform election cycle in 2004.
The Portland Business Alliance led an effort to place a repeal initiative on the May 2006 ballot, but were not successful because they didn’t have the grassroots support needed to collect enough valid signatures. The Portland Business Alliance and other donors to the failed repeal effort gave almost $600,000 to city candidates in 2004. Those contributions during the 2004 election cycle came from only 100 donors, but their fundraising represented 20 percent of all contributions raised by city candidates that year.
Sixteen donors provided financial support of $5,000 or more to the repeal attempt as follows: Portland Business Alliance-$49,000, Taxpayers Association of Oregon-$10,625, Oregon Restaurant Association-$10,500, Gard & Gerber-$9,400, Portland General Electric PAC-$7,500, QWEST PAC-$7,500, Peter Stott-$7,000, ESCO, Greebriar, Matrix Development, Portland Metro Association of Realtors, NW Natural Gas and its PAC, Regency Group, Stimson Lumber, Bill Swindells, and Williams & Dames Development each gave $5,000. Comcast Cable gave $5,000 to a committee that did polling for the repeal attempt.
In spring of 2010 the Portland Business Alliance sent a letter to the City Council urging that it turn its back on the promise made in 2005 to refer to the reform program to the ballot. This flip-flop from its earlier position was an obvious power grab by the Portland Business Alliance that, appropriately, was ignored by the City Council that did send 26-108 to the ballot.
Top
9) Is it successful? Ten “YES” answers
Two candidates have won using the Voter-Owned Elections program in three election cycles.
Top
Success #2 – Reduced campaign spending
Campaign spending by each candidate is reduced not only on the part of Voter-Owned Elections candidates, but also because most nonparticipating candidates have voluntarily self-imposed a spending limits and contribution cap of $500. For example, spending was reduced by 37 percent between the 2004 mayoral primary before Voter-Owned Elections compared to the first post- reform mayoral primary in 2008.
Top
Success #3 – Large contributions rare – reduced special interest influence
Due to Voter-Owned Elections, large contributions of $1,000 or $5,000 or more are largely a thing of the past. Even non-participating candidates are typically limiting the size of their contributions to $500 or less. For example, in one candidate’s pre-Voter-Owned Elections campaigns, contributions over $500 represented 72 and 55 percent of total fundraising. In two races after adoption of the reform program, only 10 percent and 8 percent of this incumbent’s total fundraising was comprised of contributions larger than $500.
Top
Success #4 –Average contribution size much lower – reduced special interest influence.
Average contribution to Voter-Owned Election candidates is $14. Average contribution to post-reform nonparticipating candidates who self-limit size of donations is $218. Average contribution to pre-reform candidates from 1992 through 2004 was $365.
Top
Success #5 – More diversity
In 2008, Commissioner Amanda Fritz became only the seventh woman to serve on the City Council in its 160-year history. Fritz was a long time neighborhood activist who served on the Portland Planning Commission and says she would not have run without the reform option. The field for the open seat won by Commissioner Fritz also included African-American and environmental activists who also attributed their candidacies to Voter-Owned Elections.
Top
Success #6 – More choices and competition
In the past, Portland City Council incumbents typically faced no financially viable opponents. Due to Voter-Owned Elections the trend is towards more competition with more discussion of city concerns. Voters benefit when races involving incumbents are more competitive as was seen in the most recent election with a “yes” vote of 80 percent by an unchallenged incumbent compared to 55 percent “yes” vote in the contest where the incumbent faced a participating candidate.
Top
Success #7 – Harder working incumbents
Incumbents running as Voter-Owned Elections candidates or under self-imposed contributions limits due to the reform program, contact more people than they would likely need to if they relied on established rolodexes and did typical pre-reform private money fundraising. For example, in Erik Sten’s first successful race in 1998 he raised money from an estimated 997 donors. As an incumbent before the reform program, however, Sten’s donor base in his two re-election contests was only 230 and 270 individuals or groups, respectively. As a Voter-Owned Elections candidate in 2006, Sten obtained support from 1428 donors to qualify for the reform program.
Top
Success #8 – No more war chest fundraising
Voter-Owned Elections incumbents raise no money while in office and concerns about use of campaign funds for non-campaign purposes are eliminated. No post-election fundraising by Voter-Owned Elections candidates also does away with the perception problem that faces nonparticipating candidates who choose to accept contributions between elections, especially since that can mean receiving donations from groups or businesses with business before the City Council.
Top
Success #9 – People power from across Portland
The entry fee for playing a genuine role in selecting who runs for office in Portland is now an affordable $5. Thousands of Portlanders from each neighborhood in the city have made qualifying contributions, setting the stage for more grassroots, volunteer-oriented campaigns.
Top
Success #10 – More transparency and accountability
Voter-Owned Elections candidates report expenditures more frequently and comply with stricter rules on campaign spending than is required under state law. When violations occur, they are caught and swiftly addressed due to prompt deadlines for addressing complaints and assessing penalties.
10) What can candidates spend the money on?
Voter-Owned Election candidates can only spend money on legitimate campaign expenses. Their spending rules are stricter than state law, for example, reform program candidates cannot pay family members for campaign work or make contributions to other political campaigns. Any unspent money is returned to city coffers.
Top
11) Can anybody just walk in and get the money?
Participating candidates must collect a large number (1,000 for council and auditor candidates/1,500 for mayoral candidates) of $5 qualifying contributions from registered Portland voters. These strict thresholds have meant that over two-thirds (69 percent) of those who have filed a declaration of intent to gather qualifying contributions did not or should not have received certification.
Top
12) How many candidates have used the program?
Between 2006 and 2010, 29 individuals have filed declarations of intent. Fourteen of them applied for certification. Two did not meet the threshold while another two should not have been certified due to violations of program rules. Nine out of 29 or 31 percent of those who filed a declaration of intent were validly certified to receive public funding.
Top
13) How much money is provided to certified candidates?
Eligible council candidates receive $150,000 for primary races and $200,000 for general election. Eligible mayoral candidates receive $200,000 and $250,000. General fund allocations are not made if the race does not continue to November.
Top
14) Funding source and cost?
The Office of Management and Finance recommended that Voter-Owned Elections be added to an existing group of city function, such as elections administration, that are supported by allocations from each city bureau commensurate to their portion of the budget.
The cost of the Voter-Owned Elections program is capped at two-tenths of one percent (0.2%) of the city budget and involves no new taxes or fees. Program costs haven’t come any where close to this limit in any of the budgets since 2005.
According to the explanatory statement prepared by the Auditor, total cost since 2005 is $1,975,762 ($1,755,869 to candidates and $219,893 for administration) and that works out to be 68 cents per Portland resident over the five years since enactment in 2005.
Top
15) How do administrative errors get fixed?
Administrative errors occurred in 2006 and 2008. Errors have occurred in other jurisdictions with public funding programs, which is a reflection that administering a new system can be difficult. Violations in Portland were caught and the ongoing review provided by the Citizens Campaign Commission has resulted in improvements.
The Voter-Owned Elections ordinance included a Citizens Campaign Commission to provide continuous monitoring of the program. This is a seven-member group that operates under a strict code of conduct. The Commission produces a biennial report after each election with recommendations for improvements. Their reports were 90 and 55 pages and they have provided six memos on additional concerns totaling 65 pages. This is a hard-working group committed to neutrality whose recommendations have been typically accepted by the City Council.
Top
16) Wasn’t the Emiliee Boyles problem an administrative error?
Yes. In 2006, it was only due to lax administration that Emilie Boyles received certification for public financing. In violation of the law as written, some people were signing for others without collecting $5 qualifying contributions. Boyles was removed from the program for violating rules against paying an employee more than the value of her work. Public money was recovered and an indictment against Boyle’s campaign consultant resulted in nine months in jail. This is far faster and tougher action than the typical response to violations of rules governing the private fundraising system.
Top
17) What was that problem with some poll?
In 2008, an administrative error was overturned using the program’s complaint process. Mayoral candidate Sho Dozono’s certification as a participating candidate was an error because he received poll results whose costs exceeded a cap on in-kind contributions. It is commendable that Dozono continued as a candidate and self-imposed contribution and spending caps, especially since the entire controversy would not have occurred if the poll’s cost had been accurately disclosed in a timely fashion by the group for whom it was conducted.
Top
18) Isn’t Voter-Owned Elections just incumbent protection?
First a question: is it easy to defeat incumbents under the private money fundraising system? No!
Defeating an incumbent, even when a challenger uses the reform option, is difficult. If defeating incumbents was the goal, though, we’d be talking about term limits. Instead Voter-Owned Elections addresses the fundraising advantage of incumbents. It ensures that voters mark their ballot by evaluating the record of incumbents in competitive campaigns with challengers having comparable resources.
Top
19) Doesn’t Citizens United pose a problem for the program?
More special interest money than ever is flowing to campaigns in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. But in Oregon, we have one of the most successful innovations in curbing private spending, Portland’s Voter-Owned Elections. In other words, the Citizens United case just increases the need for Voter-Owned Elections.
Top
20) Isn’t Voter-Owned Elections unconstitutional?
The underlying constitutionality of public funding is on firm legal ground. One feature of some public funding programs, providing matching funds triggered by expenditures by a non-participating candidate over the spending limit, is anticipated to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court due to litigation in Arizona, but not before the November referral vote. The petition asking the Supreme Court to hear this case requested that matching funds in the 2010 Arizona races be suspended, and that injunction was granted.
Matching funds haven’t played much of a role in Portland. Only one Portland candidate has ever accepted matching funds and that was during the 2006 primary, when another participating candidate declined matching funds. Even in the absence of a participating candidate who could receive matching funds, Portland candidates have self-imposed caps on their overall spending and size of contributions. Once the legal dust settles, the Citizens Campaign Commission (an ongoing review group set up in the VOE ordinance) will make recommendations for revisions.
Top
2 continued – More details on the problem
During Portland’s last pre-reform election in 2004, almost seven out of every ten dollars given to city candidates (69 percent) came in checks of $1,000 or more. These major donors represented just 7 percent of the donors. Some of those checks were for $5,000 and up. Just 83 donors, primarily businesses or groups, made these contributions of $5,000 or more and the money from this tiny group comprised 35 percent of total fundraising in the 2004 election cycle. Obviously, most hard-working Portlanders can’t afford to make these kinds of large campaign contributions.