You can read the proposal (the Ordinance and Exhibits) here.
The gist is this: Eligible candidates for City office would be receive public financing ($200,000 for Mayor, $150,000 for Auditor and Commissioner). To be eligible, the candidate must first get 1000 donations (for Mayor; 1500 for Auditor or Commissioner) of no more than $5, and agree to abide by fundraising and spending guidelines.
There is, of course, a prevent-graft-and-corruption angle to this, but the primary arguments are cost and participation. Publicly financed elections will limit the huge campaign advantage --through fundraising--that incumbents enjoy. It will also increase the pool of qualified people who might consider running, no longer limiting it just to people who can afford to take six months off to raise money. It will end the massive transfer of wealth to local TV stations, which is where much of the campaign money ends up going. And finally, just as a thought experiment, run your eye over the Portland cityscape and ask yourself how many expensive projects the City would not have undertaken if elected candidates weren't beholden to big donors.
The Oregonian, being the Oregonian, turned up their noses at it in an editorial today. But their objections nicely rebut an argument that no one makes: No one's saying we have "dirty" office-holders. But, as Michael Kinsley's "Law of Scandals" points out, it isn't what they do that's illegal that's scandalous, it's what they do that's legal.
So, me being me, I dropped them a note:
To the Editor of the Oregonian:
Re: Your editorial, "Cleaning What Isn't Dirty," Tuesday, April 5, 2005:
Your editorial misses the point of the campaign for publicly financed elections in Portland.
While the plan will make it harder for corruption to take root, its principal advantages are more direct: Candidacy won't be limited to those who can finance their own campaigns, or with private, corporate, or union contacts who can. And voters won't have to choose among candidates beholden to a small number of big contributors. Not that winning candidates under the status quo are somehow "dirty," as the editorial suggests. But it's naïve to imagine big contributors expect nothing in return, however legal, and that "something" usually has a price tag.
"Like it or not," says the editorial, "the ability to raise money is one gauge of seriousness, organizational strength and leadership"--hardly an objection to publicly financed elections. The plan requires that candidates qualify by raising a substantial number of small donations. That's as good a measure of "seriousness, organizational strength, and leadership" as pocketing a handful of five-figure checks.
Public financing of City elections deserves Portland's support.
Meanwhile, read up on the proposal and consider letting Sten know he has your support.
No comments:
Post a Comment