It’s not often that I listen to the radio, but this morning I caught KINK’s twice-a-week “KINK Considers” spot, which is “a combination of radio column and station editorial.” It’s a nice segment—in an era where most radio stations seem completely out of touch with the market they air in, KINK weighs in on very Portland-specific issues. Recently, the radio-torial has tackled issues like whether the Rose Garden’s name should be sold, and gave a “lemon” to TriMet’s Fred Hansen when he first proposed limiting Fareless Square’s hours.

“Hansen told City Club that he no longer wanted TriMet to give free rides to panhandlers, drug dealers, gangs, homeless people and drunks. While we support Hansen’s overall effort to improve security, we don’t think homeless people should just be lumped in with the rest.” Right on, KINK!

But today’s spot echoed an editorial line I’ve heard a few times now. Since Erik Sten has resigned—he’ll leave office after just 16 months of a four year term—and since he won the seat with the help of public financing, should he pay back at least part of the $173,000 he used during the 2006 election?

KINK, after outlining the many things Sten has done for Portland, says he should pay us back:

…we owe Erik Sten. But we think he owes us too. When he ran for reelection in 2006 there was an implied contract that he would serve four years, not leave when he got bored. Unlike Congressman Earl Blumenauer who left City Council midterm to move up to a position that would clearly benefit the city, Sten will go to the private sector, maybe here, maybe somewhere else. The City can’t demand that Sten pay his campaign contribution back to taxpayers, but we think he should.

I think the logic is completely wrong. Yes, Sten isn’t finishing his four year term—but we aren’t going to pay him for a four year term, either.

And public financing does not carry an implied contract that anyone using the system and paying for a campaign is going to serve four years. What if Sten had lost to Ginny Burdick? Would he have owed the entire pot of money back to the city?

And what about the race for the seat Sam Adams is vacating? One candidate is certified as a publicly financed candidate, and as many as four more candidates for that seat could qualify (one turned in 1,001 signatures today, and the other three aren’t far behind). That’s five candidates for one seat, each picking up $150,000 in city money to run. Only one will actually win the seat (and it could be Mike Fahey, who isn’t running under the system, or another candidate who jumps in before the March 11 deadline). That means up to four or five publicly financed candidates won’t serve a four year term—will they owe the city every penny they spent to not serve the taxpayers? Nope.

It’s pretty simple: Publicly financing pays for campaigns. They aren’t paying for someone’s four years of service. In Sten’s case, his $173,000 paid for exactly what we knew it was paying for—a clean money campaign. That he happened to win with that campaign is a separate issue, and his resignation is twice removed from the public financing issue.

KINK is probably right about one thing, though—this non-issue is something we’ll “be hearing about” again, “when the system comes up for a public vote.”