Is someone going to close that bold tag?

What? Backpaying. Isn't that illegal?

The only way way for the public to believe in their government again is if they believe they have as big of a say as big money donors. With shenanigans like this, you are eroding confidence in public financing and postponing our ability to believe again.

I call B.S. - you don't pay someone this amount of scratch for someone of Busse's skill level. just the fact that he decided to take a large lump sum payment tells you his political "acumen and advice". A GOOD manager would have intuitively known how this would look. Copywriter? Hah!

As a retired professional campaign manager let me shed some light on salaries and such in the NW.

I ran multiple statewide ballot measures from 98-2002 and again in 06. My salary for those efforts (some succesful and some not) was between $3500-$4500. Mind you this was a statewide ballot measure not a city election.

Again I also ran several statewide candidate races and one statewide federal race. The federal race my salary as the #1 and then eventually the #2 topped out at $6500 a month. That was for a nationally recognized race folks.

I have been offered as much as $10k a month for out of state congressonal races for sitting Congressman in this cycle (not going there as I said I am retired).

I don't care if Busse is the "media buyer" (real tough in a city council race with a single media market) and the GC (again rarely used for a City Council race) $7K -$8K a month for a race at this level is WAY out of the norm regardless of the backpay issue. On top of that what campaign management skills does Busse have? He ran a quixotic race himself for Mayor and......?

JPH, you seem to be making a few judgement calls on what someone else is "worth". Perhaps you think you are "worth" much more and are bitter about this "campaign manager" making way more than you have. Or maybe your right. Maybe he is being overpaid. Maybe this is backpay. Maybe it's perpay. Personally, I'm kind of bored with it already and not even slightly surprised. To be honest things like this won't effect my vote either. And I think I'm a pretty average voter. I could go on to explain why I believe I am qualified to be an average voter but I'm retired.

Not bitter at all. Happy to be out of the craziness of campaign world but still care about politics. I will admit that I get a little pissed when I see things like this.

This kinda of thing personally makes me angry because it erodes the public trust in Public Financing which is something I believe in and think is essential. The Emile Boyles and Phil Busse's of the world ruin it for everyone. We are giving these candidates 150,000 to run a race. They need to take care of that money and spend it wisely.

Here's the deal - Campaigns arent businesses. People don't go into them to make money. The work is long and the money is generally okay at best.

I think a good line of inquiry would be: what are the salaries for Branam's other staffers? And how do those salaries compare to similar staffers on other campaigns?

Are Branam's other staff salaries similarly generous?

Scam #3 and counting.

If we are counting, it is actually Scam #4 (Emily, Sho, Jim (aka Erik) and John)and counting.

Clean money is only as clean as the candidate receiving it. Spend away, Mr. Branam.

Maybe he's like Kristen the escort: it's $1,200 per hour or $16,000 for the whole weekend.

Busse gets more done in one day than most wives will do in a month.

Either way, somebody got fucked.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that if Branam blows his bux on Busse, he won't have the means to do the yard signs/radio time/et cetera, & thus will sink out of sight on the first ballot.

So, basically, it's Branam's loss. If Busse is scoring hugely off a political neophyte -- well, America is a capitalist society, and Phil's a good American boy. WTF?

Can someone fill me in, here?

Guffman,

That is one of the problems with VOE: by offering $145,000 to anybody with enough time/social influence to collect 1,000 signatures, you diminish the traditional limiting factor ("I know I won't win, so why bother trying) on the candidate's decision to enter the race.

By removing the litmus test of fundraising ability (vanity candidates don't attract many real donors), simply qualifying for VOE funds becomes the candidate's primary objective.

So the vanity candidate (limited grassroots support and name recognition, and political skills/resume that pales when compared to other contenders) gets $145,000 to run a higher profile vanity campaign.

Branam knows he doesn't stand a snowball's chance against Amanda Fritz or Charles Lewis, so why not have some fun on the taxpayer's dime?

Once he's written a few big checks to Busse, what's to keep him from giving a couple hundred dollars (or thousands?) in cash to help the boss pay his rent or take a trip to Vegas? Why not hire your girlfriend/sister/brother-in-law to deliver yard signs or answer the phones? Why not pay mom/wife/grandpa to cater your meet and greet or even spend the last $20,000 on a big blowout for all your volunteers?

The possibilities are endless if your goal isn't to win, just get $145,000 of free money.

CBS, thanks for clueing me in.

"Once he's written a few big checks to Busse, what's to keep him from giving a couple hundred dollars (or thousands?) in cash to help the boss pay his rent or take a trip to Vegas?...": Excellent question. If I hadn't used up all my patience for City Hall legalese during the Chavez Boulevard debacle, I might dig into the matter myself. Offhand, if there are no checks & balances whatever on what a VOE candidate can do with public money, I'd say we have a problem.

Guffman:

The restrictions on campaign expenditures end with the payment to the vendor/employee.

For example, if Busse only earned $10,000 of his first paycheck, it would be quite possible for the remaining $5,000 to go back into a non-campaign use (how would anybody know if Busse didn't withdraw cash and simply give it to Branam to pay living expenses?).

It is likely that is what Emilie Boyles accomplished by writing an oversized check to her daughter (which subsequently helped to pay mom's back rent, utilities, etc.).

Given the toothless enforcement/oversight mechanism (barring criminal prosecution) written into the VOE ordinance, it would be quite easy to game the system.

Especially if you knew you didn't stand a snowball's chance of actually winning the primary.

Here is the code, which prohibits the scenarios suggested by Clubbing Baby Seals, and which are more restrictive than campaign funds raised through private means:

City Code 2.10.090

C. Prohibited Uses. Revenues distributed to a Certified Candidate from the Campaign Finance Fund may not be:

1. Used to make any Expenditures for personal use prohibited by ORS Chapter 260 and Oregon Administrative Rules, including but not limited to:

a. Salary or payment to a Person, unless the Person is providing bona fide services to the campaign and is compensated at fair market value;

b. Admission to a sporting event, concert, theater, or other form of entertainment unless part of a specific campaign activity;

c. Dues, fees, or gratuities at a country club, health club or other recreational facility unless part of the costs of a specific fundraising event;

d. Mortgage, rent or household utility payments for any part of a personal residence;

e. Purchases of household food items or supplies; or

f. Purchase of clothing, other than items of de minimis value used in the campaign (such as t-shirts).

2. Contributed to any other Candidate, Political Committee or measure;

3. Used to make Independent Expenditures supporting or opposing any Candidate, Political Committee or measure;

4. Used in connection with the nomination or election of a Certified Candidate to any office or at any election except to the office or election for which the revenues were originally distributed;

5. Used to repay any loans, debts or penalties;

6. Used to pay for consulting services to a Person, unless the Person is providing bona fide services to the campaign and is compensated at fair market value;

7. Used for out-of-state travel;

8. Certain vehicle-related expenses, including vehicle purchases, leases, rentals, insurance, repairs, or fuel. Vehicle mileage reimbursement for campaign purposes is allowed, using the standard rate used by the City for mileage reimbursement;

9. Attorney, accountant and other professional service fees in conjunction with appealing penalties or decertification;

10. Election night and post-election parties.

11. Used for salary or payment, other than reimbursable expenses, to a Family Member.

why is it that the Mercury has not yet posted anything about the Mayoral debate at PCC Cascade campus last night?

is it because you think your audience does not represent the African-American community?

readers want to know if this publication is only for white people

You're not reading my comments carefully enough. I'm talking about payments reported on CFRs as "salary" for a specific amount, when a portion of said amount is actually refunded back to the VOE candidate.

Cash under the table would never be detected given the current enforcement mechanism (which is to say: none). Emilie still hasn't paid back what she spent, right? Did Blackmer even bother to garnish her wages?

The $20,000 theoretical party for volunteers would still be legal (under the above criteria) so long as it didn't occur on election night.

"Reimbursable expenses" to family members would certainly allow them to cater the event, correct? Caterers are not salaried; they're contractors.

It certainly wouldn't prevent a VOE candidate from paying their best buddy (or sister's buddy) for work that is subsequently sub-contracted to a family member. Money is liquid: it doesn't just show up once on a CFR and then evaporate.

@T.T.P.M. :
You started out asking a question that is valid, and deserves a response.
Then you make a lazy generalization, followed another one masked as a question.

So, if "readers" get an answer, will the problem be taken care of? Or: does the Mercury per se need to speak to every Portlander? Ask yourself.

Well, Busse will be paid a whole $25,000. For what? Volunteering and/or working 80 hours a week for six months.

Are we getting ripped off? Or is Busse simply getting some funds that traditionally might go to a TV station for ads or a sign printer for lawn signs?

Frankly, I think political work is grossly underpaid, and that's why they tend to churn-and-burn through staff (to all of our loss).

Higher paid staff like Kaufmann and Weiner are the only ones getting decent rates, and that's because they're the ones who stuck it out to become truly experienced people.

Busse's admittedly upper range, but has more experience than a lot of the other campaign managers.

Generally, it doesn't make sense that you can't afford to staff up before the auditor takes a couple weeks to certify you. The system should allow limited expenses once you're halfway to certification, so you actually have staff people helping you for more than two months.

{Busse} has more experience than a lot of the other campaign managers.

What experience? Busse ran for office (once), and loss. Even if he WAS his own campaign manager (which is unknown) that's hardly a bankable resume.

Who cares if local campaign staff is "grossly underpaid". Childcare workers are grossly underpaid: that doesn't mean we should create full compensation ordinance to spend City of Portland tax dollars on a living wage. Not until we've addressed the transportation, public safety, parks, and sewer water infrastructure/maintenance backlog.

Branam will be lucky to get 5% of the primary vote, and every dollar he spends on Busse is a dollar of media or outdoor advertising that can't be spent. I'll bet
$20 this is the most expensive campaign on a per vote basis.