This race, as you’ll recall, is the one the city council was fighting over yesterday, when it comes to public funding. What do the candidates have to say about the program? LOTS.

The last candidate who turned in more than 1,000 signatures has been certified for public financing. What are your thoughts on the program? Why did you or didn’t you participate? Also, would you vote to put the program to a public vote in 2010?

The only publicly financed candidate in the race, Jim Middaugh, responded first:

Jim Middaugh
Position sought: Commissioner #2
Website: jimforportland.com
Financial status: $150,000 in public funding, $140,253.96 currently in the bank

I am a strong supporter of the city’s Voter Owned Elections — the local system that provides for the public financing of campaigns. Though I had an abbreviated timeline for collecting the qualifying contributions I was able to bring in more than 1,700 in just 10 days using my strong network of grassroots support. Candidates who did not try or did not qualify for public financing for this race clearly do not have a strong local network or they prefer to rely on private contributions.

I am convinced that a commitment to public financing is the best way to ensure that candidates speak for themselves and for the people of Portland, not for contributors who can afford to write big checks.

Nearly every observer of the political process believes that money has a corrupting influence. Just the time commitments of fundraising alone skew the way a candidate spends her or his time, who they talk to, and what kinds of things they are told they should be working on.

Relying on public financing ensures that I am out talking to ordinary people in the course of my campaign, not wealthy contributors who, believe it or not, usually give politicians money for a reason.

No other candidate in this race is using public financing. While I am talking to voters they are busy raising money or they are not running viable campaigns.

The debate in Portland over Voter Owned Elections has been intense, and the early and current flaws in enforcement of the system’s rules have added to the controversy. I support change to the system to ensure that it works smoothly and fairly, but I will oppose those who think that wealthy donors and special interests should have extra influence in shaping a politician’s schedule and priorities.

I will fight to ensure that when public financing is put before voters that the ballot title is fair and accurate and reflects the real benefits associated with eliminating the influence of money in local politics.

Ed Garren
Position sought: Commissioner #2
Website: edforportland.com
Financial status: $810 in contributions, $1,208.36 currently in the bank

Public Campaign financing, and how it has been used so far, has been a mixed benefit to the city.

In the race for seat #2 (the one I'm in), I attempted to go for public financing, but was faced with the daunting task for getting 1,000 (verifiable) $5 contributions in about 20 days. Even with many friends and fellow activists working on the project, we did not come near the required number in that time.

At last count, there are four or five people in this race, and only one qualified for public money, the chief of staff of the incumbent who resigned suddenly and created the vacancy. To add insult to injury, he is praising his "grass roots" effort, which by his account gathered 1,700 contributions in ten (10) days.

Having been a "grass roots" activist for much of my life, I am a bit suspect of his endeavors. We also have a mayoral candidate who did more or less the same thing in a relatively short period of time.

In both of these two incidents, I cannot help but question the outcome. One has to question how "grass roots" the gathering of so many small contributions in such a short time really is.

I have members of my campaign steering committee who are long time organizers, one in labor, another in environmental justice. One is a Portland native, the other, has lived here all of her adult life. They both flatly state that it would be difficult, if not impossible to get 1,700 contributions in ten (10) days without some sort of orchestrated, if not professional assistance.
Added to that is the additional question that this candidate, as the chief of staff of the incumbent who resigned, might not have had prior knowledge of that impending resignation, and the advantages that go along with that prior knowledge, as well as other benefits of working inside city hall for many years.

All is "fair" in love, war and politics, so I do not begrudge the actions per se. But I believe Portland voters are intelligent and informed enough to ask the important questions about honesty, integrity the long term trustworthiness of any candidate who would hijack a process meant to help genuine "grass roots" candidates (like the ones in the race for seat #1 who had months to gather contributions, not days).

As a taxpayer, I have serious issues about publicly financing the candidacies of two people who clearly have had access to power and opportunities that the rest of us do not have.

As an alternative to the current system, perhaps a significant spending cap on all races might be a better solution. I personally think that if all the candidates ran without major advertisements, without the hype and polish of carefully scripted campaigns, expensive consultants, glossy full color brochures (which take a lot of trees and carbon to produce and distribute) in an environment that encouraged voters to actually engage the process, our electoral process might be better served.

But sadly, the two situations that I describe above, demonstrate that the most well intended of situations can be co-opted, and not deliver the benefit that was intended.

Ed Garren,
Candidate for Portland City Council, seat #2
www.edforportland.com

Harold C. Williams Two
Position sought: Commissioner #2
Website: none
Financial status: $300 in contributions, $300 currently in the bank

The public financing program is a very well thought out program. I did not participate in program because of time restraints. As far as voting to put the program to a public vote in 2010, the answer is YES.

-Harold C. Williams Two
Candidate for Portland City Commissioner position (2)

Nick Fish
Position sought: Commissioner #2
Website: nickfish2008.com
Financial status: $22,500.01 in contributions, $17,372.93 currently in the bank

Public financing can be a force to expand the number of people involved in the decisions that affect our families, and I support it in Portland. In fact, I have been a strong supporter of fundamental campaign finance reform at the federal, state and local level, including a requirement that broadcasters offer free time to candidates. I am proud of the fact that my show, Outlook Portland with Nick Fish, featured candidates for office, including those who are ignored by the media.

The current system, though well-intentioned, is flawed. At the top of the list, was that the system, which takes over $1million from the general fund was never approved by the voters. To those who feel that their tax dollars are subsidizing candidates they don’t agree with, we at least owed them a right to vote on the system.

Many of the public financing systems cited to by advocates of public financing in Portland – Maine and Arizona, for example – were adopted by voters and not by elected officials.

Not surprisingly, Commissioners Adams, Saltzman and Leonard who voted for instituting the system have opted not to take public funds for their campaigns.

Should I win this election, I will push for a vote on the system. If the voters pass it, I will gladly opt in to a system that has been given the voters’ stamp of approval.

In the meantime, I will limit my spending in the May election to $150,000, the amount which a publicly-financed candidate would receive under the system. In limiting my fundraising, I’m abiding by the spirit of public financing.

The final candidate in the race, Fred Stewart, did not respond.