This is the race where you’ll find some thorough analysis of the public financing system. Five of the candidates are all certified publicly financed candidates (Mike Fahey is privately funded, and joining us this week!). What do they have to say about the program?

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?

Chris Smith—one of the original proponents of the system—responded first:

Chris Smith
Position sought: Commissioner #1
Website: citizensmith.us
Financial status: $150,000 in public funding, $137,794.68 currently in the bank

I first had the opportunity to study public campaign financing in 2000, when I chaired a study for the City Club of Portland on Ballot Measure 6, which would have created a public campaign finance system for the Oregon Legislature and statewide offices. Our committee reached the conclusion that this approach, previously tried in other states, while not a cure for all campaign finance issues, would both help reduce the corrosive effects of big money in our politics and help create the opportunity for candidates with strong community support to run for office even if they could not tap traditional campaign funding sources.

While Measure 6 failed statewide (due in part to the influence of big-money contributions) it passed in Portland. I and others were encouraged by this, and I was happy to be part of the group of advocates who, working with Commissioner Sten and Auditor Blackmer, proposed Voter Owned Elections to City Council and were ultimately able to secure adoption of the system three years ago.

I am proud to be “getting a taste of my own medicine” by running as a Voter Owned Elections Candidate. Already, in two election cycles we have seen Voter Owned Elections create an effective cap on campaign spending for both participating and non-participating candidates, and in several races non-participating candidates have self-limited their maximum contributions to $500, far lower than was common in Council campaigns before the system was adopted.

And this year, I’m delighted that there are seven candidates who have qualified under the system, although I’d be more delighted if a few less of them were in the same race that I am.

We’re still learning and adjusting, but it’s working, creating more opportunities for participation by candidates and voters, and taking the big money out of our elections.

And yes, as I pledged in my campaign kick-off announcement, I am absolutely committed to keeping the pledge to refer this to the voters of Portland to pass judgment on in 2010 after they have seen it in operation, as was promised when the system was adopted.

Charles Lewis
Position sought: Commissioner #1
Website: charleslewis.com
Financial status: $150,000 in public funding, $133,654.96 currently in the bank

Publicly funded elections are one of the most positive things to happen in Portland City Hall over the past several decades. Previously, elections were decided based on who had the most money, not who was the best candidate. I want to be elected because of my vision, experience and ideals -- not because I am the most effective fundraiser. I am proud to be running as a “Voter Owned Candidate” and will be happy to put the program to a public vote in 2010. At that point, I will do everything in my power to persuade Portland voters to pass this inspired program.

The best way to promote publicly financed elections will be to have a strong and effective new voice on city council made possible through publicly financed elections. As a Voter Owned Candidate, I understand that I am beholden only to the people of Portland and will always vote accordingly.

Charles Lewis
aka “Five Buck Chuck”

Mike Fahey
Position sought: Commissioner #1
Website: friendsofmikefahey.com
Financial status: $12,230.00 in contributions to date, $5,922.70 currently in the bank

I did not go with public financing for my Portland City Council #1 race because my personal belief is the City of Portland should use that money for funding current programs and services.

The cost for primary and general election will be between 1.5 to 2 million dollars. I feel that the citizen of Portland would be better served if we put 15-20 Portland police officers on the streets doing community policing. The city has seen a rise in gang activity in the past few months and the extra officers would make big impact on the streets of Portland. The Portland police are currently under staffed today by 30 to 50 officers depending on who you talk to. I use this as just one example where the public finance money could be
spent.

The City of Portland income will decrease as the recession gets worse. The big question will be what programs and services will get reduced? How many city employees will get laid off? How many street potholes and sidewalks could we fix with this money?

The Question to ask youself if your children or grandchildren were going to school or playing in the park : who is better trained to protect them, a police officer or a politician?

The citizens of Portland should vote on this issue in 2010 since it is the taxpayers money.

Mike Fahey
Candiate for Portland City Council #1

John Branam
Position sought: Commissioner #1
Website: john4pdx.org
Financial status: $150,000 in public funding, $95,371.36 currently in the bank

I support public financing for Portland city council campaigns. Although there are clear opportunities to improve the form voters complete (that accompanies their $5 contribution,) and despite having some concerns about how the program has been administered, in general I believe its benefits far outweigh the detriments. In sum, I participated because I believe in taking big money and run-away campaign spending out of elections, and because I believed participating would be preferred to the spending my entire campaign raising money. Having gone through the program I still believe that is the case today.

Public financing has had a number of positive impacts on my campaign. First, although I raise money for Portland Public Schools and am very comfortable doing so, not having to spend up to 50% of my time (which most candidates in other races do) “dialing for dollars” has meant, fundamentally, that although I did spend a significant amount of time working to gather signatures and $5 contributions, the majority it was spent actually talking with voters about the issues. From my perspective, this is a strongly preferred outcome for Portlanders.

Second, public funding has changed how people engage with me as we discuss challenges and opportunities. Because they’ve not been able to “buy” promises in exchange for financial support, our conversations, I believe, have been more genuinely focused on how we can work together as a city to accomplish what’s best for Portland.

Third, the system’s threshold requirements encouraged me to get out and meet the voters, early. Although those in my race and in our other city races, relied heavily on mailing and surrogates to gather their signatures, I enjoyed and found meaningful gathering my signatures primarily by going door-to-door by myself. Although I am sure I would have nonetheless sought other reasons to meet voters personally, I do not believe I would have pushed to do so so early, nor in such a significant, and personal, way. Our conversations were genuine and focused on the issues and this, I believe, was/ is one of the system’s goals.

Fourth, again, although because of my work I am familiar with people who have significant resources to support a campaign, trying to run a competitive city-wide campaign for the first time, at a relatively young age and without either a famous last name or deep personal pockets, would be very difficult. And yet I think having people with compelling backgrounds, experiences and ideas, but who don’t necessarily have direct access to big money, running for council is important. Frankly, I think it’s absolutely consistent with our city’s values.

Although there are undoubtedly some changes that should be made in the program’s design, and again despite the concerns I have about the administrative issues, there is one fundamental alteration that stands out in terms of the program’s design: I believe the candidate him or herself should be required to gather 65% of the signatures in person. This, I think, gets at one of the program’s intents. Speed signature gathering by surrogates, however impressive, gets away from this intent and, although it certainly demonstrates organizational skills and a proven network (both of which are important in a campaign and in governing,) it does not help demonstrate that the candidate has had meaningful conversations with those who are not necessarily the more well-connected in Portland.

Finally, in terms of whether I would vote to put the program to a public vote in 2010, the simple answer is “yes.” Although I believe strongly in public funding for city council races and am particularly appreciative that it has existed during my run, I believe its ultimate future should rest in the hands of the voters in 2010.

Jeff Bissonnette
Position sought: Commissioner #1
Website: portlandersforjeff.com
Financial status: $150,000 in public funding, $142,406.89 in the bank pending deposit of $139,855 check from the city

Portland is a place where people believe that problems can be addressed and are interested in coming up with effective solutions. My campaign is fueled by that optimism, knowing we will be able to address any issue that comes before us.

I have always been a very strong supporter of the Voter-Owned Election (VOE) system. Campaign finance reform is a central issue in making sure that democracy remains vital and, yes, sustainable. Many Portlanders are very concerned about the large amount of money spent on campaigns at the federal, state and local levels and want to move beyond politics based on big contributions and sound bites. Rather, they want to focus on issues and problem-solving.

The Voter-Owned Election system provides a vehicle to do just that. I feel extremely fortunate to be able to spend my campaign time talking to voters about issues, ideas and solutions rather than spending the majority of my time asking people for money to run my campaign. As a side benefit, many non-participating candidates are also agreeing to self-imposed spending and contribution caps, helping to reduce special interest influence and bringing the cost of campaigns within reach of more potential candidates.

According to an analysis by Democracy Reform Oregon, more than 10,000 people gave a qualifying $5 contribution to a candidate. As part of that process to qualify publicly-financed candidates, people who had never given to a political campaign, had never held a house party, had never talked to their neighbors about city issues, were willing to start conversations and ask for $5 from fellow Portlanders to enable me and my fellow VOE candidates to interact directly with the voters. Many people who had not previously heard of the Voter-Owned Election system remarked, "This is the way we should do campaigns." Amen to that.

In 2010, after two and a half election cycles, Portlanders will have the experience they need to make an informed decision about whether the VOE system is the right solution to the problem of big money in city campaigns or whether it's time to look at another potential solution. For my part, I will make sure Portlanders have the ability to vote on whether the program should continue or not.

Amanda Fritz
Position sought: Commissioner #1
Website: amandafritzforcitycouncil.com
Financial status: $150,000 in public funding, $136,896.03 currently in the bank

Public Campaign Financing is revolutionary. It has already changed the course of this election, with five great community candidates seeking the open seat being vacated by Sam Adams. The public money you provide gives the citizens of Portland the opportunity to elect a new Commissioner who is dedicated to Portland's values, community service, and integrity. Portlanders have already won by attracting five high quality candidates who do not have to consider whether our policy positions will affect big money campaign donations. I am beholden to the people of Portland. I have worked at the grassroots level on a broad range of City issues in Portland for over 17 years, and I have a proven record of achieving results for Portlanders. If I am elected, I will save Portland citizens the cost of my campaign funding with one vote, for instance by denying a contract to an insider currently awarded City work without a bid process. I will prioritize funding of basic services in all 95 neighborhoods, and coordinate services with Multnomah County, the School Boards, and other jurisdictions. When I seek re-election using public funding in 2012, I will provide a tally to voters, listing where my independence from special interests, and my obligation to the general public, resulted in savings to taxpayers. If I am elected, Portlanders will see before the referendum in 2010 that Public Campaign Financing saves money. This past Tuesday, the filing deadline passed with only one candidate on the ballot for Seat 1 having held elected office before, running using traditional fundraising. In "the olden days", most likely a famous person or career politician would have looked at our field of six and thought, "I could take those guys/that woman", and entered the race -- without true commitment to serving all the citizens of Portland. But five candidates with $150,000 offer a brave new day in Portland politics. All five Public Campaign Finance Fund candidates have earned the right to be heard, even if some media companies or community groups make choices about who deserves extra publicity. The taxpayers of Portland have made a great investment in purifying our election process. Public Campaign Financing is only one component of moving to Voter Owned Elections, but it is a vital cornerstone. I participated in Public Financing because asking people with financial interests in City decisions for significant campaign contributions is incompatible with my moral values. I believe most Portlanders share my principles and support the program. Also, I wanted to make sure that at least one candidate would qualify and follow all the rules in the 2008 election. Portlanders who know me and followed my first campaign trust me. When I ran in 2006, I was the only non-incumbent candidate who demonstrated the community support and ethical standards needed to complete the first Public Campaign Finance Fund campaign. I helped improve the rules in 2006 and 2007. I will work on continued amendments to the program after this election. I will vote to refer the program to voters in November 2010.