Street Roots Crunches Cash Reports in Mayoral Race—Makes Case for Return of Voter-Owned Elections

Comments

1
Just to be clear, under Voter-owned elections, even the candidates who didn't use the system generally limited themselves to maximum contributions of $500. It took all of one election cycle to revert to the big bucks behavior. Sigh...
2
The $90k that Emily Boyles still owes the city and Jason Cornett's crash and burn campaign are reason enough to scrap voter owned elections.
3
I don't understand the "even East Portland state Representative Jefferson Smith" part. That's written as if this should surprise someone. Should it?
4
It would be *really* surprising if it were Amanda Fritz.

But remember this Hall Monitor from the fall: http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/ha…
5
Also, Chuck, what Chris said.
6
I guess people thought Jefferson Smith would be the "left" candidate in the election, when they all suck.

But the order of suckiness seems to be follow their +$1000 percentages, we will probably get Eileen who will promptly try to sell out the city to the highest bidder.
7
Luckily, the voters saw through the failed 'voter owned' experiment.
8
@Ardennes, I get it: despite the fact that he has previously accepted lobbyist/corporation/PAC money in his legislative races, he should be expected to be some sacred progressive hero because he made some jabs at the other candidates for taking big money.
9
Campaign spending is about the only growth industry in Portland.

If you want a cap on donations, put it to the voters. You don't keep a shitty program like "voter owned elections" for the ancillary benefits.
10
Your phrasing is misleading. It's not "80 percent of checks written
to Charlie Hales... have been for at least $1000", but rather, "80
percent of the money contributed has been in the form of checks for at
least $1000." If you're looking at the number of checks themselves,
only 5% of the checks were for > $1000.

Another interesting number is $199,010 / 45 == $4422.