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...
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.
@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.
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.
But remember this Hall Monitor from the fall: http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/ha…
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.
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.
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.