VOE: the cost of keeping the rich from owning government

There is no easy or universally agreed-upon solution to the need for election reform. Many people are perfectly happy with the current, but these are people and groups who profit from a corrupt system and would not welcome an increase in democratic process. On the other hand, many Americans avoid politics and elections — and, worse, government — because they see the corruption and the privileging of a few; they realize they have no real voice, so they don’t even bother. Turnout in Portland last week was pathetic; approximately three out of four voters didn’t feel it was worth the bother to turn in a ballot.

Something is terribly wrong.

We cannot continue on this path. We have to fix this, but our options are limited. The Supreme Court has made restrictions on spending almost non-existant. In Oregon, there are no limits. The role of money in politics is so stark, no one doubts that elections are, in large part, sold to the highest bidder. Got money? You’ve got an election! Congratulations. Money cannot be removed from politics, so the two tools available to counter the role of money are transparency and “field-evening”. In Oregon, the Orestar system allows anyone to see who gives to what campaigns and what the campaigns spend their money on. There may be tons of money in Oregon politics, but most of it is in plain sight. At the very least, a candidate who intends to promote him- or herself as, for example, a green candidate might do well to avoid contributions from, oh let’s say, BP.

Transparency — showing everyone where the money comes from and where it goes — is very important, but the ability for candidates to compete on an even playing field is vital. A wealthy person with wealthy friends and connections to corporate executives can raise millions for an election; a nurse with a family may have trouble paying the filing fee and submitting a voter’s pamphlet statement. So what if we can see where the millions of dollars come from? The wealthy person will crush the middle-class nurse — or small-business owner, or stay-at-home mom, or bank manager — and voters are likely to never know that the better candidate lost because she couldn’t raise the kind of money her rich opponent did.

Since the law does not allow government to stop the rich from spending their millions on a campaign if they choose, another option has to be found. Providing campaign funds to the nurse is a sensible option. She still won’t have millions, but if she has enough to mount a credible race, and is freed from the burden of fundraising, she can at least get her message to voters and who knows what might result?

Amanda Fritz is what might result, of course, even though it took her two attempts over half-a-million in Portland general fund money. The Voter-owned election (VOE) system has produced two winners, one an incumbent and the other for an open seat, and has allowed a range of citizens to vie for Portland City Council in a creditable manner. Fritz’ opponent in 2008 general election also ran with VOE funds, as did most of those on the primary ballot.

More importantly, whenever a candidate qualifies for VOE, opponents who have access to unlimited funds choose to cap their own spend at or near what the VOE limit is. Dan Saltzman kept his spending to that provided by VOE, not because he was required to but because, had he spent more, it would have made it look like he was trying to buy re-election. What the law cannot do, public opinion did. This may be the best part of VOE: not that it gives candidates the money to win — VOE guarantees nothing — but it sets a de facto cap on spending that a candidate will exceed at great risk.

So far, no one has dared to take that risk.

Reasons will be given to dump VOE as we move towards a reauthorization vote in November. “We can’t afford to spend that money in a time of budget shortfalls” will be popular. “Look at how badly Cornett did” will also be thrown out there, no matter that it’s a stupid point that has no bearing on the principle. “Let the market decide” or something to that effect, more subtly stated, is also going to be attempted, especially by the thugs at the Portland Big Business Alliance (thanks for the name correction there, Nate Gulley) who want to control Portland politics and government as much as possible. VOE presents the risk that they will not be able to do so. Whatever the reasons are, they are not good enough. We need to fix our elections, and anything we can do to reduce the role that money plays is a good thing. We gave $150,000 and he got whupped? We do not invest that money in candidates: we invest it in the system, in democracy.

We must maintain Voter-owned elections. Just as improvements were made after the first go-round, we need to look at ways to make VOE more effective. Perhaps candidate training; perhaps limits on how the money is spent (10% for consultants, none for paid canvassers, 50% spent in-state — I’m just tossing out possibilities, not making suggestions). If we dump VOE, we give our city elections back to those with wealth and connections. The costs then will grow as policies are promoted and passed that benefit them and leave the rest of us paying the bill. This is exactly what we see happen when the wealthy make the rules, and if only the rich can raise the money to win an election, then the rich will be making the rules.