"Support Voter Owned Elections!" - ?

Submitted by Amanda Fritz on September 7, 2007 - 9:12am.

If you do, hold on to your $5 for now.

The only candidate who's filed so far seeking Public Campaign Financing for a run a Commissioner's seat on Portland City Council appears to have used the list of people who donated to my campaign, to send a letter asking for $5 contributions for his. I received one myself. Several of my supporters have contacted me, asking if I support Charles Lewis. The answer is no.

I found the mailing from Mr. Lewis troubling. The glossy, full-color brochure is headed "SUPPORT VOTER OWNED ELECTIONS!" in large block capital type at the top. Only at the bottom, below the smiling photograph, is "CHARLES LEWIS" in the same sized font, and "for Portland City Commissioner" in smaller script underneath. The layout of the flyer is why many of my donors are contacting me, I think. They want to know if this candidacy supports the cause of Public Campaign Financing. I'm not convinced it does, based on the evidence in the letter and the current status of uncertainty over whether or not there will be an open seat on the City Council.

Above all, in my campaign, I strived to be honest. I understand someone wanting to have as much time as possible to qualify for public financing. But here's what the form says, that people are being asked to sign along with giving the candidate their $5 donation:

"I support allocating public funds to this candidate"

How can most citizens receiving the mailing be able to affirm that statement, when they don't know which seat Mr. Lewis is running for, they don't know if he will be challenging an incumbent, and they don't know who else may be a candidate?

The new form doesn't require the candidate to state which seat s/he is seeking, and neither Mr. Lewis's glowing tri-fold pamphlet nor his letter says. While the filing period doesn't open until next week, it's odd the candidate is no longer required to indicate on the donation form whether s/he intends to file for Seat 1 (currently held by Sam Adams) or Seat 4 (occupied by Randy Leonard). Surely it makes a difference to donors, which one is being challenged? My mother wouldn't care which I ran against, but most Portlanders certainly should.

Someone did a very professional job with the expensive overweight mailing, complete with letterhead, inscribed envelopes, and full color brochure.... it made me laugh, remembering my piece of cardboard that cost 40 cents, written on with markers, that I carried around to houseparties throughout my campaign. My volunteers hand-wrote the return address on letters sent out after I qualified. We worked hard to be thrifty with both public money and the $5 donations of 1045 Portlanders.

Mailing to my contributors seems to indicate insufficient contacts on Mr. Lewis's list of his own known supporters. The envelope was addressed to me "or current resident", even. I'm posting this on my blog in part because some of my donors will wonder if I aided Mr. Lewis by giving him my database and encouraged him to solicit from them. I want them to know I didn't.

But what really concerns me is the letter's instructions that donors should sign as both donor and collector of the $5 donation on the enclosed triplicate City form. The candidate says, "For mailed requests, you are your own "solicitor". Write in your own name and address in this portion and don't forget to sign."

Now, last time, my donations sent by mail asked exactly the same thing. But the form was different - and that caused/allowed problems, as we saw in the fraud case. Recent program revisions were designed to address those problems, and the new form makes no sense if the contributor and the solicitor are the same person. The solicitor section now starts, "I hereby certify that I received a $5.00 qualifying contribution with the knowledge and consent of the candidate named above, that I gave nothing of value in return for the contribution....". The donor didn't receive the $5.00 contribution, they gave it, and the campaign received it. I'm disappointed the Lewis campaign isn't recognizing that the fiasco and fraud in the initial cycle calls for greater effort to ensure candidates keep everything as well done as possible. Someone from the campaign should sign the lower portion of the form.

If I run, I will not be asking people to mail in their form having signed as both donor and solicitor. A real collector authorized by the candidate and connected with the campaign should sign as having received the donation, in my opinion. While I hope Mr. Lewis has asked for and received the go-ahead from the Auditor's office to accept double-signed forms, as was allowed last time, I don't believe that's in keeping with the spirit of the revised form or rules. Especially with his mailing arriving at the same time the prison sentence was handed down on Golovan this week, I'm concerned that this candidate's campaign, with brochures and envelopes championing his being "Voter Owned", isn't going the extra mile to follow the intent as well as the letter of the new revisions.

To me, Public Campaign Financing isn't just a better way of providing funds for political campaigns. It should be one element in opening up our society's power structure, and in raising the standards of ethical behavior in elected officials and all other participants in civic activities. Candidates using the program this cycle carry perhaps even more responsibility than I did last time, to restore and build hope and trust in the program. I've hesitated to publish this post, in reluctance to draw attention to something some would consider either a minor error, or not a problem at all. But I care about the future of Public Campaign Financing too much to keep my concerns to myself. Candidates using it must hold themselves and their campaign workers/volunteers to the highest standards... and registered Portland voters should assess the level of the bar the candidate sets for that, when deciding whether or not to help the person qualify by donating $5.

Let me be very clear, to my supporters especially:


1. I support Sam Adams for re-election to Seat 1, if he chooses to run for it again.


2. I haven't decided whether I will run if the Commissioner # 1 seat becomes open.
I may. If I do, of course I will participate in the Public Campaign Financing program - and, dear supporters, I will need even more help than last time, to reach the desired outcome.


3. While I believe all candidates should run using Public Campaign Financing, I don't support Charles Lewis for election to the Portland City Council and will not be sending him $5.


4. Supporters of Public Campaign Financing should endorse the candidate they donate to - that's the purpose of collecting qualifying donations, to indicate community support.
We don't want just any and all candidates seeking public funds to qualify. We want the money to go only to people who have the right experience, interests, and community perspective to represent Portland's citizens if elected. In the first run, some people helped me qualify more to support Public Campaign Financing than because they were particularly Amanda Fritz fans. And together, we certainly achieved an important success and contribution to the concept. Moving forward, the individual candidate more than the principles of the program must be the more crucial factor affecting a registered voter's decision on whether to give or not to give $5.


5. Citizens should learn from the first cycle, and be very certain the person you donate to is one who will use public money honorably, frugally, and wisely. Find out more about candidates before deciding to donate to one or more - don't rely on a slick PR flyer. Significant amounts of public money are allocated to candidates who qualify. Your personal $5 contribution may not seem like a large sum, but with it you are 1/1000th responsible for dedicating $145,000 in tax money (1/1500th and $195,000 for Mayoral races) to someone who may use it carefully or abuse it. That is a huge responsibility for the $5 donor. Make each choice diligently.


6. There will be time enough to choose a candidate to give $5 to, once the Mayor and Sam Adams have announced their intentions. You might give to one, more than one, or none. Until we know the players and whether or not there will be open seats, it's too soon to commit to one candidate. Unless you happen to be a true Charles Lewis supporter, of course.

Perhaps his mailing was sent out to my donors this particular week, before Mayor Potter's announcement about his plans for 2008, in the hope some recipients might not think that through? Happily, the number of people contacting me to ask for more information indicates I can continue to be proud of the hearts and minds of my supporters.

Submitted by Steve Rawley on September 7, 2007 - 8:54am.
It's certainly interesting how Mr. Lewis is simultaneously buying his way into the race with expensive mailings, and trying to latch onto voter-owned elections. He doesn't seem to understand the spirit of the thing, yet he's sure trying to take advantage of it. I wouldn't mind if he just sailed his duck bus off into the sunset.
Submitted by dave lister on September 7, 2007 - 9:01am.
To paraphrase a famous moment in a vice presidential debate: "I know Amanda Fritz. Amanda Fritz is a friend of mine. You, Charles Lewis, are no Amanda Fritz." Dave Lister
Submitted by Charles Lewis on September 7, 2007 - 2:23pm.
Amanda, I was very disappointed at your unfair personal attacks listed in your blog. I have never met you and to have you personally attack me and my character is disheartening at best. While I know you must be frustrated because you don’t want to run against an incumbent who won’t make up his mind, it is not an excuse to sling mud and to make false claims that not only damages the electoral process but greatly confuses voters who are participating in voter funded elections. The problems with your post are too great to list one by one, but I’ll start by pointing out some of the biggest errors. To begin with, you attacked me for asking donors to sign their own forms. This is required by city elections office for any mailed donation request (and you had to do it last time). Please see the elections handbook here: http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=161900 It is very disconcerting that you would attempt to impinge my character with false and misleading claims. You should take the new training course offered by the auditor’s office to refamiliarize yourself with the rules before unfairly attacking me. Also, please find below a link to the brochure and letter that I mailed out last Friday. I am an ardent supporter of the Voter Owned Elections process, and I am proud to run as a Voter Owned Candidate. Absolutely nothing in my letter or brochure even remotely focuses on you or your previous campaign. My campaign is focused on the present and the future, not the past. The entire brochure and letter focuses on my candidacy, my long history of public service, and the issues that I believe in (including Voter Owned Elections). Again, it is unfair for you to allude that I somehow claimed to have your endorsement or support – read for yourself – it’s simply not the case and it is unfair for you to attempt to claim that in your blog posting. Charles Lewis’ mailing: www.CharlesLewis.com/mailing.pdf You also seem to take offense to how professional and nice our brochure looked. This mailing was put together entirely by volunteers and was paid for entirely with our initial set of $5 donations and limited seed money. The brochures were printed at a Union shop, with eco-friendly Soy-based ink, on recycled paper. While it may look very professional, it was done with minimal cost and just with our initial $5 donations and seed money (no city money whatsoever). My team and I are very well organized and will put together even better materials as the campaign progresses. Demonstrating that we can put together an extremely efficient, well run campaign with limited resources will set our campaign apart from others who might join the race later. Amanda, the idea of “clean elections” also means keeping the mud slinging and personal attacks to a minimum. Rather than start off this way, I wish you would have done your homework, researched the rules, and even called me for clarification (503-616-2655). Despite how professional our materials look, I’m not a career politician – I run a nonprofit music center for underserved youth. I’m running for this important office because I think I can help make Portland a place that works for everyone, not just the wealthy few. We sent you one of our mailings directly because we are running openly and fairly. I hope you will change course and do the same if you decide to get in the race. Take care, Charles Lewis Candidate, Portland City Council P.S. Even though I feel that your blog posting was very unfair, I would be happy to get together and have a cup of coffee with you so that we can actually get to know each other. Perhaps we could even meet at Ethos Music Center’s new café so you can see some of the good work we have accomplished bringing music education to Portland's underserved youth.
Submitted by dave lister on September 7, 2007 - 2:33pm.
"The brochures were printed at a Union shop, with eco-friendly Soy-based ink, on recycled paper." "I’m running for this important office because I think I can help make Portland a place that works for everyone, not just the wealthy few." "Perhaps we could even meet at Ethos Music Center’s new café so you can see some of the good work we have accomplished bringing music education to Portland's underserved youth." Easy Chuck. Don't lay it on too thick right out of the gate. The folks out in East PDX just might wake up and fill out a ballot. Dave Lister
Submitted by lrobins on September 7, 2007 - 3:28pm.
What I don't understand, Amanda, is HOW he could use a list of people who contributed to YOUR campaign -- and WHY he would want to use the list. [I received two identical letters from Charles Lewis yesterday.] -- Linda Robinson
Submitted by Amanda Fritz on September 7, 2007 - 4:53pm.
Linda, the list of my contributors of $5 is public record. As to why so many of my donors received requests, presumably it was in the hope that some were supporters of Public Campaign Financing in general rather than specific to my candidacy. Thank you for your response, Charles. Obviously, donors have to sign the forms. You seem to have missed my main point of concern, that having them sign as both donor and recipient doesn't make sense. As I mentioned, that was OK last time when a donor would send in one contribution on a form meant for ten, and sign as both contributor and solicitor. The wording on the forms was different. With the new form, having donors sign as having received as well as giving the $5 is incongruent. I would have been happy to have provided advice over the summer, to you or any candidate considering using Public Campaign Financing. I was surprised not to hear from you or any others, asking about potential pitfalls and helpful strategies. I haven't been asked by the Auditor's Office to contribute to training materials, either. One purpose of the new form is to provide safeguards to the candidate as well as the public. Some of those who were on the donor lists submitted by disgraced candidates last cycle denied ever having given to the two campaigns. If I were you, I would want someone from your campaign to sign as receiving the donation, so there are two different signatures on the form and so nobody can claim you forged their signature twice. Your volunteer can then make sure everything is signed and dated correctly, and give the pink sheet back to the donor. It's more work than the way mail-in donations were handled last time, but it's safer for you as well as for your donors and the public interest. Believe me, Charles, there are people out there who will go to great lengths to destroy Public Campaign Financing. Last time, there was a one-mistake-and-you're-out rule. If Erik Sten or I had submitted even one donation not from someone living in Portland, we would have been disqualified. I was very concerned that Erik, especially, was at risk for someone sabotaging his campaign by sending incorrect donations on purpose. He was smart and figured out how to safeguard against that, but I mention it to encourage you to change your donor-solicitor signing policy for your own sake, as well as for the program's.
Submitted by Steve Rawley on September 7, 2007 - 4:58pm.
There's a real sense of entitlement oozing out of Mr. Lewis' campaign. I wasn't comfortable when I got his flier in the mail, and I'm definitely not comfortable having read his response here. Should be an interesting race, come what may.
Submitted by hilsy on September 7, 2007 - 5:33pm.
While I do not agree with you on every single issue, I do agree with you enough times and and admire your dedication to civic duty. Please run for commissioner if a seat opens up. You've got my email in the blog registration when time comes up for the $5 contribution.
Submitted by Amanda Fritz on September 7, 2007 - 9:57pm.
Thank you, hilsy. I especially love hearing people say (to me or others) the phrase "while I don't agree with you on every issue...". Recognition that of course we're not going to agree all the time, yet can on some things, is helpful to me and also to the process. I promised when starting this blog, and several times since, that I wouldn't use the account sign-in information for anything not blog-related. So I won't be using the data to solicit donations - but thank you for the offer, and you'll know where to find me, should I end up running this year or in the future :) Contrary to the comment above that I "must be frustrated because you don’t want to run against an incumbent who won’t make up his mind", I'm hoping Mayor Potter decides to finish the job he started. See Waiting, hard? Nah, Charles and others who may have missed it.
Submitted by Steve Rawley on September 8, 2007 - 7:45am.
I'd probably support you, too, even though I can't seem to get you to take a stand on the racial segregation and upward redistribution of wealth perpetrated by the PPS open transfer policy. (Don't feel bad, I can't get anybody outside of the NSA to take a stand on this. Nobody wants to be the first to grab this third rail of Portland school politics.)
Submitted by Amanda Fritz on September 8, 2007 - 8:35am.
I worked on Ruth Adkins' campaign and helped elect her to the Portland Public Schools board, in part to address that issue. I haven't delved into it here for several reasons. It's complex - more so than appears on the surface. I've found discussions about racism progress more constructively in person than on the Internet. And I see the role of politicians and community activists in City involvement as secondary to the elected leaders and highly invested volunteers in our city's five school districts. They (including you) are the experts in school issues. There are other blogs and routes for citizens to be engaged in those topics more appropriate than this one. I'm glad to help publicize and direct traffic there sometimes, as I believe everyone has an investment in the success of our public schools whether you have children or not. And you'll see me in the crowd at meetings and workparties addressing equity issues, and sometimes posting on particular aspects of a big topic that fires me up. But generally, posts on school topics here will be occasional and peripheral. I don't feel I can do them justice as well as others are already doing. Twelve years ago, after I had helped pass the first Metro greenspaces bond measure which then purchased the forest at the headwaters of Arnold Creek in my neighborhood, I made a choice. I had three children at Markham Elementary at the time, and could happily have become more active in the PTA and Site Council volunteer world. I decided to accept Commissioner Hales' invitation to be appointed to the Planning Commission, to work with neighbors (parents and those without children) on general City issues instead. Nobody can be an expert on every aspect of civic involvement, and the realm of school equity issues is so encompassing and intricate that it needs leaders who focus on it - like Ruth Adkins. I'm happy to be part of the crowd supporting her leadership, and I try not to spout off on issues when I haven't done enough research.
Submitted by Steve Rawley on September 8, 2007 - 10:06am.
Amanda, Fair enough; sorry to keep badgering you about this. My ongoing point is this: it's really not so complex. PPS policy redistributes tens of millions of dollars a year from poor neighborhoods to rich neighborhoods. It's a pretty radical policy. Our neighbors in Beaverton have done a much better job. They have a very restrictive transfer policy, and aren't hurting for enrollment. The much ballyhooed threat of the middle class pulling out for private schools is overblown. I'm still waiting for just one civic leader in Portland (not necessarily directly involved with PPS politics and policy) to address this in a meaningful way, even just to acknowledge what the Flynn-Blackmer audit clearly stated: Open transfers are fundamentally at odds with strong neighborhood schools.