First Question First: Why do Oregon utilities dislike Portland’s voter-owned elections?

The Campaign Contributions and Expenditures Reports for the upcoming May elections came out this month. On the ballot could be a measure that attempts to rescind the voter-owned elections law enacted by Portland’s City Council last year. The First Things First Committee, running the campaign to end public financing of elections in Portland, is attracting some heavy-hitting financial support. Many of these supporters have ties to utility companies, either directly or indirectly.

For example, NW Natural gave $5,000, Qwest gave $7,500, Portland General Electric gave $7,500, and Stoel Rives (a law firm which often represents utilities) gave $3,500. Executives of utilities such as Dick Reiten and Kevin Lynch, and consultants for utilities such as Tom Imeson, are also contributors. And then there is the Portland Business Alliance. The PBA has many ties to Oregon utility companies: Judy Peppler, President of Qwest in Oregon is the Chair-Elect; as such, she would exercise a great deal of influence over the political agenda of the organization. In addition, the Chair Emeritus and several members at large on the Board hail from utilities such as PGE, PacifiCorp, and NW Natural. Size of the PBA check against voter-owned elections: $32,000.

Well, it’s a free country, and people (and corporations) can give money to whomever they want, right? Yes, that’s right. That’s also the point of Portland’s new public financing mechanism, which allows a candidate for Portland office to gather a large number (1000) of donations for a small amount of money ($5) in order to qualify for a limited amount of money from the City to run a competitive campaign. And if that candidate should happen to win, the people he/she is used to talking with, the people he/she will be talking with more in the future, are not limited to those who can write a 4- or 5-figure check. Another advantage is all the time that candidate frees up from fundraising, to focus on public policy. That is good news for the candidate, yes, but even better news for all of us who, as citizens, rely on good public policy to make things work.

But why, specifically, do utilities dislike voter-owned elections? Utilities dislike it because it wrests ownership away from them, and puts them in a more vulnerable spot when decisions about utility services are made. Cities have the ability to compete with utility companies by offering a variety of services (such as electric, cable, broadband, etc.), often at lower prices than private utilities offer, and sometimes the city even acts as the community’s sole provider of that service. Much less commonly, there is discussion of municipal options such as condemnation or rate-setting, balls that have been tossed around in the past year’s discussions regarding the City of Portland and PGE. The utilities therefore want as much influence, and as many allies in City Hall, as they can buy. The way they usually do this is by contributing money to campaigns.

As a matter of fact, of the approximately $3 million that was spent overall in Portland elections in 2004, over half a million, or about 18%, came in the form of large checks from the same small group of people (individuals, families, and corporations) that spent large amounts of money as part of the First Things First Campaign, trying to repeal voter-owned elections. So these folks are spending money to win back the right to spend more money - on the campaigns that decide who will govern Oregon’s largest city.

Taking away utilities’ ability to pay into the electoral system would undoubtedly reduce their input and influence at City Hall. That would not be a popular outcome at the PBA, but CUB believes that rebalancing the political influence between corporations and individuals is a good idea. In fact, we feel it’s a way of moving closer to the “one person, one voice, one vote” philosophy that underlies a true democracy.

It is quite possible that the repeal campaign’s paid signature-gathering effort will have failed to collect enough valid signatures to make the May ballot; we will know later this week. Should this issue make the ballot, the Vote No Power Grab campaign to defend voter-owned elections in Portland (like the original CUB Campaign in 1984) is destined to be an underdog, outspent by a large margin. We don’t mind those kinds of odds. We’ll put our money on voter-owned elections and hope the majority of Portland voters do the same.

(Full Disclosure: Janice Thompson of the Money in Politics Research Action Group is a member of the CUB Board of Governors, and involved in the Vote No Power Grab campaign.)

To keep up with CUB, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter!

• Share this post on Facebook.
• Share this post on LinkedIn.
• Share this post with email.

« Back