At the East Portland Community Center in June, Portlanders from across the city gathered in an air-conditioned gymnasium, having battled rush-hour traffic to get there at 6 p.m. They came to weigh in on the proposed boundaries for Portland’s redistricting. They were there because they saw the three maps — Alder, Cedar and Maple — and didn’t especially like them, as they didn’t find them accurately representative of their own respective neighborhoods.
It’s just one process playing out after this past election, when Portlanders voted to reform the city’s charter, increasing the number of city commissioners from five to 12, with three from each of Portland’s four regional districts, laid out in maps designed by the Independent Districting Commission, or IDC.
The influence of money over local elections in the city’s new form of government, much like the new districts, is a source of debate. Advocates believe wealthy donors having more elected positions to attempt to influence and a finite pool of resources will lessen the power of money in local politics. Others, however, are skeptical of the reformed charter producing that result.
A lot of answers will come into sharper focus next year.
In the unprecedented 2024 election, all of the Portland City Council seats will be up for election, as well as that of the mayor. Additionally, there will be 12 commissioner seats instead of five, and no primary election.
The IDC, which gave final approval on the Alder map Aug. 21, hosted forums for Portlanders to voice concerns about the splitting and grouping of neighborhoods proposed by the commission. Susan Lindsay, a Portland State University English professor who made a point of attending IDC forums, avidly rejected the Cedar and Maple maps, insisting they diminished renters’ power and bolstered the political monopoly of the west side.
She hoped to attend all nine of the IDC’s public hearings as the IDC changed the maps based on the feedback it received. Although she disagreed with two of the IDC's maps, she thinks the redistricting process has the power to increase accurate representation in Portland.
“I want to try to empower people who haven’t had much of a voice,” she said.
In this case, the “people who haven’t had much of a voice” are Portlanders who may have their communities divided or consolidated without having made their opinions properly heard.
Similar to the heart of the IDC’s work, the entire government transition carries implications for how much sway the average Portlander has in their city government. Two other central questions in that equation are how much influence campaign donors can buy, as well as the way power is apportioned in the city after elections play out.
The Small Donor Elections Program buttresses election contributions with matched donations from the city, theoretically offsetting the influence of wealthy constituents. Portland City Council created the program in 2016 to “reduce the influence of money in politics and encourage election of people to city office who are more reflective of and accountable to all Portlanders.”
Typically, individual donors can contribute a maximum of $250 to their preferred candidate in each election, and if the candidate accrues enough support, which is evidenced by a minimum of $5–$350 from at least 250 donors for council candidacy, the donations from individuals will be matched by the city. Previously, the city matched funds capped at $300,000 per candidate in primary elections and $450,000 in general elections.
In light of an expanded number of City Council seats, the Small Donor Elections program recommended the individual contribution and city matching caps be raised, meaning the city will now match up to $750,000 per candidate, a change taking effect in the 2024 election.
This consolidation of campaign funds, coupled with the influx of candidates, begs the question of whether candidates will be more or less susceptible to monetary influence from donors. Susan Mottet, Small Donor Elections Program director, said no one can be sure, as the government style dictated by the charter reform is novel, with very few comparable cities.
“Some experts in political fundraising are saying that there is a limited pool of donors and therefore the amount of money raised will be limited by this factor,” she said, adding she thinks that’s partially true.
However, she says there is also a distinct possibility the charter reform’s increase in City Council members will offer the opportunity for political participation to a wider array of Portlanders, as it will be more difficult for a compact group of wealthy voters to restrict access to and influence of public officials.
“Part of the goal of district-based elections … and programs like Small Donor Elections, is to increase and broaden engagement,” Mottet said. “Before (the charter reform), a small number of affluent zip codes concentrated on the West side and inner-East side provided most of the funding to campaigns. Small Donor Elections has already broadened campaign fundraising more equally across the city.”
The other possibility, she said, is the charter reform will provide an opportunity for more geographically, and thus socioeconomically, varied voters to donate to candidates without being entirely washed out by larger powerbrokers.
She believes the charter reform will have results somewhere in between the two possible outcomes, but said concrete data and conclusions cannot be drawn until after multiple election cycles.
Candace Avalos, a former charter commissioner and prolific Portland-based community advocate, is certain the second possibility will play out, in which a wider pool of smaller donors will attain more influence in city government with the charter reform.
Avalos said with the implementation of the new government style, it will be the average Portlander who has power at the ballot box, not the wealthy inner-East and West side donors who have held disproportionate influence in Portland politics. Government work has served the wealthiest parts of Portland, whose needs, like infrastructure construction and road repair, have been prioritized over less wealthy areas of Portland, according to Avalos, something the reformed system of city governance will ideally address.
“(Charter reform) will open opportunities to folks to fundraise in a way that can elevate the small dollar voice and limit the influence (of) big donor voices,” Avalos said.
The combination of ranked-choice voting and geographically linked representation, she said, will lead to proportional representation, which she believes is the goal of voters.
Avalos argues the new structure will allow for communities that cannot get 50% of the vote, such as communities of color, renters, seniors and conservatives, to be able to effectively participate in government.
However, one thing Avalos is concerned about is the presence of independent expenditures within Portland’s campaign finances.
Independent expenditures are a type of campaign funding from individuals, small donor committees and political action committees, or PACs, with a different set of rules.
Independent expenditures act as a loophole in the Small Donor Elections program’s contribution limit, as donors are not directly giving money to candidates but rather providing advertising, literature and other campaign costs. Individuals can provide up to $5,000, PACs can provide up to $10,000 and small donor committees have no limits when it comes to this type of contribution. PACs and small donor committees are still subject to the typical Small Donor Elections limits for the contributions they accept, though the aggregated funding these groups possess ultimately create a powerful campaign funding tool by chipping away at campaign overhead.
Independent expenditures offer wealthy contributors a way to influence politicians and bypass city caps on campaign contributions. These contributions can continue under the reformed charter.
However, even with the increased number of candidates, Mottet hypothesizes that the pool of donor money will remain static, and when spread out over a larger number of candidates, will have less impact.
In addition to donors potentially having less ability to influence the overall makeup of City Hall, once elected, the city’s elected leaders will have less individual power. More commissioners means dilution of voting power and bureaus will now operate under a city manager answering to all of City Council rather than under a single commissioner largely able to run that bureau how they see fit.
However, not all of those positions will have less power simply because there are more positions. One position was redesigned specifically to have less influence over the day-to-day legislative operations of City Council — the mayor.
Part of the reorganization of the government structure outlined in the charter reform is a major shift in the authority held by the mayor. In the current city government, the mayor retains a vote in the City Council as well as other executive powers, including assigning bureaus to commissioners and themself. In the reformed charter, the mayor only votes as a tiebreaker and oversees bureaus alongside a newly mayor-appointed city manager, while local lawmakers will spend most of their time developing laws and policies.
Under the reformed charter, the mayor will still hold various responsibilities, like having executive oversight over city business, but will have less power to enact their own agenda or, alternatively, stifle an agenda with popular support. Ultimately, the reformed charter makes influencing the mayor less impactful on City Council proceedings than it has been historically.
The charter reform has not gone without its fair share of opposition from the existing halls of power. The most recent, albeit short-lived, attempt to subvert charter reform happened in July. Portland City Commissioners Rene Gonzalez and Dan Ryan led a plan to alter the voter-approved changes to the city government laid out in the charter reform. Gonzalez and Ryan wanted voters to reconsider three changes passed last November, including whether the mayor has veto power over policies passed by City Council, what type of ranked-choice voting to implement and how many members City Council will have.
The attempt was met with anger from supporters of the reform, who insisted city politicians should not interfere with a voter-approved transition.
Gonzalez and Ryan subsequently backed off from the proposed changes after receiving pushback from constituents, as well as other city officials like Mayor Ted Wheeler, who emphasized honoring the will of voters in a meeting July 18. Ryan also distanced himself from the proposal, saying Gonzalez went public with it before Ryan signed off on it.
The consequences of the reformed charter and its effects on donor influence and power are nonetheless unpredictable, as the city of Portland is undertaking a novel form of government. Advocates remain optimistic the changes will produce a more representative City Council.
“We all win when everyone has a voice,” Avalos said.•
Candace Avalos is a member of Street Roots' volunteer board of directors. Street Roots board members are not paid, do not make editorial decisions and Avalos received no compensation for interviewing for this article.
Street Roots is an award-winning weekly investigative publication covering economic, environmental and social inequity. The newspaper is sold in Portland, Oregon, by people experiencing homelessness and/or extreme poverty as means of earning an income with dignity. Street Roots newspaper operates independently of Street Roots advocacy and is a part of the Street Roots organization. Learn more about Street Roots. Support your community newspaper by making a one-time or recurring gift today.
© 2023 Street Roots. All rights reserved. | To request permission to reuse content, email editor@streetroots.org or call 503-228-5657, ext. 404