See BlueOregon -- Strong words from Dave Lister.

Any way . . . my musing . . .

So someone thinks getting 1,000 signatures is not very hard.

How about making it a requirement to have one's name placed on the ballot? No exception for folks that have wealth or wealthy friends and probably don't have time to spare. No use of circulators allowed. An apparent goal of requiring the signatures is to force the candidate to actually meet face to face with potential electors (not merely to mail out glossy adds to solicit signatures).

Perhaps I might have much more fun getting a 1,000 signatures, not to get money, but just to obtain standing to object in court to the exception for others. I could argue that delivery or non delivery of public money is not sufficiently narrowly drafted to justify the exception from the signature requirement. Could the city council pass an ordinance that allows me to get 1,000 signatures to then get 150 grand to advocate Green stuff or Sustainability stuff? Or, to advocate Any stuff in a content neutral fashion? Surely my advocacy, within the context of the VOE scheme, could (to be content neutral) include opposing the exception to the signature requirement for some just as much as it would be to assert my support for the personal receipt of public dollars.

While I'm at it, just for fun, I could object to the two tracks for review of spending of receipts. If any spending choice, like paying a relative or long time political strategist or favorite news outlet, is OK for voluntary private donations then it must be OK to for voluntarily delivered donations that were first aggregated by the city.

Then there is the real kicker -- the feature of the VOE that requires that the account be zeroed out at the close of the campaign. I'd like to use that to insist that all campaign funds be similarly zeroed out, on the same terms. And also insist that any private loan to any campaign be settled before the close of the campaign, and if not returned as unspent declared as a contribution.

If you all are in a mood to engage in rhetorical exercises I'm game.

I could offer a throwaway argument that I could, without even getting any of the VOE signatures, agree to not be the top spender for a campaign but still sign on the dotted line to subject myself to the more rigorous rules pertaining to the expenditure of VOE public funds, but on behalf of any private donors. A demand for return for failure to follow the rules would be a demand for return to the private donor rather than to the city fund. No extra signatures would even be involved, only the content-specific notion of heightened review standards. I can voluntarily offer to do this and avoid the negativity of actually receiving public funds. It would be private and clean because I would not be the top spender, not because I received public dollars. Would the city refuse to provide such review on behalf of private donors who might donate to me only upon condition that the city provide the heightened review and the prospect of the use of the power of government (by way of my signed consent) to order the return of all the money in the event of a violation. Must I get the signatures to convince the city to provide such review of my spending of private donations?

I need the exercise anyway, that's for sure. The signatures would just be the excuse. I can alternate between jovial chatterbox and supportive listener . . . when I am satisfied with the content of my message. I'd feel all clammy and guilt-ridden if I were trying to get signatures that are worth 145 a pop . . . something akin to a violation of the Constitutional prohibition on pay per signature I'd think, for which I do not think the city is exempted. The wiggly question here would be whether it is income versus spending on my behalf or just on behalf of my speech (where the IRS' negative attitude toward generation skipping gifts might be instructive). The word fungible or liquid might be quite applicable. Campaign strategists have to contended with income tax rules on their receipt (via their LLC's) of redirected campaign gifts . . . as a sort of commission scheme for fund raising (as a real party in interest).

UPDATE: Amanda Fritz expresses outrage with: "This system was not designed for you"

Unfortunately, she is using a subjective prism of combined gender/race bias as a rationale to explain the ills of the electoral system and that the cure is to deliver public dollars to candidates to get their message out -- whatever that message might be.