Connect with us

Finance

Portland weighs tweaking public campaign finance program to allow larger donations

Published

on

Portland weighs tweaking public campaign finance program to allow larger donations

Less than five months from a historic election, Portland may tweak campaign finance rules to stretch the city’s cash-strapped public financing program.

On Friday, city candidates were emailed a survey asking whether the city’s Small Donor Elections program should loosen its rules around the amount and type of in-kind donations nonprofits and other political organizations can give candidates.

The proposal, first reported by Willamette Week, has drawn both praise and alarm from those involved in city campaigns.

“We don’t need more money in politics,” said Marie Glickman, a candidate running to represent Portland’s new District 2, which spans North and Northeast Portland. “The ideas being discussed are anti-democratic.”

The small donor program rewards candidates who don’t accept individual donations over $350 by matching those contributions with public funds 9-to-1. The program was created to level the playing field for candidates who may have fewer deep-pocketed supporters than others — potentially hampering their ability to fund a competitive campaign.

Advertisement

This year’s general election has attracted a uniquely large pool of candidates, due to voter-approved changes that scrapped primary elections and set the stage for 14 city elected offices to be open all at once. Nearly 80 candidates have applied to participate in the program so far.

Due to the large number of participants and limited amount of available funding, the Portland Elections Commission in January chose to lower the amount of total funds council candidates can receive from the city through the program to $120,000 from the previous $300,000 cap.

Through the program, candidates are limited to receiving no more than $10,000 worth of in-kind donations from political committees and non-profits. Those organizations must receive at least 90% of their annual funds from contributions of $250 or less per donor, a rule meant to exclude committees fueled by wealthy donors. Those donations are limited to paying staff to canvas or run a phone bank, sharing donor lists, and assisting with general campaign planning.

The Friday survey asked candidates if contributing organizations should be able to spend more than $10,000 on in-kind donations and to broaden the donations included — like allowing organizations to donate space to host campaign events, fundraisers, and print and distribute for campaigns. It also asked whether organizations can still participate in the small donor program if they receive 90% of their funding from contributions of $350 or less — instead of $250.

Jake Weigler, a political consultant with Praxis Political, said this would allow political committees with wealthier donors to contribute.

Advertisement

“If your goal was to reduce the influence of large organizations in the campaign process, this undercuts that by giving them a larger role,” said Weigler, who is working on several City Council campaigns.

Susan Mottet oversees the Small Donor Election program and distributed the survey on behalf of the Portland Elections Commission, which makes recommendations on city election rules. She said these proposed changes could help campaigns stretch limited funds a bit further.

“With no ability to increase campaign matching caps, we have to look at options,” she said. “The Portland Elections Commission is trying to figure out if there is anything they have power to do to get candidates more support without making changes that undercut the intent of the program.”

She knows the spotlight is on her office this election.

“Obviously, the program succeeds or fails based on if a campaign is viable,” Mottet said.

Advertisement

Weigler said the proposed changes to the program reflect this pressure.

“I get the urgency that they don’t don’t want to fumble this, during such a critical election,” he said. “But it creates inherent tension. It makes it much easier for organizations to put their thumb on the scale and elevate a class of candidates they prefer.”

Some political insiders say these changes are vital for upholding the program’s intent.

“The theory of the original program is to limit the amount of money that organizations can give, and to mitigate that shortfall with city funding,” said Laurie Wimmer, the head of NW Oregon Labor Council, who has convened a group of labor leaders to endorse council candidates this year. “But if that money wanes, like it has this year, it’s only fair that something has to give on the other side of the equation to run a credible campaign.”

Wimmer, who led an unsuccessful campaign for state representative in 2020, said that the cost of sending out one piece of campaign mail could cost over $10,000, the current in-kind limit.

Advertisement

Doug Moore, the former head of the Oregon League of Conservation Voters, now leads United for Portland, a political action committee that represents business and industry groups. He called the current small donor program “disingenuous” because it potentially limits candidates from running what he considers successful campaigns.

“Not being able to fully match funds — that’s bad for democracy in general,” Moore said. “I appreciate the effort to try and help candidates be a little more flexible and able to run campaigns.”

He does worry that the more complex the election’s rules are, the more at-risk candidates are for breaking them, especially if the rules change in the middle of campaign season.

“It’s like they’re trying to build the plane as they’re flying it,” Moore said.

Council candidate Glickman said her campaign hasn’t been hampered by the limited public matching caps. She agrees that the timing of the proposed change is a problem.

Advertisement

“We shouldn’t change rules mid-game,” said Glickman, who is one of more than 20 candidates for District 2 who are participating in the small donor program thus far.

She said that allowing wealthier organizations to support low-cost campaigns is an even bigger concern. The fact that these possible tweaks may be needed, she said, is entirely the city’s fault.

“The city of Portland needs to be more consistent in its planning its programs, funding its programs, and implementing its programs in a responsible and transparent way,” Glickman said.

Not all candidates agree. Steph Routh, a candidate in East Portland’s District 1, was one of the first candidates to qualify for the small donor program. She said she’s been impressed with the level of transparency from the city’s elections program. However, she is cautious to fully endorse the proposed funding changes to the small donor program.

“We created a budget early on assuming we would have limited resources, and we’ve made it work,” Routh said. “I think the fundamental question before us is, ‘How do we create pathways to support a grassroots-based campaign to ensure no single actor or donor creates an advantage after election?’”

Advertisement

The Portland Elections Commission will discuss the survey responses at its Wednesday meeting and potentially propose a policy change. Any new administration policy requires four weeks of public feedback before going into effect, but they don’t require a sign-off from the City Council.

That means the earliest any changes could come to the small donor program could be late July, less than four months from election day.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Finance

German finance minister wants to scrap spousal tax splitting

Published

on

German finance minister wants to scrap spousal tax splitting

Last weekend, several thousand people took to the streets in Munich to demonstrate against abortion and assisted suicide. One speaker made an extremely dramatic plea against what he called the “culture of death” that has allegedly taken hold in Germany. One sign of this, the speaker argued, was that the government is planning to abolish a regulation known as “spousal tax splitting.”

Is tax law really relevant to deep philosophical debates on the sanctity of life? It is even a matter of life and death at all? Surely we needn’t go that far? In any case, the intense political uproar surrounding the new debate on whether to abolish spousal tax splitting is notable, even by today’s standards of populist outrage.

An advantage for couples with widely divergent incomes

The row was sparked by Germany’s vice chancellor and finance minister, Lars Klingbeil, of the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), who said he wanted to abolish and replace the joint taxation of spouses’ income, a system that has been in place since 1958.

How exactly does spousal tax splitting work? In Germany, married couples (and since 2013, couples in civil partnerships), can choose to have their income assessed jointly by the tax authorities.

It means that the taxable income for both spouses together is halved – as if both partners had each earned an equal half of the income. Their tax liability is then determined by simply doubling the income tax due on one half.

Advertisement

As people who earn more pay higher taxes in Germany, this system benefits couples where one partner (and often this is still the man) earns significantly more than the other (in practice often the woman).

Lars Klingbeil
Lars Klingbeil thinks spousal splitting is outdated and costs the state too muchImage: Bernd von Jutrczenka/dpa/picture alliance

Costs of up to €25 billion per year

If for example one partner earns €60,000 ($70,512) a year and the other partner earns nothing, the couple will be taxed as if they earned €30,000 each. In this example, the couple would save nearly €5,800 in taxes per year compared to the amount they would owe if both partners filed their taxes separately. According to the Finance Ministry, spousal tax splitting costs the government a total of up to €25 billion annually.

Some critics have long viewed splitting as a tool to keep women out of the labor market, because the more a woman earns, the larger her tax burden becomes. Klingbeil seems to agree, arguing on ARD television in late March that the system was “out of step with the times.” The spousal splitting system reflects “a view of women and families that is completely at odds with my own,” he said.

Chancellor Merz said to be in favor of splitting

On Monday of this week, Klingbeil got some surprising support on this from Johannes Winkel, head of the youth wing of the conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU).

“Given the demographic reality, the government should create incentives to ensure that both partners in a relationship are employed,” Winkel told the Funke Media Group. “In the future, tax relief should primarily be granted to married couples when they are facing hardships related to raising children.”

Advertisement

But the chancellor is a vocal skeptic of the proposal. “I am not convinced by the claim that joint filing for married couples discourages women from working,” Friedrich Merz said at a conference organized by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung newspaper. “Marriage is a relationship based on shared income and mutual support. And in a marriage, income must be treated as a joint income for tax purposes, not separately.”

Berlin under pressure to fix pensions, health care and taxes

To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video

Klingbeil’s alternative plan

At around 74%, the labor force participation rate for women in Germany is one of the highest in Europe, but half of them work part-time.

Klingbeil’s idea is to replace the existing system with a more flexible approach: Both partners would be able to distribute tax-free income among themselves in such a way that it minimizes their tax liability. This would allow the couple to continue enjoying a tax advantage, albeit not to the same extent as before. And whether one partner earns more than the other would become less important.

However, it remains to be seen whether Klingbeil will be able to push through his proposal. Aside from Germany, similar regulations offering tax benefits to couples exist in Poland, Luxembourg, Portugal and France.

Advertisement

This article was originally written in German.

Continue Reading

Finance

Departing inspector general targets Council Office of Financial Analysis

Published

on

Departing inspector general targets Council Office of Financial Analysis

The $537,000-a-year office created in 2014 to advise the City Council on financial issues and avoid a repeat of the parking meter fiasco has failed to deliver on that mission, the city’s chief watchdog said Tuesday.

Days before concluding her four-year term, Inspector General Deborah Witzburg said a shortage of both adequate staff and financial information closely held by the mayor’s office prevents the Council’s Office of Financial Analysis from helping the Council be the the “co-equal branch of government” it aspires to be.

In a budget rebellion not seen since “Council Wars” in the 1980s, a majority of alderpersons led by conservative and moderate Democrats rejected Mayor Brandon Johnson’s corporate head tax and approved an alternative budget, including several revenue-generating items the mayor’s office adamantly opposed.

But Witzburg said the renegades would have been in an even better position to challenge Johnson if only their financial analysis office had been “equipped and positioned to do what it’s supposed to do” — provide the Council with “objective, independent financial analysis.”

“We are entering new territory where the City Council is asserting new, independent authority over the budget process. It can’t do that in a meaningful way without its own access to financial analysis,” Witzburg told the Chicago Sun-Times.

Advertisement

Chicago Inspector General Deborah Witzburg’s latest report focuses on the Chicago City Council’s Office of Financial Analysis.

Jim Vondruska/Jim Vondruska/For the Sun-Times

But the Council’s financial analysis office, she added, “has never been equipped or positioned to do what it needs to do. It needs better and more independent access to data, and it needs enough staff to do its job. It has a small number of employees and comparatively limited access to data.”

Advertisement

The inspector general’s farewell audit examined the period from 2015 through 2023. During that time, the financial analysis office budget authorized “either three or four” full-time employees. It now has a staff of five .

Witzburg is recommending a staffing analysis to identify how many people the financial office really needs — and also recommending that the office “get data directly” from other city departments, “ rather than having it go through the mayor’s office.”

The audit further recommends that the office develop “better procedures to meet their reporting requirements” in a timely manner. As it stands now, reports are delivered “sometimes late, sometimes not at all,” the inspector general said.

“We find that those reports have been both not timely and not complete in terms of what they are required to report on and that those reports therefore have provided limited assistance to the City Council in its responsibility to make decisions about the city’s budget,” she said.

The Council Office of Financial Analysis responded to the audit by saying it hopes to add at least three full-time staffers in the short term and has made “some progress” over the last three years in improving their access to data, but not enough.

Advertisement

The office was created in 2014 to provide Council members with expert advice on fiscal issues.

For nearly two years the reform was stuck in the mud over whether former 46th Ward Ald. Helen Shiller had the independence and policy expertise to lead the office.

Shiller ultimately withdrew her name, but the office was a bust nevertheless. In an attempt to breathe new life into it, sponsors pushed through a series of changes.

Instead of allowing the Budget chair alone to request a financial analysis on a proposal impacting the city budget, any alderperson was allowed to make that request.

The office was further required to produce activity reports quarterly, not just annually.

Advertisement

Now former-Budget Chair Pat Dowell (3rd) then chose Kenneth Williams Sr., a former analyst for the office, as director and gave him the “autonomy” the ordinance demanded.

Two years ago, a bizarre standoff developed in the office.

Budget Committee Chair Jason Ervin (28th) was empowered to dump Williams after Williams refused to leave to make way for a director of Ervin’s own choosing.

The standoff began when Williams said he was summoned to Ervin’s office and told the newly appointed Budget chair was “going in a different direction, and I’m putting you on administrative leave” with pay.

“He took all my credentials and access away. I would love to come to work. I wasn’t allowed to come to work,” Williams said then.

Advertisement

Williams collected a paycheck for doing nothing while serving out the final days remainder of a four-year term.

Ervin’s resolution stated the director “may be removed at any time with or without cause by a two-thirds” vote or 34 alderpersons. He chose Janice Oda-Gray, who remains chief administrator.

Continue Reading

Finance

Reilly Barnes Returns to Little League® as Purchasing/Finance Assistant

Published

on

Reilly Barnes Returns to Little League® as Purchasing/Finance Assistant

Little League® International has announced that Reilly Barnes accepted a new role as Purchasing/Finance Assistant, effective April 6, 2026. Barnes transitions from a temporary Purchasing Assistant to this full-time position to assist in the year-round demands of purchasing for the organization, as well as the region and Little League Baseball and Softball World Series tournaments. 

“We are thrilled to welcome back Reilly to our team as a full-time Purchasing/Finance Assistant. Reilly’s prior experience, time management, and attention to detail make him an invaluable asset to the purchasing team,” said Nancy Grove, Little League Materials Management Director. “We look forward to the positive contributions he will have on our organization.” 

In this role, Barnes will be responsible for processing purchase requisitions, coordinating souvenir products, and tracking order fulfillment. He will also assist with evaluating suppliers, reviewing product quality, and negotiating contracts for effective operations.  

After most recently working as a Logistician Analyst at Precision Air in Charleston, South Carolina, Barnes, a Williamsport native, returns after honing his skills in the fast-paced environment. Prior to his time at Precision Air, Barnes served as a Procurement Specialist at The Medical University of South Carolina, where his expertise and knowledge were instrumental in supporting both education and healthcare needs.  

“I am thrilled to return to Little League in this full-time role,” said Barnes. “Coming back to my hometown and having the opportunity to work for an organization that has played such a special part of my upbringing means a lot. I can’t wait begin this new opportunity.” 

Advertisement

Barnes graduated from the University of Pittsburgh in 2022 with a B.A. in Supply Chain Management, Finance, and Business Analytics.  

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending