Follow the money on Portland’s participatory budgeting push

Transparency needed for $16 million-a-year mandate backed by unknown donors

The latest reporting from The Oregonian/OregonLive raises serious questions about the transparency and accountability of the campaign behind Portland’s proposed “participatory budgeting” initiative. And about the initiative itself.

Much of the money supporting this measure appears to be flowing through nonprofit organizations that do not have to disclose their donors. One political action committee backing the initiative initially reported receiving $270,000 from an organization that, on paper, appeared to have only about $7,000 available to spend. Following inquiries from The Oregonian, the campaign amended its filings, blaming a campaign finance software “autofill” error and saying the money actually came from a related nonprofit action fund. Campaign representatives have still declined to name the original sources of the funding.

If the sponsors and funders of this initiative are unwilling to disclose who is financing their campaign, Portland voters should ask why.

A cut to city services

Supporters describe this proposal as a way to increase community involvement in budgeting. But beneath the appealing rhetoric lies a simple reality: The proposed charter amendment would require the city to dedicate at least 2% of the previous year’s general fund discretionary spending to this program for projects selected through a “participatory budgeting” process.

Based on current budget levels, that amounts to roughly $16 million every year. The spending decisions would be binding on the city. Yet Portland is already facing an estimated $160 million budget shortfall. There is no pile of extra money sitting around waiting to be allocated. That math has only one answer: cuts.

The obvious question is one supporters have consistently avoided answering: What gets cut? Parks? Arts programs? Housing initiatives? Homeless services? Police? Fire and emergency response? They won’t say, because saying it out loud would sink the campaign.

Voters deserve specific answers before being asked to approve a permanent spending mandate.

“The community decides” is misleading

The campaign’s central promise is simple and appealing: let the community decide how public money is spent.

Backers claim the public will determine how the money gets spent. But not everyone will receive a ballot, and you can be certain that the organizations standing to benefit from this giveaway, including some backing the initiative itself, will mobilize their members to participate in the voting.

Experience elsewhere suggests that only a small fraction of eligible participants decide how millions of taxpayer dollars are spent. Seattle’s participatory budgeting experience is a cautionary example. Seattle had only about 4,200 people participate in “voting” on participatory budgeting projects in 2023 out of nearly 500,000 registered voters. That means less than 1% of eligible voters helped determine how millions of public dollars would be spent.

In other words, the other 99%—including the broader taxpayer base which will ultimately fund these expenditures—would have little say in the process, while a small, organized group directs the spending.

Who is funding this?

Portlanders have grown weary of programs that promise transformational results but operate with insufficient accountability.

Now voters are being asked to approve a permanent annual spending requirement backed by organizations that have declined to fully disclose their identities.

Transparency should not be optional.

Before creating a permanent $16 million spending mandate, voters deserve to know:

• Who is funding this campaign?

• What existing city services would be reduced to accommodate this new spending requirement?

• How will the city ensure that a small number of organized interests do not dominate the process?

These are basic questions of good governance.

Portlanders should approach any proposal that permanently redirects millions of taxpayer dollars with healthy skepticism, especially when those promoting it are unwilling to fully show their faces.

Before signing a petition or casting a ballot, voters should demand answers.

Follow the money. If campaign sponsors are unwilling to tell Portlanders where their funding comes from, voters should ask themselves: What else aren’t they telling us?

Northwest Portland resident Bob Weinstein is a former special education teacher, school superintendent and U.S. Senate staffer who served for 18 years as both a council member and mayor in Ketchikan, Alaska.