Yes. Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste. Its executive director, Reyna Lopez, is also Co-Chair of the Oregon Working Families Party. Both roles are public, and the dollar figure on the chart comes from ORESTAR filings.
This must be why they want to name 39th Ave Compasinos, which means “farm worker” or “peasant.” It’s ridiculous. I was wondering why they chose this word specifically, considering it’s irrelevant to Portland and a stereotype, and now I know why.
You read the Edwards story right, and you're the first to say so. On distribution: the series runs weekly in the NW Examiner and the pieces are free to share; forwarding them is the distribution. On confronting candidates: I'd rather the documents do that work. Everything in these articles is sourced to what the organization itself published. A reader who shares the record is more effective than a reader who argues it.
Wow! Thank you. I once asked Koyama-Lane how she was getting all her donations, and she told me something about years of teaching, and the families of students. I didn’t buy it then, and still don’t, especially after reading this post. It was interesting to see the varied amounts each candidate received from the WFP/DSA, with Mitch Green and Tiffany Koyama-Lane receiving the top dollars. Wonderful investigative reporting.
Thank you. One caution, on my own piece: I would not read it as evidence of hidden donations. The opposite. Every dollar to those campaigns is filed and traceable, including the public matching funds, and I found no secret in any of it. That is the point. Our disclosure rules work. They catch hidden money. Nobody ever built a rule to catch a hidden promise.
Thank you for the reply, Robert. I think I get what's going on, but it will seem like insider baseball to most voters, who are only just now becoming aware that there is an election this November. If I'm understanding you correctly, the WFP money, through declared in-kind donations of phone bankers/texters and software, is the seed money for Portland's Small Donor Election's 10-1 match. That publicly funded match then snowballs into more WFP in-kind donations of fundraising structure and personnel until you end up with the out-sized numbers of under-$25 donations that Koyama Lane and Green are able to, as you point out, legally raise.
I have a few thoughts: 1) 10-1 is too big a match, 2) you can't judge a candidate's community support by the size of their war chest, 3) I wish the Oregonian or Willamette Week would investigate how the candidates are raising money. Olivia Clark, Eric Zimmerman and Steve Novick, among others, are doing it the old fashioned way, by pressing the flesh and soliciting donations from their lists. City rules do allow for using paid fundraisers, and challengers with full-time jobs may need to go that route to be competitive against incumbants. But the public should be award of it, and the whole WFP/DSA/Brooklyn connection you outline, and the DSA pledges to vote as a caucus, stink.
Thank you, Lisa. You're closer than most of the coverage, so let me tighten the mechanism, because I only print what I can prove. The match is 9-to-1 on the first $20 of an individual Portlander's donation, not 10-1, and in-kind support is not matchable: phone banks and software can't be multiplied by the city, only a person's dollars can. So the machinery is not seed money for the match in any direct sense.
What the record shows is three things side by side, each filed: the party's in-kind support on all seven winning campaigns' disclosures; over a million public dollars in matching funds to those same campaigns; and the chapter's own donation links, which route a supporter's contribution so it arrives, correctly, as an individual small donation, the kind the city multiplies nine times. How much of the matched money came through that channel is a question I have not measured, so it is a claim I do not make.
That is the discipline of this series. What I can count, I print. What I can't, I leave to the reporters you mention, and I would welcome them to it: every record I used is public and free.
On your first point, I'd only note the program worked exactly as designed. The design catches hidden money. It was never asked to catch anything else. And on insider baseball you are right, which is why the next piece is written in plain language for the voter who just learned there's an election: what a seat mathematically costs in this system, and how any group of neighbors, not just one, can pay it.
"Thirteen Portland City Council candidates have qualified to receive public matching funds through the City’s Small Donor Elections program. Eligible contributions of up to $25 are matched 10-to-1 through Oct. 23. More than 25 candidates are running for seven seats on the November ballot."
You are right, Lisa, and thank you for the citation. Both numbers are true. They belong to different elections.
The piece you are commenting on counts the 2024 cycle, when the seven won their seats. That cycle's rule was a 9-to-1 match on the first $20, and the public money I reported was paid out under that rule. For the current 2026 cycle the city raised the match to 10-to-1 on contributions up to $25, per the release you linked. The Elections Commission revisits the parameters after each election, and this is one of its updates. I was writing about 2024 and you were reading about 2026, and I should have marked the seam myself.
It matters for the next piece. The seat-cost arithmetic I promised will be computed under the current rule, where a $25 contribution arrives in a campaign account as $275. The multiplier is larger now than the one I counted.
This is exactly what I ask of readers. Every number I print should survive a citation check, and when it needs a date attached, you are right to attach it.
Excellent reporting Robert. I see the discussion between you and Lisa about the dollars yet the dollars seem less significant than the “contract” (I think you might have called them marks) between National DSA, the Working Family Party and especially Portland DSA which is not a registered political party. Your reporting flushes out how they ‘bend the seams’ of ethical behavior and exposes how they can legally caucus for Portland DSA before the will of the voters.
I think the way forward politically is to pick candidates who have positions that support public safety, increasing the number of police, prosecuting those who break public law even those with mental health issues, an improved mental health response, and an appropriate societal response to a public emergency in Portland. We should support candidates that openly state that it is the responsibility of mentally ill citizens to get a recovery plan, and not the obligation of the state to recover them. We can help them fix their problems by stopping enabling behaviors and push back against needle distribution, drug paraphernalia distribution, which is one of the worse public health measures in the past 50 years. Mandatory six weeks abstinence for near death overdoses requiring Narcan would be a good place to start. Placing them someplace where they can't get their hands on drugs is a good thing to consider as a first step. Significant reform of civil commitment and hospital care in psych wards in community hospitals for a maximum of six weeks, with a 12-hour hearing after ER admission, and a substituted consent process administered by the judge is a good way forward. The political approach to encourage candidates who are able to adopt clear strategies to improve public safety, civility, and beauty and who aren't afraid to denounce those who wish to sow discord and chaos in the public arena. Taking on one's political rivals means confronting the opposition, but is best argued by those who are candidates, not organizations which can have counterproductive effects.
Thank you, Dr. Dodson. Most of what you propose is policy, and I hold no brief on policy in this series. What people should be committed to, prescribed, or promised is an argument for candidates and voters, and I would not presume to referee it here.
But your last sentence is in my lane, so let me answer it with the record. The premise that individual candidates, arguing well, can carry the day on their own is the thing 2024 tested. Candidates with strong resumes and clear positions ran as individuals. A slate ran as a slate, with shared machinery, shared endorsement terms, and instructed rankings, and seven of its candidates now sit in office. In a ranked-choice multimember district, one good candidate can earn one quota. Organized rankings climb the ladder; unaccompanied ballots fall off it. That is not an opinion about anyone's platform. It is arithmetic, and the next piece will show it in plain terms.
So on organizations having effects, we agree. The question the record leaves open is not whether neighbors should organize. It is whether only one group of them will.
Thank you for this. It tells an infuriating story that I wish could get much wider distribution.
Ditto, Eileen. Bob, is does the PCUN donation on the chart come from Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste?
Yes. Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste. Its executive director, Reyna Lopez, is also Co-Chair of the Oregon Working Families Party. Both roles are public, and the dollar figure on the chart comes from ORESTAR filings.
Great article, but perhaps something more concise would be easier to understand.
This must be why they want to name 39th Ave Compasinos, which means “farm worker” or “peasant.” It’s ridiculous. I was wondering why they chose this word specifically, considering it’s irrelevant to Portland and a stereotype, and now I know why.
Robert Miller, I am almost speechless. I recognized Eddie DeBartolo in your tale and smiled because I am a 49rs fan,
Thank you for the identifying this assault on our electorate.
Thank you for identifying the participants.
Please consider, if you will, how you / we might get The Oregonian to publish your essays.
Perhaps we might consider confronting these candidates with specific inquiry.
I am a political novice such that attempting to present this reveal one-on-one seems to be Sysiphean challenge.
You read the Edwards story right, and you're the first to say so. On distribution: the series runs weekly in the NW Examiner and the pieces are free to share; forwarding them is the distribution. On confronting candidates: I'd rather the documents do that work. Everything in these articles is sourced to what the organization itself published. A reader who shares the record is more effective than a reader who argues it.
Sad to see all these Reds Under the Bed posts at the NWE.
Wow! Thank you. I once asked Koyama-Lane how she was getting all her donations, and she told me something about years of teaching, and the families of students. I didn’t buy it then, and still don’t, especially after reading this post. It was interesting to see the varied amounts each candidate received from the WFP/DSA, with Mitch Green and Tiffany Koyama-Lane receiving the top dollars. Wonderful investigative reporting.
Thank you. One caution, on my own piece: I would not read it as evidence of hidden donations. The opposite. Every dollar to those campaigns is filed and traceable, including the public matching funds, and I found no secret in any of it. That is the point. Our disclosure rules work. They catch hidden money. Nobody ever built a rule to catch a hidden promise.
Thank you for the reply, Robert. I think I get what's going on, but it will seem like insider baseball to most voters, who are only just now becoming aware that there is an election this November. If I'm understanding you correctly, the WFP money, through declared in-kind donations of phone bankers/texters and software, is the seed money for Portland's Small Donor Election's 10-1 match. That publicly funded match then snowballs into more WFP in-kind donations of fundraising structure and personnel until you end up with the out-sized numbers of under-$25 donations that Koyama Lane and Green are able to, as you point out, legally raise.
I have a few thoughts: 1) 10-1 is too big a match, 2) you can't judge a candidate's community support by the size of their war chest, 3) I wish the Oregonian or Willamette Week would investigate how the candidates are raising money. Olivia Clark, Eric Zimmerman and Steve Novick, among others, are doing it the old fashioned way, by pressing the flesh and soliciting donations from their lists. City rules do allow for using paid fundraisers, and challengers with full-time jobs may need to go that route to be competitive against incumbants. But the public should be award of it, and the whole WFP/DSA/Brooklyn connection you outline, and the DSA pledges to vote as a caucus, stink.
Thank you, Lisa. You're closer than most of the coverage, so let me tighten the mechanism, because I only print what I can prove. The match is 9-to-1 on the first $20 of an individual Portlander's donation, not 10-1, and in-kind support is not matchable: phone banks and software can't be multiplied by the city, only a person's dollars can. So the machinery is not seed money for the match in any direct sense.
What the record shows is three things side by side, each filed: the party's in-kind support on all seven winning campaigns' disclosures; over a million public dollars in matching funds to those same campaigns; and the chapter's own donation links, which route a supporter's contribution so it arrives, correctly, as an individual small donation, the kind the city multiplies nine times. How much of the matched money came through that channel is a question I have not measured, so it is a claim I do not make.
That is the discipline of this series. What I can count, I print. What I can't, I leave to the reporters you mention, and I would welcome them to it: every record I used is public and free.
On your first point, I'd only note the program worked exactly as designed. The design catches hidden money. It was never asked to catch anything else. And on insider baseball you are right, which is why the next piece is written in plain language for the voter who just learned there's an election: what a seat mathematically costs in this system, and how any group of neighbors, not just one, can pay it.
Robert, according to a news release from the city published last week, it's 10-1 for donations up to $25.
(https://www.portland.gov/smalldonorelections/news/2026/8/18/small-donor-elections-program-certifies-13-candidates-public):
"Thirteen Portland City Council candidates have qualified to receive public matching funds through the City’s Small Donor Elections program. Eligible contributions of up to $25 are matched 10-to-1 through Oct. 23. More than 25 candidates are running for seven seats on the November ballot."
You are right, Lisa, and thank you for the citation. Both numbers are true. They belong to different elections.
The piece you are commenting on counts the 2024 cycle, when the seven won their seats. That cycle's rule was a 9-to-1 match on the first $20, and the public money I reported was paid out under that rule. For the current 2026 cycle the city raised the match to 10-to-1 on contributions up to $25, per the release you linked. The Elections Commission revisits the parameters after each election, and this is one of its updates. I was writing about 2024 and you were reading about 2026, and I should have marked the seam myself.
It matters for the next piece. The seat-cost arithmetic I promised will be computed under the current rule, where a $25 contribution arrives in a campaign account as $275. The multiplier is larger now than the one I counted.
This is exactly what I ask of readers. Every number I print should survive a citation check, and when it needs a date attached, you are right to attach it.
Excellent reporting Robert. I see the discussion between you and Lisa about the dollars yet the dollars seem less significant than the “contract” (I think you might have called them marks) between National DSA, the Working Family Party and especially Portland DSA which is not a registered political party. Your reporting flushes out how they ‘bend the seams’ of ethical behavior and exposes how they can legally caucus for Portland DSA before the will of the voters.
I think the way forward politically is to pick candidates who have positions that support public safety, increasing the number of police, prosecuting those who break public law even those with mental health issues, an improved mental health response, and an appropriate societal response to a public emergency in Portland. We should support candidates that openly state that it is the responsibility of mentally ill citizens to get a recovery plan, and not the obligation of the state to recover them. We can help them fix their problems by stopping enabling behaviors and push back against needle distribution, drug paraphernalia distribution, which is one of the worse public health measures in the past 50 years. Mandatory six weeks abstinence for near death overdoses requiring Narcan would be a good place to start. Placing them someplace where they can't get their hands on drugs is a good thing to consider as a first step. Significant reform of civil commitment and hospital care in psych wards in community hospitals for a maximum of six weeks, with a 12-hour hearing after ER admission, and a substituted consent process administered by the judge is a good way forward. The political approach to encourage candidates who are able to adopt clear strategies to improve public safety, civility, and beauty and who aren't afraid to denounce those who wish to sow discord and chaos in the public arena. Taking on one's political rivals means confronting the opposition, but is best argued by those who are candidates, not organizations which can have counterproductive effects.
Thank you, Dr. Dodson. Most of what you propose is policy, and I hold no brief on policy in this series. What people should be committed to, prescribed, or promised is an argument for candidates and voters, and I would not presume to referee it here.
But your last sentence is in my lane, so let me answer it with the record. The premise that individual candidates, arguing well, can carry the day on their own is the thing 2024 tested. Candidates with strong resumes and clear positions ran as individuals. A slate ran as a slate, with shared machinery, shared endorsement terms, and instructed rankings, and seven of its candidates now sit in office. In a ranked-choice multimember district, one good candidate can earn one quota. Organized rankings climb the ladder; unaccompanied ballots fall off it. That is not an opinion about anyone's platform. It is arithmetic, and the next piece will show it in plain terms.
So on organizations having effects, we agree. The question the record leaves open is not whether neighbors should organize. It is whether only one group of them will.
Thanks for your detailed reply. I look forward to following your work.
Also, the organization to lead what you are proposing might be Go Portland Go. I believe they need a strong voice such as yours.