It's no secret: I like Jim Middaugh. I like his work in Erik Sten's office, I appreciate his positions, and I would strongly consider voting for him if the election were today. But he's currently running as a publicly-financed candidate to replace City Commissioner Erik Sten, and the amount of money he's set to receive is proving to be a sticky subject.

When Sten announced his resignation and triggered a special election, the Portland City Council approved rules to grant qualifying voter-owned elections candidates the same as candidate in a regular runoff election: $200,000. Here's the problem: some people are starting to think that $200,000 is too much for a truncated campaign, and it gives an unfair advantage to Middaugh over his principal opponent, lawyer Nick Fish, who is going the conventional-fund route. In turn, the City Council will decide today whether to scale back the funds to the $60,000 to $70,000 range.

The whole thing is becoming a strange, conspiracy-laden mess. Over at Blue Oregon, Dan Petegorsky wonders whether the Council is politically-motived in considering a reduction to Middaugh's money. He asserts that Randy Leonard and Tom Potter are "playing politics" in attempting to reduce Middaugh's money (to the benefit of Fish). Petegorsky further believes that the Council's initial decision to treat this special election like a runoff was "smart" and calls Leonard and Potter's belief that candidates like Fish are at a disadvantage to VOE candidates under the current rules "twisted logic."

Similarly expressing dismay over the proposed changes were Leslie Hildula, chair of the Citizens' Campaign Commission (CCC) and the League of Women Voters of Portland. Both of the groups have issued statements, which can be read at Blogtown, PDX.

In opposition, other political activists have claimed that the system is unfair to privately-financed candidate like Fish, and that this whole process reeks. Namely, the comments to Petegorsky's Blue Oregon post raise questions as to whether the system was gamed for Middaugh's benefit while also wondering if $200,000 for such a short race is against the VOE spirit.

All-in-all, it's a sad mess for a great candidate.

So, how do we come up with a solution? I agree that $200,000 for a truncated race is too much, as the amount was initially figured to be for a May-November race (not February-June). But I also agree that changing the rules mid-game is a dubious prospect at-best and presents a whole host of problems and timing issues. The answer? Perhaps we need to create a special-election rubric, under which there are actual rules that govern financing in a special election. That way, amounts could be set based on length-of-race and office sought.

And what about Jim Middaugh? Let's hope he can stay above-the-fray in this discussion.

And the elephant in the room? Folks are complaining that this, along with the Sho Dozono mess and Emily Boyles, is another example of how VOE either needs to be retooled, scrapped, or referred to the voters. As a supporter of VOE, I would loathe to see it brought down. Fixed, perhaps, but not destroyed. I really feel it can be of tremendous benefit. Like everything else in this developing saga, we'll just have to wait and see.

Update: Amy Ruiz over at Blogtown has an excellent rundown of the events unfolding at today's City Council meeting. As I post this, no decision has been reached, although Erik Sten and Randy Leonard are really going at each other.

Update 2: The Council voted unanimously to scrap the $200,000 measure and send it all to the Citizens' Campaign Commission for further discussion. Where it goes from here is TBD.