Portland voters are weighing a fundamental change in how their city spends money, but a growing controversy over "dark money" is clouding the debate. Measure 26-267, the sole measure on the November ballot, proposes a system of participatory budgeting that would allow residents to directly decide how at least 2% of the city’s general fund—roughly $16 million—is allocated annually. However, as reported by The Oregonian/OregonLive, the push for this democratic expansion is being fueled by over $2 million in contributions, two-thirds of which come from anonymous donors via a nonprofit.
The Million-Dollar Question of Donor Secrecy
The financial engine behind Measure 26-267 is the East County Rising Action Fund, a Rockwood-based 501(c)(4) social welfare nonprofit. Because of its tax status, the group is not required to disclose its donors, a loophole that allows it to channel significant sums into political campaigns without revealing the original source of the funds. In total, the Action Fund has provided about $1.38 million in in-kind contributions, covering everything from signature gathering and polling to a massive social-media advertising blitz.
When pressed on where this money originated, the East County Rising Action Fund pointed to two national progressive funding networks: the Massachusetts-based Movement Voter Project and the California-based Solidaire Network. Both are nonprofit intermediaries that pool donations from various sources before redistributing them to local grassroots efforts. Neither organization has disclosed the identities of the individuals or entities providing the capital.
This pattern of out-of-state funding in Oregon election reforms is not new. During the 2022 charter overhaul, more than a third of the $875,000 raised came from three organizations funded by wealthy non-residents. Even more starkly, the failed 2024 campaign for ranked-choice voting raised over $9 million, nearly all of which flowed from out-of-state nonprofits.
Direct Democracy Versus Budgetary Stability
The stakes for the average Portlander are high.
“The message we hear over and over is simple. People want a real say in how their city invests in our neighborhoods,” said Leanna Petrone, co-director of the East County Rising Action Fund.
Opponents, including Portland Mayor Keith Wilson and several public safety labor unions, worry that allowing a popular vote on spending could strip essential services of their funding. The concern is that “participatory” spending might prioritize flashy, short-term projects over the unglamorous but critical needs of emergency services and public safety.
The Clash of Funding Models
The battle over Measure 26-267 highlights a massive disparity in how the two sides are funded and how they view transparency. The opposition campaign, led by Mayor Wilson and lobbyist Laurie Wimmer, has focused its final-hour attacks on the lack of disclosure from the “yes” camp.
| Campaign Side | Total Raised (Approx.) | Primary Funding Source | Transparency Level |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pro-Measure 26-267 | $2,000,000+ | East County Rising Action Fund (Nonprofit) | Low (Anonymous/Dark Money) |
| Opposition | $88,000 | Individual Donors & Labor Unions | High (Disclosed Cash) |
The opposition’s funding is modest by comparison, coming largely from cash donations. Notable contributors include auto dealership magnate Jeff Swickard and Columbia Sportswear chairman and CEO Tim Boyle, who each gave $10,000. To the opposition, this contrast is the real story. Laurie Wimmer argued that when the public cannot see who is paying for a campaign, they cannot know what those donors expect to get in return.
Public Safety Agencies Warn of Diverted Emergency Funds
The potential losers are the city’s operational managers and public safety agencies. District Attorney Nathan Vasquez and various public safety unions have already warned that this could divert critical dollars away from emergency response.
Jim Labbe, founder and director of Participatory Budgeting Oregon, maintains that the high cost of the campaign is simply the price of admission to reach 250,000 voters in a high-stakes midterm election. He argues that the goal—opening the process to the people—outweighs the criticisms of the funding mechanism.
Portland is now deciding whether it trusts a process funded by invisible hands to give the visible hand of the voter more power.
