It didn’t make any local media reports. But last Friday, a deal was struck in the state legislature that could fundamentally change how elections are held in Seattle.
The deal concerned two identical bills with different numbers that had been overwhelmingly passed by the Senate (29-20) and the House (56-38). Because the bills had different numbers, one had to be passed by the other chamber, by this week, in order to be forwarded to the governor’s desk for her signature. And the Senate version, championed by the venerable Sen. Rosa Franklin, won out. (It’s amazing how much of Olympia’s legislative process comes down to personalities. It’s like middle school on steroids.) Gov. Gregoire is expected to sign it into law.
Oh, the bill? It would allow local jurisdictions (cities or counties) to hold referenda on public financing of elections. And Seattle is at or near the top of the list of Washington cities likely to put such a measure on the ballot in November 2008.
Seattle already had public financing of elections once, in the late ’70s and 1980s, before Linda Smith’s statewide initiative (I-134) killed all such laws in 1991. More recently, eight of the nine Seattle City Council members – the folks who’d have to decide to put any such measure on the ballot – wrote Olympia in support of the bill about to be passed. (The sole exception was new city council member Bruce Harrell, recently elected thanks to his wealthy lawyer and developer friends and to opponent Venus Velazquez’s poor driving judgment.)
The path, then, to a November 2008 Seattle ballot measure is fairly clear: a bill already approved by a supermajority in the House, a governor likely to sign it into law, a city council overwhelmingly supportive. And local activists are already working on what that public financing model might look like. Most likely is some variation of the “Voter-Owned Elections” law passed in Portland, Oregon, in 2005. In the Portland law, any candidate who raises 1,000 $5 donations can then qualify for $150,000 in city money, provided he or she agrees not to take further private contributions.
A hundred fifty thousand dollars sounds like a lot of money, but it’s actually below the average of what serious candidates are spending to get on Seattle’s city council these days. In last November’s election, only two of five races were seriously contested (Harrell’s open seat and Tim Burgess’s unseating of incumbent David Della); both winners had the backing (and money) of much of the local business community. In the other three races, incumbents had raised over $100,000 before anyone else even declared for the seats; they raised double that by the time of the election, despite not being seriously contested. (Jean Godden and Sally Clark breezed to victory over underfunded opponents; Tom Rasmussen, the top fundraiser by the filing deadline, wasn’t even opposed.)
With public financing, that scenario wouldn’t be as likely in 2009. Recruiting candidates would be far easier if candidates with a minimum threshold of support were both guaranteed enough money to run competitive campaigns and didn’t have to spend the majority of every day on the phone begging people for money. If they won, they then needn’t worry about repaying those “debts,” either; the thinly disguised bribery that passes for the current campaign financing system (and that gives a huge built-in advantage to incumbents) would be over. And it can’t come any too soon, with several open seats likely in the city council in 2009 – plus Mayor Greg “Moneybags” Nickels running for reelection. (In 2005, Nickels’ war chest successfully kept any credible candidates from opposing him; a less-than-credible one with virtually no money, Al Runte, still did surprisingly well, suggesting that Nickels bought himself a second term even though voters weren’t sold on him.)
The upshot of all this is that last Friday’s deal ensuring Olympia’s passage of a measure allowing local public financing could fundamentally reshape our elections – and that almost certainly that decision will be in the hands of voters, perhaps as soon as November. Less likely, but also possible, is a King County measure – I-134 also struck down a public financing law in King County. Just think of how differently the Port of Seattle might be run if commissioners, earning a few thousand dollars a year, weren’t getting far more than that in contributions primarily from businesses that have dealings with the Port.
Ultimately, public financing of elections doesn’t just mean better elections; it also means a less corrupt government. And that’s well worth the relatively small amount of public funds needed to make it happen.
Sounds like roses…But, when someone opts out of the public financing, what happens?
@1: Same system we have now. It would still be possible for well-heeled candidates to outspend their opponents; all the measure does is guarantee enough money to wage a credible campaign, not that you’d have funding equality.
Speaking of cleaning up elections, the race between the Democrats is getting down and dirty. As expected, Clintonites are resorting to Vince Fostering people.
$150K sounds like just enough to get a candidate well into a campaign, but not quite enough for a candidate to actually finish a campaign. I don’t see how that makes things much better. There’s still the very opportunity for a candidate to receive sufficient private financing as to negate the positive effect of public financing.
What about a law that recognizes the very qualitative difference between $5000 raised from 1000 doners and $5000 raised from just one doner? Suppose, for example, that candidates who benefit from public financing are able to continue to receive donations with a single-doner cap on the amount of contributions?
It also may mean that money spent for a candidate to run, cannot be spent on essential services, Like Police, Fire and EMS. Maybe we can get Dean Logan to run it. He has such a great track record.
It’s a good start. Congratulations to our legislators for doing the right thing. Eventually, we’ll get past the farcical equation of money to speech (money is property) and forbid private money from acquiring our public offices.
Agree that $150K is too little in Seattle. I cannot imagine an incumbent being defeated by a challenger who spends so little, unless the incumbent has screwed-up major league (name withheld…).
Also, in races with fewer than 3 candidates filed, there is no primary election. There should be one amount provided for candidates with no primary election, and a larger amount (double?) provided for candidates with a primary.
Geov @2, it is my understanding with public financing that it can be set up where, if the public financed candidate gets outspent by a candidate who isn’t publicly financed, the public financed candidate can get matching funds equal to what their non-public financed opponent has raised.
See Washington Public Campaigns FAQ’s #6
http://www.washclean.org/faqs.htm#six
Geov — I haven’t read the bill. But it supposedly allows local jurisdictions to hold referenda on public campaign financing. Does this bill apply to the Port of Seattle, or just to counties and cities? And if a referendum could be held to have public financing of local elections, is the local governing authority the only way to get such a referendum called? Or could a sufficient number of voters sign petitions to require such a local referendum be held?
I don’t exactly see the Republican-aligned majority on the Port of Seattle Commission voluntarily decided to hold a referendum on public financing of its campaigns. Gael Tarleton is the only one of its five members who wasn’t backed by the King County Republican Party for election to the commission.
Nor do I see the King County Council voluntarily deciding to hold a referendum on public financing of its campaigns. Five of the nine members are Democrats, but two of those Democrats happen to be Larry Phillips and Larry Gossett. Add Phillips and Gossett to the four Republican members, and you have a six-to-three majority that would block a vote from being scheduled.
What to stop the perenial candidates from wasting the money time and again? It should be limited somehow. A candidate must win a general election to be eligible every four years.
The only way to clean up voter fraud is to make it illegal for liberals to run elections.
The only way to clean up voter fraud is to make it illegal for liberals to run elections.
This from the dog that was caught, by Democrats, committing vote fraud.
The only way to clean up voter fraud is to make it illegal for liberals to run elections.
This from the dog that was caught, by Democrats, committing vote fraud.
02/25/2008 at 8:00 pm
Democrats caught me, but they were not going to do anything about it. The only reason you know I commited voter fraud was because of my owner and right wing radio. I guess the dems didn’t want to draw attention to all the registered dead voters.
Democrats caught me, but they were not going to do anything about it.
Well, that would be because, as a rule, Democrats don’t punish animals for the behavior of their owners.
14
You are half right. They don’t punish people who commit voter fraud. Including my owner.
if one is to believe richard pope, alec fisken was supported by the republicans!
the proposed ordinance it appears does not prohibit a candidate to run without public financing, something that the supreme court has struck down at least on the federal level, and thus would not have prohibited bill Bryant from raising more than the 300 k he raised, even without the fund raiser he held upon beating Fisken. from an investment perspective, to spend that kind of money for a job that pays 6 K a year plus a few trips abroad… the pleasure of doing public service? Bryant also won because he had the backing of the two major papers – he was put up by Mic Dinsmore and pat Davis to get Fisken out of the port’s hair! now Bryant is the head of the self-investigating committee. well, let’s see how far that goes, into what close detail of the game of footsies. But I don’t think the port commission splits along those party lines. Creighton, re-elected president for a second term, ultimately goes his own perhaps rather libertarian way, certainly he did not become Dinsmore’s creature! Anyhow, that commission as presently constituted: a board of alderman for a later 19the century church.
@ 15
I think most people thought your owner had made enough of a fool of herself that punishing her any further would have been cruel and unusual punishment.
That you suggest otherwise, however, might mean we need to contact the human society.
I haven’t made up my mind on public financing of elections. FWIW I do think that making the entry level playing field, er, level, is a good thing. Franklin is my State Senator, and a class act, though definitely left of me.
Whether this will solve corruption or not is another matter – the root of corruption is not private money, though it certainly is still an element. The state of corruption in Washington State is the product of a history of the ability to manipulate such tacts to counter purposes.
Like, Geov, your attacks on Brock Adams – witness Gregoire and lead Counsel Durkan’s attacks on Lowry – someone not corrupt.
Two reasons I’m against public financing of elections: First, why the hell should I have to pay for an opponent of an issue or an opponent of a candidate I favor?
Second, what good is a politician if they can’t be bought and stay in place?
Port Commissioners Alec Fisken and John Creighton are listed as having endorsed public campaign financing on Washington Public Campaign’s website, http://www.washclean.org.
I understand that Creighton was pro bono counsel to the state organization, Washington Public Campaigns, helping them organize. He was also apparently on the board for a while. Richard Pope, as usual, is spouting uninformed nonsense.
Re: #9 by Richard Pope:
You are clearly wrong about Larry Phillips. Last week he testified in Olympia in favor of the Local Option bill. He ran as a publicly funded candidate in 1991. Larry Gossett hasn’t said either way, but I am hopeful. When presented with the amount raised by Jane Hague ($432,000), compared with his own $63,000, his jaw dropped.
I don’t know where you get the idea that there is a 4-1 Republican majority on the non-partisan Port of Seattle. Just because the Republicans endorse someone in a non-partisan race doesn’t make that person (Lloyd Hara or John Creighton, or even Pat Davis) a Republican! I thought your were more skilled at logic.
This is a non-partisan issue and would be especially good for the Republicans when they desperately need to encourage new candidates. Anyway, my understanding is that Lloyd Hara favors public campaign financing. He ran under the pre-1991 system as Seattle Treasurer. Chair John Creighton also favors public campaign financing, so with Gael Tarleton, it would be a majority in favor.
The bill says only local funds can be used, so I imagine if the Port wanted to pursue it, they’d have to come up with their own plan and funding, and then ask the County Council to place it on the ballot in November. It would be interesting if Seattle, the County Council and the Port had voter-owned election plans on the same ballot.