Slog - The Stranger's Blog

Line Out

The Music Blog

« Missing Child Actor | Oh, Canada... »

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

Where the Money Went

Posted by ERICA C. BARNETT on January 18 at 12:46 PM

Twelve of the 14 finalists for City Council position #9 - formerly Jim Compton’s seat - have given financial contributions over the years to current members of the city council (the same folks who voted to short-list them on Tuesday). This doesn’t suggest a quid pro quo—in council races that now cost a minimum of $200,000, even the maximum $650 contribution doesn’t go far—but it does highlight the insularity of Seattle’s political class.

Here they are, in order of amount contributed, with their largest contributions in bold:

Joann Francis gave $1,275 to council members Richard McIver and Nick Licata, including $1,225 over the years to McIver. (Francis got McIver’s vote but not Licata’s.)

Bruce Bentley gave $1,085 to McIver, Jean Godden, Richard Conlin, Jan Drago, and Licata, including $485 over the years to Drago. (He got all their votes except Godden’s.)

Ross Baker gave $886 to Conlin, McIver, Peter Steinbrueck, David Della, and Drago, including $205 in contributions to Drago. (Baker received all five council members’ votes.)

Sharon Maeda gave $825 to council members Tom Rasmussen, McIver and Della, including a $650 contribution to Della. (Maeda received all three council members’ votes.)

Dolores Sibonga gave $615 to council members Della, Conlin, McIver, Rasmussen and Drago, including a $200 contribution to Rasmussen. (She got all five council members’ votes.)

Venus Velazquez gave $550 to Drago, Licata, McIver and Conlin, including $200 over the years to McIver. (She got all their votes except Licata’s.)

Stella Chao gave $350 to Conlin, Jan Drago, Richard McIver, Peter Steinbrueck, and Della, including a $175 contribution to Della. (Chao received all five council members’ votes.)

Javier Valdez gave $345 to Rasmussen, Drago and McIver, including a $150 contribution to Rasmussen. (He got all three council members’ votes.)

Darryl Smith gave $300 to Conlin and McIver, including $250 to McIver. (He got both their votes.)

Gail Chiarello gave $300 to Conlin, Steinbrueck and Rasmussen: $100 each. (Chiarello got all three council members’ votes.)

Sally Clark gave $185 to Conlin, Licata, and McIver, including $65 to Licata. (She got all three council members’ votes.)

Ven Knox gave $50 to Richard Conlin. (She got his vote.)

Permalink

CommentsRSS icon

1

All it "highlights," Erica, is that they are interested enough in politics to contribute to candidates. So what?

Posted by Emerson Derth | January 18, 2006 1:21 PM

2

This seems like non-news. Viable candidates for an open city council seat are unsurprisingly involved enough in city politics make political donations, and have unsurprisingly donated to like-minded council members.  Those council members are unsurprisingly inclined to endorse like-minded viable candidates for the open seats.

Given the drop-in-the-sea significance of the $650 donation limit that Erica points out, it's hard to see any greater significance.

Posted by lostboy | January 18, 2006 2:39 PM

3

Campaign contributions aren’t relevant? Tell that to Jack Abromoff.

Posted by Dan Savage | January 18, 2006 2:52 PM

4

Speaking of Abramoff, it is interesting to note that Ethics and Elections records 1,919 contributions from people employed by the "City of Seattle" and 3,141 contributions from people listing there employer as "Preston Gates and Ellis".

Posted by Zander | January 18, 2006 4:36 PM

5

Dan,

There's a huge difference between legal campaign contributions and the type of corruption involving Abramoff. Are you implying that you don't see the difference?

Posted by Emerson Derth | January 18, 2006 5:09 PM

6

Yes, I see the diff. But I think keeping your eye on who's getting money from who(m?) matters. Money buys access and attention—I know it, as an occasional contributor to campaigns myself. Writing a check gets attention—part. if you're willing and able to write checks for the max, whatever it is.

Erica's post was a fer-yer-info posting. It didn't say anything illegal was going on, or anything shady had happened. Campaign contributions are a matter of public record so that the public can be informed. All Erica did was, you know, inform the public.

And if you don't pay attention to who's getting money from who(m?), Emerson, you'll never spot corruption.

The post is legit and I find your hot reaction to it a bit odd. We write about this kind of stuff all the time—everyone does. Follow the money blah blah blah.

Posted by Dan Savage | January 18, 2006 6:31 PM

7

You guys are missing the point. ECB is not suggesting that Councilmembers were influenced by campaign contributions given to them by the applicants.

Candidate contributions are not meaningless as some posting here suggest; nor are they an indicator of corruption as others may be suggesting. (I certainly don't think that the latter was ECB's intention with the post)

Candidate contributions are an indicator of the politics of the contributor. Not a fool-proof indicator because some contributors give to everyone to "cover their bases." But perhaps a clue...

As ECB's research shows, these Council applicants are not all necessarily the kind of contributors who give to everyone running for office. So, it makes sense to look at who they gave to, because it may be an indicator of which Councilmembers they vote with.

I want to know which applicant likes which Councilmember's politics...don't you?

Posted by LH | January 18, 2006 6:35 PM

8

I want somebody to tell me, with a straight face, that our systems of government isn't just a giant capitalist aristocracy.

So I could never win a seat on the city council unless I had at least $200,000? Great. Isn't that what the American Dream's all about? They who have the most money gets to rule those who don't.

Posted by Gomez | January 18, 2006 9:30 PM

9

GREAT COMMENT LH!!!
Damn.
You ARE Ben be La!!

Posted by SNCC KID | January 18, 2006 10:42 PM

10

This site is a lot of fun very well designed. 2005 comments.cgi december mt valium diet pill xanax

Posted by orpha | April 3, 2006 3:50 AM

11

Very interesting and professional site! Good luck!

Posted by kori | April 12, 2006 3:21 AM

12

Hope you come back soon!!

Posted by violet | April 13, 2006 11:20 PM

13

Hi you have a nice homepage

Posted by brandy | April 16, 2006 10:59 PM

14

It looks like you really had a nice time.

Posted by Suse | April 18, 2006 7:44 PM

15

Your site is amaizing. Can I share some resources with you?

Posted by Chuke | April 20, 2006 2:12 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).