That sounds like a horrible idea?

What were the arguments against public financing that propelled the initiative in the first place?

I had disturbing images pop into my head when I read the title of this post. Am I the only one?

There were no arguments against public financing during the debate on the initiative. Most of the initiative was about campaign contribution limits, and that is the issue that was debated. But the initiative was written by Republicans, so it also included a few small "hidden" items that Republicans wanted, such as banning public campaign financing.

As @4 alludes to, in 1992 when I-134 passed the provision that prevented public financing of elections was hidden in the "small print" and was not the main point of the initiative. Previously, Seattle had been one of the first cities that provided some form of publicly-financed elections in the form of matching funds. It has gone down the memory hole because of I-134.

For more information, see:

http://www.theolympian.com/news/story/359127-p2.html

The new "local option" bill that was passed in this session allows for local CHOICE to finance elections through public monies, it is not a mandate. Additionally, any locality or jurisdiction that wants to finance their elections with public money must pass a popular referendum in order to do so. No state money is involved.

Washington Public Campaigns (washclean.org) has been at the forefront of this battle for years. Go to the website for more information about what makes voter-owned elections the next wave of democratic action on a local level.

Next, voter-owned elections coming to a referedum in Seattle this coming fall. Stay tuned.