Odd to see the chart on page 9 indicate large-donor contributions and overall contributions were below the levels of 2003, 2005, and 2007.

@1) Not necessarily odd. I suspect that's because those years included races with two sides raising large contributions (unlike this year, where the large donations went almost entirely to incumbents). For instance, 2007 showed a competitive race for Position 3 without an incumbent, in which Bruce Harrell raised $97,500 in large contributions and Venus Velasquez raised $83,138. That combined sum is far more than the difference in large contributions overall between 2007 and 2011.

@2, I see what you mean. The 2003 and 2005 reports bear that out: hotly contested high-dollar races. Thanks.

That's just the non-PAC money you see. I could tell you stories that would make your head spin.

@1) I'd add--even though you know this--that one election can't be neatly compared to the next. There are too many variables. The interesting thing is how donors behaved this election, with this council composition, and how these incumbents storm into the next election cycle with $371,961 already in the bank.

@4) I'd like to hear those stories, because that's not what the SEEC found:

a. Independent expenditures fell off a cliff.

The flood of independent spending anticipated in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling failed to materialize in Seattle City Council races. After skyrocketing more than tenfold in the span of four election cycles--from $20,804 in 2003 to $288,197 in 2009--there were no independent expenditures reported in 2011.

Unless it's the absence of outside PAC money that would supposedly make our heads spin... but then they don't sound like terribly gripping stories.

Dominic, I do not take issue with most of your article. It does contain a leap of logic that i can't fathom. Please explain:

"new labor regulations (paid sick leave) that provide union revenue"

Improved sick leave won't generate new money for unions. It will bennefit workers, union and non-union alike. Some thing like this are supported by unions because they are a good thing, not because it will bring in more dues money.

Looking for a new gig with FOX?

@6 that are required by statute to be measured ... think about the impact of the SCOTUS decision in terms of what is NOT required to be reported anymore.

@7) It is a leap, perhaps, but sick leave was a union-backed bill that helps stacks of union workers. The better off the sick-leave regulations are, the more the workers make; and the better unions represent their workers, and the more workers want to join that union and pay dues. If the unions win good policy, they swell and thrive.

FWIW, I supported sick leave and think the SEIU does great work (so I think your Fox News comparison is full of shit). But I'm not going to give them a pass on solely backing incumbents--pretending that there's no motive at all to their lopsided generosity--while calling out these other donors with a stake at City Hall.

@5, it's worth noting $144K of the $371K total is Rasmussen alone, whom the 2007 report notes raised more than $200K in that non-election year also. Kind of a pattern with him. Amusingly, Pageler outspent Rasmussen the year he took her seat away. While he clearly knows the value of a dollar, he is also the living proof money alone can't beat a determined challenger.

We're so lacking in determined challengers as a rule that maybe the incumbent warchests will winnow out our usual consultant-led dilettante challengers, leave the field to someone who actually wants the job.

Nobody runs slates anymore. Kind of sad, that.

That base report is wack. It says the Number 1 employer for contributions is "Not Employed". So unemployed people made $172,074.96 in campaign contributions? Or do we just not have people filling out forms completely to conceal affiliations.

It seems to me, that is a story there...

@12, technically, Mitt Romney is unemployed. As in: he has no regular 9:00-5:00 job. Lots of really wealthy people don't work a regular job. They make money off investments. Their money makes money while they golf.

Also, retired people aren't employed either. And older people are the most reliable active voters. If they have a substantial retirement benefit, it is easy to throw a few hundred bucks to a city council race if it is something they care about.