Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Monday, February 11, 2013

Should Taxpayers Fund Candidates' Bid for Office?

Posted by on Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:44 AM

This Wednesday at 6:00 p.m., city officials will host their second panel discussion exploring the topic of publicly financing city campaigns at the main branch of the Seattle Public Library.

I know public campaign financing hardly seems as sexy as the topic du jour, sexy sexy school levies, but consider what I wrote in last week's paper:

Why publicly finance campaigns? Some people point to Seattle's 2011 election to illustrate the problem. During that election cycle, Seattle had fewer candidates running for office than any time since 1995, a drop in small contributions, a record high in the average size of contributions, top donors contributing almost exclusively to incumbents—and all this on top of massive $100,000 incumbent war chests scaring off challengers.

Despite their huge fundraising advantages, council members spent, on average, just $201,000 on their campaigns in 2011. By contrast, both 2008 public-financing models would cap contributions at $250,000, meaning participating candidates should have plenty of funds to launch viable campaigns.

All four city council members up for re-election this year are currently running unchallenged. In addition, last Friday city council member and mayoral candidate Tim Burgess borrowed a page from the public campaign finance playbook with an email blast that asked supporters to contribute just $10 to his campaign. (That tactic is known as the $10 x 1,000 pledge and it's one of two public funding models previously considered by the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission.)

Campaign finance reform is up for debate during this election cycle—a measure for publicly financed campaigns may even end up on the primary or general election ballot. Get in on the ground level discussion this Wednesday at the main branch of the Seattle Public Library (1000 Fourth Ave), from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m.

 

Comments (8) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Matt the Engineer 1
My one fear about this is: you generally subsidize what you want more of, penalize what you want less of. I do not want more political ads and flyers.

But I'm not a fundamentalist on this point, and I'm sure the devil's in the details. The debate should be interesting.
Posted by Matt the Engineer on February 11, 2013 at 12:04 PM
2
I'd rather have publicly funded elections than term limits.
Posted by LMcGuff http://holyoutlaw.livejournal.com/ on February 11, 2013 at 12:16 PM
3
Wouldn't a District system go further to reduce campaign expenses for City Council candidates?
Posted by Zander on February 11, 2013 at 12:23 PM
Pope Peabrain 4
The problem I have with this is taxpayers paying t.v. networks for ads. T.V. stations are the major beneficiaries of political adverts. And I doubt they would willingly cede that money.
Posted by Pope Peabrain on February 11, 2013 at 12:30 PM
5
Everybody knows that candidates are beholden to the folks who pay for their campaigns.

Wouldn't it be nice for that to be ordinary taxpayers?
Posted by Kazrak on February 11, 2013 at 1:43 PM
6
Wouldn't it be nice if they were beholden to the voters? Again this points to Districts where each vote would matter more and grassroots person to person politics could flourish ?
Posted by Zander on February 11, 2013 at 2:35 PM
orino 7
In the U.K., television campaign ads are prohibited, and newspapers are required to *give* equal amounts of space to candidates for elective office. I like that idea a lot better.
Posted by orino http://www.scootinoldskool.com on February 11, 2013 at 2:51 PM
Geni 8
We need the Fairness Doctrine back, and we need to outlaw paid political ads. Candidates should get equal publicly-financed airtime for debates and position statements. No advertising. Period.

I ran for office a few years ago, and the whole process disillusioned me quite thoroughly. You're expected to spend 90% of your time dialing for dollars - calling people and asking them for money, or going to endorsement interviews with various special-interest groups so they'll give you money. If you don't raise "serious" money, you're not regarded as a "serious" candidate (that's one of the unexpectedly adverse results of the Public Disclosure Committee - everyone can see what every candidate has raised, from where, and where it's been spent, which is great, but it also turns the whole goddam thing into a "who has more cash" horserace).

Public campaign financing and the return of the Fairness Doctrine would do more to reform politics in this country than all the vitriolic Internet rhetoric and speechifying and sign-waving and poll-fixing combined.
Posted by Geni on February 11, 2013 at 4:06 PM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy