Livingston heads the Civic Foundation, the watchdog group that monitors local government for conflicts of interest and wayward uses of public money. Livingston's theory is simple enough: Analyze a candidate's fundraising early in the race, and you'll find out who the candidate's closest friends are. Money that comes in later in the campaign is often skewed by some chicken-and-egg dynamics; i.e., powerful contributors gravitate toward powerful candidates. But it's the early money, the seed funding, that highlights a candidate's roots.
Working from this basic theory, Livingston cross-referenced two sets of data: all the registered lobbyists in the state (individuals, corporations, law firms, unions, public interest groups) with city hall candidate donor lists.
Other than finding out that Dawn Mason is pals with low-income housing lobbyist Majken Keira ($50)--what exactly did Livingston learn about the candidates? Well, his study confirmed that Cheryl Chow, Margaret Pageler, and Alec Fisken are friendly with downtown development interests. But we already knew that.
Livingston's final analysis: "In each race for the Seattle City Council, more than two-thirds of the contributions from registered lobbyists and PACs (Political Action Committees) have been collected by a single candidate." In other words, Livingston found a corporate pet for each open seat. (It should be pointed out that Livingston's definition of lobbyist and PAC money includes "Employees of Lobbying Firms." So, for example, a contribution from the receptionist at Microsoft would count.)
In the four contested races, the top recipients of lobbying and PAC money breaks down as follows: Chow leads the position 1 race with $3,360. Pageler leads the position 5 race with $4,469. Fundraising all-star Heidi Wills leads the position 7 race with $1,550. And Alec Fisken leads position 9 (or any position, for that matter) with $4,690.
However, Livingston's study doesn't put the lobbyist and PAC money in the larger context of the total money each candidate has raised. For example, while Wills is leading her opponents with PAC and lobbyist contributions (she's got 72 percent of the total in her race), that money represents just 4.5 percent of overall contributions to her campaign. In other words, most of her money is not corporate.
Livingston, however, points out that the ratio of corporate contributions is still out of whack. "Candidates who have raised twice as much money as their opponents have four times as much corporate money," he says.
Essentially, Livingston believes his study works as an early barometer to show where the corporate money is lining up. "We are simply highlighting the fact that certain candidates are close friends with lobbyists for very big companies."
We asked each of Livingston's lobbyist- and PAC-friendly candidates to respond to the charge that they are among the corporate chosen.
Cheryl Chow
"Ian MacGowan (one of the registered lobbyists on her donor list) is a family friend since elementary school. Growing up, his father and mother were some of my parents' best friends. We used to go to their house and follow his dad around while he played the bagpipes. I can honestly say, I don't know who [MacGowan and Associates] represents." MacGowan lobbies for everything from timber companies to utilities to healthcare.
Alec Fisken
"If I took my definition of traditional corporate influence and went through Dawn's [Dawn Mason, his opponent] accounts, I'd find that Dawn was ahead of me in corporate lobbying money." Fisken's point is this: The majority of his lobbyist and PAC money comes from eight lawyers at Preston Gates & Ellis (personal friends through his wife, a former Preston Gates & Ellis employee). While Preston Gates is registered to lobby, Fisken points out that his specific donors are not. Moreover, he says that Mason's lobbyist and PAC money comes from tangible corporate interests like the senior vice president of Weyerhaeuser, the registered lobbyist for Simpson Timber and the Safeco corporation.
Heidi Wills
Wills admits that the Civic Foundation study serves a purpose. She says red flags should go up when there's a long list of individual contributors from one company. However, she thinks Livingston's study may be misleading. "[Livingston's] definition of lobbyist money--if someone's a worker at Boeing or a customer service rep at Microsoft--is really misconstruing lobbyist money," she says. Wills points out that one of her top lobbyist donors, Microsoft software designer Jason Allen, isn't a lobbyist. "He's just an old friend. I went to high school with his wife."
Margaret Pageler
Pageler, who had received the most lobbying and PAC money in her race, had not returned our call by press time.
Ultimately, and perhaps a bit unwittingly, the candidates' comments confirm Livingston's original principle: The early money reveals who the candidates' closest friends are. And clearly, the best friends of Seattle's crop of hopeful pols--attorneys at Preston Gates, Microsoft engineers, and full-time lobbyists--are directly entwined with some of the state's biggest corporate powers. "The majority of voters do not work for companies that go out and hire lobbyists," Livingston says.
