A New Plan for Public Campaign Financing Will Appear on Your Ballot this Fall

Comments

1
Is there any way to find out who founded the opposition group? Looks like it's being shielded behind Blue Wave consultants.
2
Looks like Moneytree's consultants got a new gig opposing campaign finance reform. https://twitter.com/DBeekman/status/6207…
3
I don't think I can get behind yet another property tax hike - not for this purpose. Sorry!
4


You can use the voucher to vote in candidates...who will ask for more property tax!

Great idea, Seattle!

5
so this is a bit like having two rounds of voting? a primary and a general - only the primary involves coupons? can we involve bitcoin somehow?
6
This is a bogus scheme to subsidize local media via tax money. Fuck this shit.

How about UK-style campaigns? Campaign budgets are miniscure, a small amount of free media exposure.
7
Only fools give money to anyone running for public office. Even it's a fucking voucher. BAD IDEA
8
@6, the UK doesn't have a First Amendment in their unwritten constitution -- their laws can and do restrict how much money can be spent on political campaigns, and the length of time candidates can spend time campaigning.
9
@6: "This is a bogus scheme to subsidize local media via tax money. Fuck this shit."

Yup. I'd rather the money go to actual progressive causes and infrastructure.
10
@3: This measure imposes a tax of less than $12/year to remove the funding of our elections from the 1% (literally) of voters on the "dialing for dollars" lists candidates use. By comparison, on the same value house ($450K) the Move Seattle tax is $275.
11
@7 "Only fools"? You mean like the 1% who buy our "representatives" with their maxed out contributions? I-122 also reduces the maximum allowed individual donation from $700 to $500.
12
@12: good point. it won't be that much money.

is there any problem in seattle where the funding solution is not a property or sales tax hike?
13
What's the old adage, "you get what you pay for"? And under our current system anybody who cares to pony up big bucks gets to "lobby" politicians to vote their way; and of course they do more often than not, because the system demands they constantly churn for campaign cash.

So, I don't see this as a particularly problematic resolution to break politicians - and big-spending political donors - from the campaign cash-cow mind-set. Give everyone the same amount - EXACTLY the same amount - to spend on whomever they want to support and politicians no longer need to grovel to those with the deepest pockets; in fact, it almost requires them to broaden their outreach, since the more voters they can get to support them with donations, the more money the take in.

That's the way campaigning is SUPPOSED to work...
14
@12:

What else have we got in a state with no income tax?
15
This just sounds like incentivizing doorbell-ers to harass Seattle residents months earlier and continually as they chase after money vouchers. Sounds horrible.
16
@12--I think you were responding to me. Yes, I-122 actually gives the Council the option of using other sources. Here's the language: "the qualified electors of the City of Seattle hereby resolve to allow funding through a levy lift under RCW 84.55.050 and resolve that the City’s legislative authority may fund the Program pursuant to that authorization or alternatively through the general fund or any other lawful source of funds of its choosing." Unfortunately, as @14 points out, we don't have many non-regressive options.

@15--You're complaining that candidates might actually want to get your opinion?!