On Friday, a blip appeared on the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission website announcing that a new group had formed to support city council candidate Pamela Banks. It quickly sent Kshama Sawant supporters into a frenzy.
The group (officially an independent expenditure committee) hadn’t yet reported any donations, but people who pay attention to local politics have been waiting for big outside money to drop into this race and this appeared to be the start of it. It didn’t hurt that it was coming on the heels of that developer’s embarrassing attempt at a shakedown of council candidate Jon Grant over a PAC formed to oppose Grant.
Seattlish reported on the new Republican-linked IE group on Saturday and Sawant supporters parlayed it into a call for supporters to donate or door-knock.
A Republican Party linked PAC explicitly targeting Kshama Sawant has been created. Help: https://t.co/RZOlvJrusB pic.twitter.com/AGpHi2ZYwE
— Vote Sawant (@VoteSawant) October 19, 2015
As I explored in a story for this week’s Stranger, special interest spending in the form of independent expenditures has reached historic levels in this year’s city council elections. IEs are banned from coordinating directly with campaigns, but there are no limits on how much they can raise or spend and much of their funding comes from business interests like the Chamber of Commerce.
District 3—where Banks and Sawant are vying for a seat representing the Central District and Capitol Hill— is already the most expensive of this year’s nine council races and Sawant has raised more money from more individuals (like, a lot more individuals) than any other candidate. Plus, with Sawant’s strong stances on charging developers more fees and passing new taxes on business, getting her off the council has to be pretty high on business interests’ to-do list.
On Wednesday, the “Neighbors for Banks” IE group reported for the first time where it’s getting its money. At only $10,500, it’s so far a small effort compared to the others in this year’s council races. The group’s donors include Robert Ratliffe, the investment firm executive who created the PAC; two others who list investment management companies as their employers; and two property managers.
Sawant, too, is being supported by an IE committee, which is funded by unions and sending out mailers on her behalf. More on that here.
After the news broke about the creation of the pro-Banks committee, Banks released this statement (emphasis added) asking Sawant to join her in “repudiating all independent expenditure committees.”
I deplore the creation of an Independent Expenditure committee which recently registered with the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission. And I call on Kshama Sawant to join me in repudiating all Independent Expenditure committees, including those assisting her re-election. My campaign has attracted incredible support from across District 3. We have wonderful volunteers, and voters are responding to our message of progressive values and strong neighborhood representation. Forty six percent of my contributions come from District 3, compared to only 19 percent of Sawant’s. That’s a groundswell of support that continues to grow.
Independent Expenditure committees are a product of a completely broken campaign finance system in desperate need of reform. I ask Sawant to join me in being absolutely clear that they have no place in this election.
One quick aside, for what it’s worth: Banks has brought up that point about contributions from within the district before and Sawant’s campaign has repeatedly disputed it. In a way, both sides are right. It’s true that a higher percentage of gifts to Banks’ campaign have come from within the district (about 46 percent compared to about 20 percent for Sawant), but Sawant has more donors from within the district (658 compared to 492). So, more people from the district have given to Sawant, but the in-district money makes up a bigger chunk of Banks’ cash.
Back to the IEs. In response to Banks’s call for Sawant to denounce IE spending, Sawant’s camp says it isn’t interested, drawing a difference between union-backed efforts and others.
“Kshama’s opponent does not recognize the difference between campaign donations from big business and developers, and from everyday working people,” Philip Locker, political director for the Sawant campaign, said in an e-mailed statement. “Councilmember Sawant has never hidden where her loyalty lies—with working people, unions, and the left—and she is confident her record ensures no Republican PAC or Big Business PAC will want to support her.”
It’s a delicate spot for Sawant. This week at a housing affordability rally outside city hall, she called IE spending in this year’s council races “corporate money that has gathered like dark clouds over us,” but she’s also benefitting from IE money. It’s a small amount, relatively speaking, but it’s the same type of no-limits spending that’s benefitting her opponent.
“In contrast to her opponent, Councilmember Sawant has been a leading voice against our broken campaign finance system,” Sawant’s campaign said in a statement on Wednesday. “She has never accepted a penny in corporate cash, and has strongly supported from the very beginning the ‘Honest Elections’ campaign finance initiative.” (Honest Elections is the public campaign financing plan that would give voters $100 in property-tax-funded vouchers to donate to city candidates. Both Sawant and Banks are listed as endorsers.)
The Sawant / Banks race is the most expensive one in terms of regular campaign contributions, but it’s not even close to the top attractor of IEs. As I explained here, Districts 1 (West Seattle), 4 (Northeast Seattle) and 5 (North Seattle) and citywide Position 8 have seen the biggest IE totals.
In District 1, covering West Seattle and South Park, the money raised by two committees supporting Shannon Braddock (one in the primary election and one now for the general) have exceeded the total IE spending on four council races in 2009. (That’s the last time the city saw significant IE spending on council races.)
Lisa Herbold, who’s running against Braddock in District 1, has decried the big influx of cash into their race. Here’s part of a statement Herbold posted on her website about the spending (emphasis added).
I hear a lot of support from both my opponent and the general public for the idea of “getting big money out of politics.” The residents of Seattle overwhelmingly passed District elections with the idea that, if accountable to the voters—not big money—Councilmembers would be more responsive to the needs of our neighborhoods and regular people. The huge infusion of cash into this race demonstrates that the surest way to get big money out of politics is to not support the candidates whom big money is backing. The influence of IE money to elect our District Councilmembers must not become the new “politics as usual in Seattle.”
Why are these interests spending more than $200,000 to buy this election for my opponent? I believe it’s because they know that I will curb their influence on the Council by speaking up to represent other voices. And, most importantly, that I will work hard and use the knowledge I have gained on how the system works to make those voices heard.
Like Sawant, Herbold is benefitting from a smaller, union-funded IE. (I’ve asked Braddock for comment and will update this post if I hear back.)
In District 4, transit advocate Rob Johnson benefitted in the primary from big IE spending that mirrored spending on Braddock in District 1, but he hasn’t seen the same kind of general election support.
Johnson’s opponent, Michael Maddux, has positioned himself to the left of Johnson. He also railed against IEs at that housing affordability rally where Sawant spoke. Maddux said that the half a million dollars given to IE committees—mostly from business interests—could be spent to “build upwards of 300 tiny houses for our community members experiencing homelessness.”
“That should be a priority,” Maddux said, “but that’s not their priority.”
Meanwhile, a small $5,000 IE funded by the Seattle Displacement Coalition is benefiting Maddux. Well, “benefitting” might be a stretch. As Publicola reported last week, the IE is funding mailers claiming Maddux will be less likely to support upzones than Johnson. Maddux is not into that message.
That news wasn’t missed by Johnson’s campaign.
“With the election only 14 days away, we need all the help we can get to ensure victory come November 3rd!” Johnson’s campaign wrote in an e-mail to supporters Tuesday. “Rob’s opponents have made a $5,000 independent expenditure making false claims about Rob’s values and dedication to the neighborhoods of District 4.”
So Johnson, who was fine with (much larger) IE spending on his behalf during the primary, is now calling out this (tiny) IE spending in support of his opponent. Okayyyy, Rob.
Johnson stood by his feelings about the primary IE in an e-mail last night, saying, “it speaks to my ability to build consensus and get things done” although he did add that, “at a personal level it’s incredibly unnerving to have an independent expenditure in your race. You try hard to control the message but those independent expenditures can make you feel powerless to tell your own story.”
About the anti-growth mailer supporting Maddux, Johnson wrote: “I was disappointed to see a recent independent expenditure in our race focus on negative campaigning and messaging, and am proud that all of our messaging had been consistently positive and focused on the vision of what we want to accomplish for the city.”
Johnson also said that Maddux may actually be benefitting from a second IE. Yard signs supporting Maddux (but not coming from the campaign) have shown up in the district, but no second IE has been reported to the city’s ethics and elections commission. About a month ago, Maddux mentioned these signs in an e-mail to supporters, saying they hadn’t been placed by the campaign and didn’t bear a union stamp. Maddux said he’d reported them to the ethics commission. It was yet another instance of candidates being out of control of the messaging coming from people outside their campaigns.
“As I have stated time and again,” Maddux wrote, “I am not a fan of IE’s generally, and in this instance, I would respectfully request that individuals who wish to support the campaign do so by donating to the campaign, knocking on doors, or helping in other ways to ensure that our message remains clear, and our support for Labor can never be called into question.”
Independent expenditure spending has become a talking point up in District 5, too. Like in District 4, there hasn’t been much general election IE spending in District 5, but there was plenty during the primary. Native American tribes spent about $31,300 supporting attorney Debora Juarez and a national Realtors group spent about $64,800 supporting Kris Lethin. Lethin lost by a lot in the primary, but Juarez made it through and is facing former pastor Sandy Brown.
The spending in support of Juarez fits into Brown’s criticism that Juarez is dependent on money from outside the district. Just three percent of Juarez’s contributions come from within the district and 54 percent come from outside city limits. Brown has received 11 percent of his contributions from within the district and 22 percent from outside city limits.
Juarez responded to this criticism in her interview with Erica C. Barnett on the C is for Crank. (ECB’s interviews with Juarez and Brown are both good reads, especially if you’re a voter in that district.)
“There are no borders when it comes to Indian country and how this area was established,” Juarez told Barnett. “They have sovereignty. When you question that, you’re basically saying that the tribes are outsiders and their money is somehow from outsiders.”
All told, IE committees have spent just under $600,000 on this year’s council races as of Wednesday afternoon.
Check out the breakdown of where all that money is going right here and learn more about where it’s coming from right here.
