Socialist city council candidate Linda Averill likes to talk about the billionaires who control the city. “Look at our city,” Averill says. “It’s being turned into a showcase for developers and billionaires, where public housing is considered an out-of-date use for ‘valuable view property.'”
A cursory look at this year’s campaign finance reports confirms that Averill’s class-conscious critique isn’t far off base: Moneyed developers are financing the reelection bids of everyone from Averill’s opponent, City Council President Jan Drago, to Mayor Greg Nickels—candidates who are prioritizing developer interests in neighborhoods like South Lake Union.
Thankfully, candidates are required to file campaign finance reports with Seattle’s Ethics and Elections Commission (SEEC), which give dissidents like Averill (she’s a Freedom Socialist) critical ammo. By following the money, I for one was able to nail Nickels earlier this summer for catering to developers [“Zoning for Dollars,” June 2]. And as my colleague Erica C. Barnett reported in last week’s Stranger, Drago has received $2,800 from Vulcan and its employees, so far, and approximately $7,900 from other companies with interests in South Lake Union [“Strippergate in Suits,” July 28]. In short: Campaign finance reports are invaluable for sizing up candidates.
However, I can’t tell you a damn thing about Averill’s supporters. Averill, defining the word hypocrite, sought and won an exemption from SEEC rules, allowing her to shield the names, employers, and occupations of her donors behind anonymous codes. Here’s all I can report: Averill’s biggest contributor is an employer called E4, whose employees have kicked in $3,053. That’s more than Drago’s gotten from Vulcan and its employees. What’s E4? Beats me.
Sadly, Averill’s choice to hide her donors is backed by the Seattle Federal District Court. In 2004, Judge Robert Lasnik, considering Averill’s identical 2003 exemption request, decided that potential donors, fearing harassment from conservatives, would be scared off if Averill had to report their names. Averill—who, I’m not kidding, told me her party was as vulnerable as the Alabama NAACP circa 1954—says being forced to identify donors would prevent her from participating in the political process. (Seattle conservatives might feel the same way in a town where Bush signs are routinely vandalized, and pent-up anti-corporate protestors shut down the WTO.)
Look, I’ll venture a guess that Averill’s contributors aren’t weirdo anti-Semitic conspiracy theory leftists that support wing-nut Socialists like Dr. Lenora Fulani and Lyndon LaRouche. More likely, E4 is code for King County Metro and O5 stands for Metro Bus Driver (Averill is a Metro bus driver). But I shouldn’t have to play guessing games in the voting booth.
According to the courts, Averill has the right to conceal donors. However, she also has a responsibility to voters. For a candidate whose critique relies on fingering her opponents’ financial backers— “I am entering the race for [the] position currently held by Jan Drago, darling of developers and millionaires”—Averill ought to take that responsibility more seriously. If she wasn’t such a hypocrite, a few voters might return the favor. n
