Here's my idea to jerk this bunch back to reality: An initiative to the voters to roll back City Council pay and perks to 1995 levels. That's the last time their pay reflected pretty much what the rest of the city's wage earners took home. (The median 2011 Seattle income dropped to $49,000.)

These clowns pull down $117,000 a year, plus perks and parking privileges. (No $4 an hour meters for them.) "Representatives" whose incomes are more than double that of the people they purportedly represent cannot possibly have a clue what their constituents' economic realities are like, let alone in the worst depression in 80 years. If they had to live on what the rest of us do, they might change their tune. Or better yet, leave public service. Remember...it's called public SERVICE, not public trough-feeding or public gouging.

According to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Cit…

"The Seattle City Council is the second highest paid in the country. As of September 28, 2010, council members Bagshaw, Conlin, Licata and O'Brien earn $117,533.52; council members Godden, Harrell, Burgess, Clark and Rasmussen earn $113,587.20. These figures represent increases from $94,000 in November 2005, and $104,000 for members elected November 8, 2005. In 1995, all council members were paid $71,000.

"The current top rate represents a 65.5% pay increase over 1995. Among the nation's 40 largest cities, only Los Angeles pays its council more (Seattle Times). Seattle ranks 23rd in population, according to the Census Bureau."

So you tell me...has your income gone up 65% since 1995? Or even 25% since 2005? Are you better off now than your City Council member has become in the last six years? Do you really think any of these bums are worth what we're paying them?

District elections.

This is a solution looking for a problem. Constitutional muster aside, limiting candidates ability to raise money openly will only push it underground. And limiting the time that candidates have to raise money (one year) will hurt challengers, more than incumbents, who need that extra time to build a viable campaign.

@4) You are wrong. The data contradicts your claim that "limiting the time that candidates have to raise money (one year) will hurt challengers, more than incumbents."

According to city records, in the year before January 1 of the 2011 election cycle, incumbents raised $375,312 while challengers collectively raised only $175. That's nothing for challengers. This pattern has played out, although somewhat less dramatically, for the last decade.

The simple truth is this: Incumbents raise money for years and challengers don't raise until the year of the election. Narrowing the fundraising window limits the extended advantage incumbents have to collect cash and has little impact on challengers.

Fucking bureaucrats.

Steinbrueck explained, "they are immediately seen as the stronger candidate and unbeatable. They don't have to be particularly accomplished incumbents. They can just be really good fundraisers."

The pathetically sad part of it all is we put up with it.

Term limits would be another useful tool.

How about an across the board maximum on how much can be spent for a campaign?

Smaller amounts for local races, larger amounts for national races. Enough so that candidates can stil get their message out, but can not drown financially poorer opponents out of the discussion.

Also, add more debates so that the candidates will have an equal forum to discuss ideas/slam each other. This way, everyone gets a voice, and it does not favor candidates or cost them anything.

Or course, this would require a lot of transparency, but I think we desperately need this anyway.

It doesn't help that our electorate is not very bright. A well-funded tree stump could win a Seattle City Council seat. Jean Godden's reelection is proof of that.

Let's run an initiative!

@#1 - you have my vote on that! :-)

The two biggest reforms not mentioned in the article are voter owned/publicly-funded elections and instant runoff voting.

Put ALL of the candidates into a single pot and let the voters pick the best four or five (or whatever number) every two years. There's no reason why candidates should have to square off against each other if they aren't representing district boundaries.

If the offices are city-wide, we should pick the best candidates regardless of who they are running against.

The two biggest reforms not mentioned in the article are voter owned/publicly-funded elections and instant runoff voting.

Put ALL of the candidates into a single pot and let the voters pick the best four or five (or whatever number) every two years. There's no reason why candidates should have to square off against each other if they aren't representing district boundaries.

If the offices are city-wide, we should pick the best candidates regardless of who they are running against.

I think District election couple with some campaign contribution laws may end this unfair monoply of power by those who can raise money from the specail interest.

My question for Peter is simply this: Are you going to run for Mayor of Seattle in 2012? Are you Mr. Steinbrueck?

A well-funded tree stump could win a Seattle City Council seat. Jean Godden's reelection is proof of that.

Bobby Forch wasn't exactly a gift to this city's I.Q. either.

How about an initiative to cut city council's pay to the city's average median household income? That would be about $70,000. Ought to be plenty to live on.

@1 & @14: I second it!!

Great report! Thank you.