Sounds like I-122 would help with this. The best way to fight big money is to give grassroots candidates a fighting chance with more small dollar contributions, making it harder for IEs to swamp over them.

Michael Maddux came out against his I.E.

Rob Johnson has been bragging about his ability to build a coalition with those big CASE donors.

Just in case anyone is wondering on how the two candidates feel about I.E money in politics.

Excellent article again.

Really excellent article.

Why doesn't this article bring up the two lawsuits against the SEIU in the last month from the attorney general? Not a shocker to anyone that local unions being accused of "giving in kind" to the count of millions of dollars to political campaigns. I know that the Stranger is liberal but if you are going to call it news you can try to tell both sides of the story. The SEIU has given more money in regional politics than every PAC listed in this article. I like to read different opinions than only getting my news from The Times. But seriously? I get it companies are bad and unions are good. No matter how corrupt it is. Doers the union represent the total population? Until Amazon starts paying its employees to hand out flyers and go door to door campaigning, or forcing its employees to vote the way they ask I think this article is attacking them and others unfairly.

@4 No one is forced to vote a certain way because of unions. Unions take small dues and then they use the money to support candidates that are going to be favorable to labor.

The Seattle Chamber of Commerce gives money to the likes of Tim Burgess and Rob Johnson because they want to support candidates that are going to be favorable to them.

I think my point could have been written better. If a Union spends millions on political contributions given in kind and are paying employees for political campaigning how is this ok and contributions from Amazon, a developer, or Boeing is bad? The companies and people listed above are not paying employees to campaign. Lyft, Boeing, Amazon, and the others have employees that do not financially benefit from one politician or another. They have employees that make up their own minds on campaigns. If you are truly trying to get a politician who is looking for everyone's interest it is worth noting that they largest contribution is coming from one party and it isn't the big corporations. It is worth noting that contributions are coming from different parties, but this article leaves out the largest contributions for some reason.

"CASE's top donors read like an enemies list for housing activist Grant"

Gonzalez, endorsed by the Stranger against Bradburd in Pos 9, has max contribution from CASE and from slumlord Haglund, as well as from Goodman Real Estate, Vulcan, NAIOP (commercial real estate developer association), and individual developers. Also downtown property owners, the Police Officers Guild, anti-$15/hr Alaska Airlines, Tim Burgess (who did joint fundraiser with her last week), John Okamoto and Richard Conlin(!).

Her joint fundraiser with Burgess was sponsored by developers and the attorney that brokered the HALA 'Grand Bargain' that only delivers the meager 5% affordable units (when other cities get 20% affordable units).

Just imagine what else all this money could go to INSTEAD of pandering to special interests and rigging elections.

This article could've explored the influence of the unions as well, as mentioned by another poster. And what about the highest contributions earner, Sawant? More than a third of her contributions come from outside the city. Just because her money isn't from an I.E. doesn't make those contributions harmless or without expectations of a quid pro quo.