It is time for voter owned elections in Seattle.

Money in politics creates some serious problems.  The courts have consistently ruled that first amendment rights of free speech trump efforts to take money out of politics, but we still have ways to influence how money interacts with politics.  A great start would be public financing of local elections.

Last year, the state legislature passed a law allowing local jurisdictions to implement voter approved public financing of elections.  This makes a lot of sense to me.   A law like this would have a number of effects:

• It would make running for office possible to a much broader group of people - not just those who are well connected.  A more diverse group of candidates benefits all of us.
• It changes the focus of a campaign.  Instead of candidates focusing attention on people capable of writing $700 checks, they would likely focus on reaching as many people as possible.
• The hours currently spent fundraising could be reallocated to meeting with more people in the community, better understanding their needs, and working on solutions for the city’s challenges.

So how does it work and what does it look like?  In Seattle, the council is considering two proposals that would create public financing for council, city attorney and mayoral elections.  One suggestion follows Portland’s lump sum model: candidates could collect contributions of $10 from 1000 registered voters in Seattle, which would trigger a payment from the city of up to $250,000 (if there is an opponent raising money and if you make it to the general election).  The alternative proposal would be a match system, where the city would match contributions in some ratio (perhaps 3:1) for dollars raised up to $250 from individuals (so a $250 contribution would trigger a $750 match, for total of $1000 in spending) up to a campaign total of $250,000.

Both proposals have a lot of merit and I strongly support putting one of these to the voters this fall so that a system can be in place by the next city elections in 2011.  More details on the Seattle proposals can be found here: http://www2.ci.seattle.wa.us/ethics/elpub/CPFAC_FinalReport.pdf

The downside that detractors typically point to is that it uses scarce public resources to pay for campaigning.  While I understand this point, in the long run the city would be much better off by opening the door to more qualified candidates. $2-3 million spent on public financing today would deliver much better policies in the future. There is a dissenting opinion from the public financing advisory committee at http://www2.ci.seattle.wa.us/ethics/elpub/CPFAC_MinorityReport.pdf

If elected and the city council has not taken action yet, I will push for immediately authorizing a public vote on public financing and I will actively campaign to get this passed.  This is the type of smart investment in our future that makes sense.

You can read more about Portland’s system at http://www.portlandonline.com/auditor/index.cfm?c=27115