Print
EmailThe cost of democracy in America is mind-boggling. As of Nov. 1, without even considering federal, state, and county elections, Seattle alone has campaigns that will spend over $5.3 million. Think about what that kind of money would do for some of our more egregious social, environmental, or infrastructure problems. Meanwhile, the argument for public funding for campaigns becomes more convincing every day.
The Supreme Court has decided that “money is speech.” That translates into, “we get what we pay for.” The result favors the rich, who make political contributions in hopes of getting even richer. In a fascinating cover story in a publication called UU World, editor Tom Stites explores “How Corporations Became Persons.” It’s about the legal fiction that undermines American democracy. Sites says:
Corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.
His words sound overstated until you read on and read the numbers associated with his statements.
So what does the record show for Seattle campaigns? Who has the influence and who wants it badly enough to contribute? Seattle’s Ethics and Election Commission website has the details. They have lists for each candidate and issue, how much was donated, by whom, and who the donors work for.
One thing the figures show is that ballot measures account for $1.9 million in contributions, and they often draw a lot of money even from out of state. Our mayoral candidates will spend $1.7 million to get elected. City council candidates will spend $1.5 million.
It’s frustrating that the media tend to rank candidates by how much money they can coax out of contributors, implying that money is the best indicator of how much trust people will give to a candidate. The reality is that raising money is a measure of a candidate's skills at fund raising more (or willingness to stay at that degrading task) than how they will perform in office. Sadly, the public often simplistically concludes that if a candidate can raise big bucks he or she must be good.
Perusing the list of donors, I find lots of the usual suspects. Relatives, friends, and coworkers are usually asked to write a check. Almost always there are a dozen or so who contribute the same amount to each candidate every year, probably hoping for access. Attorneys contribute, likely protecting access for clients whose interests are at stake. There are always various companies, of which developers and real estate and construction firms have the most obvious stake in city hall access. Then there are city hall employees, who often feel an obligation (or a desire) to help out the boss.
It's harder to figure the angle when donations are made from a political action group with a non-profit status. Did that money come from just a few powerful backers or a large membership? “Forward Seattle,” for example, a business PAC, donated $181,645. What do they want out of the deal? “Working 4 Seattle” donated $104,000. I haven’t a clue what they stand for, or what kind of Seattle they are working 4.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Tue, Nov 17, 10:44 a.m. Inappropriate
"It’s frustrating the media tend to rank candidates by how much money they can coax out of contributors, implying that money is the best indicator of how much trust people will give to a candidate."
I'm with you here, Kent. The ONLY press candidates get in the early part of their campaign is how much money they've raised. This makes fundraising far, far more important than the issues a candidate will bring to the table. It's this early money that has the greatest chance to buy support.
Getting name familiarity and your issues out there is the most important task for a candidate, especially early. If media wanted to make a big difference on the issue of fundraising, and dramatically reduce the impact of money on politics, they'd commit column inches and story counts to ISSUES early in the campaign. Currently, stressed reporters and their editors allow early fundraising to winnow the field so they don't have to spend as much time or column inches doing their job informing the public about candidates.
"Sadly, the public often simplistically concludes that if a candidate can raise big bucks he or she must be good."
I disagree, giving the public credit for more sense here. The public pays attention to fundraising figures because that's the only information media typically reports on, especially early in the campaign. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If media ignored fundraising numbers and reported on the issues for each candidate, the "public" would be more apt to focus on the issues.
I'm not naive. Fundraising certainly matters. It is certainly an indication of who the local political donor structure is supporting, and there is a place for that in the news. But the way the media writes about money and about campaigns is broken.
Publicly-financed campaigns is one key aspect to change this equation. I support public financing in Seattle as long as it is combined with districted council seats (5-4 hybrid) to help reduce costs to taxpayers. But it's awfully hard right this instant to make that vote given we're cutting critical social service programs...
I submit having editors and reporters taking a long look in the mirror and admitting significant responsibility for the unreasonable focus on money is also a significant part of the solution.
Posted Wed, Nov 18, 10:56 a.m. Inappropriate
Kent Kammerer is a bright man, but his constant griping about the focus on raising money in politics is beyond tiresome.
Seattle City Council candidates have to run citywide in a city of almost 600,000 people. The average successful Council campaign raises more than $200,000. That's a lot of people you have to reach using very little money, so candidates who can't raise funds on that level have very little chance of winning.
Let's look at David Miller's race this year--a six-way primary for an open council seat. A good rule of thumb is that a viable Council candidate needs to raise $80K to $100K by the primary. In this race three candidates had reached (or almost reached) this mark: Robert Rosencrantz ($131,622 at the end of August), Jordan Royer ($108,071), and Mike O'Brien ($78,675). These three candidates were the top three vote-getters in the primary. Rosencrantz spent far more than O'Brien and still lost in the final, but O'Brien had other advantages (environmental and Democratic Party endorsements, his association with winning mayoral candidate Mike McGinn) and Rosencrantz lost votes because of his ambiguous stance on a woman's right to choose.
If you can't get money from "the local donor structure," as Mr. Miller puts it, then create your own donor structure. Or put together a volunteer army like Mike McGinn, if you can. But a Seattle City Council candidate who can't raise $80,000 for a primary race doesn't have much of a chance. And it isn't the local political writer's job to ignore this fact, it's their job to report on it.