Our Voice: Seattle’s test of campaign vouchers worth watching
Seattle voters have decided to be the guinea pigs in an experimental plan to reform election campaign financing. If it works, it should boost citizen involvement in local politics and voter participation.
If it doesn’t, Seattle residents will have spent millions on a system so fraught with loopholes that it fails to improve the process.
It will be fascinating to see how it pans out.
During the November election, Seattle voters overwhelmingly approved Initiative 122 — touted as the Honest Elections Initiative — by 63 percent of the vote.
This is how it works: Seattle voters will receive $100 from the city, distributed in four $25 vouchers that they can use to contribute to candidates running for office. The vouchers are limited to city races, and the candidates who accept them must abide by certain rules, including not taking funds from political action committees and agreeing to strict spending caps. Candidates can then redeem the vouchers with the city for cash that can be used for their campaigns.
The program is financed by an increase in property taxes, which the Seattle Times said amounts to $9 per year for a $450,000 home. It is estimated the tax increase will raise about $30 million over the next 10 years.
This push to put campaign money into the hands of the average citizen is in response to the idea that the political process is manipulated by wealthy individuals and corporations.
The hope is that by giving regular folks more financial power, they will become more involved in the political process and more likely to vote. And elected officials, in turn, will pay more attention to the needs of citizens, instead of special interests.
The goal of the initiative is certainly appealing.
Detractors worry, however, about the potential for fraud and abuse and that people might be tempted to sell their vouchers under the table. They also believe it is a less transparent system and that special interest groups will still find a way to monopolize the process.
Opponents also said citizens may be willing to give up their vouchers to the first people who ask for them, and that will benefit incumbents — which is the opposite of what the program is supposed to do.
The drive behind this effort is to give people who don’t typically contribute to political campaigns a chance to give to candidates who aren’t likely to get big money.
A desire to diminish the influence of large corporations during election season has been building since the U.S. Supreme Court in 2010 changed the campaign financing game. Before the ruling, political action committees were heavily regulated under campaign finance laws. Individuals could give no more than $2,500 and corporations and unions were not allowed to donate.
But those limits are now gone, propelling the idea that large amounts of cash dictate elections. Supporters of I-122 said this attitude has contributed to voter apathy, and they believe the voucher program can help counter that.
It is no wonder that Seattle voters have decided to give this new system a try. If it helps encourage more people to participate in the political process and feel more relevant, then that’s a great thing.
But it is still just a test run. We will have to wait and see if it really makes a difference.
This story was originally published December 4, 2015 at 5:29 AM with the headline "Our Voice: Seattle’s test of campaign vouchers worth watching."