Follow us:

Northwest Voices

Seattle Times letters to the editor

October 16, 2013 at 7:33 AM

Proposition 1 and the Seattle City Council

Helps incumbents, not new candidates

I am writing to voice concerns over the upcoming vote on Seattle Proposition 1, which is being referred to as a campaign finance reform measure [“Is Prop. 1 answer to big money in City Council campaigns?” NWMonday, Oct. 14].

I think most people will agree there is too much money in politics. As people become more educated about Proposition 1, they will agree that the additional taxpayer money this measure will throw at candidates is not the solution — and may in fact make matters worse.

Proposition 1 is a $9 million property tax levy that will finance only City Council candidates’ campaigns. It’s not surprising that two City Council members, Mike O’Brien and Nick Licata, are considered the primary advocates for this measure.

Under Proposition 1, a candidate who raises $30,000 will then be eligible for $180,000 in taxpayer money to use for campaign purposes. This measure does not require any candidate to abide by those limits, nor restrict in any way special interest money or PAC expenditures. This measure would also require candidates to have more than 600 donors. Multiple analyses have observed that this requirement could help incumbents rather than bring new candidates into the process, which is Proposition 1’s stated goal.

Laverne Lamoureux, Seattle

Bring small donors into the fold

Proposition 1 will be incredibly beneficial to Seattle. Allowing a number of small donors to play a more significant role in City Council elections is incredibly important.

It would allow candidates to raise small donations, which could be matched by public funds to finance their campaigns. This makes small donations much more important, while at the same time diluting the power of large donations.

The example of public financing in the New York City Council races is evidence that this can work. When small donations began to be matched by public funds, the number of people who donated to campaigns increased substantially. These donors were from areas that had been disproportionately left out of the political process, and resulted in more people having an impact in politics while using less money.

We can accomplish this here, and it can only be an improvement in Seattle politics.

Wes Ahrens, Seattle

Comments | More in proposition 1, Seattle City Council | Topics: Proposition 1, Seattle City Council


No personal attacks or insults, no hate speech, no profanity. Please keep the conversation civil and help us moderate this thread by reporting any abuse. See our Commenting FAQ.

NOTE TO READERS Some users, for example Century Link customers, may not be able to see comments at the moment. We’re aware of the problem and looking for a solution. We apologize for the disruption.

The opinions expressed in reader comments are those of the author only, and do not reflect the opinions of The Seattle Times.

The Seattle Times

The door is closed, but it's not locked.

Take a minute to subscribe and continue to enjoy The Seattle Times for as little as 99 cents a week.

Subscription options ►

Already a subscriber?

We've got good news for you. Unlimited content access is included with most subscriptions.

Subscriber login ►
The Seattle Times

To keep reading, you need a subscription upgrade.

We hope you have enjoyed your complimentary access. For unlimited access, please upgrade your digital subscription.

Call customer service at 1.800.542.0820 for assistance with your upgrade or questions about your subscriber status.

The Seattle Times

To keep reading, you need a subscription.

We hope you have enjoyed your complimentary access. Subscribe now for unlimited access!

Subscription options ►

Already a subscriber?

We've got good news for you. Unlimited content access is included with most subscriptions.

Activate Subscriber Account ►