Seattle's public campaign financing <a href="http://honestelectionsseattle.org/what-is-initiative-122/" target="_blank">Initiative
I-122</a> passed easily on Tuesday. It should prove to be an
excellent experiment in campaign finance vouchers, an idea that has
been batted about at the federal level, as well.<br>
<br>
Here's how it works. Each election cycle (two years) the city's
ethics commission will mail four $25 vouchers to each registered
voter, to be given, if they choose, to any candidate for mayor, city
council, or city attorney. The vouchers can be mailed or submitted
online. They cannot be traded or purchased.<br>
<br>
Due to the U.S. Supreme Court majority's interpretation of the
Constitution, candidates may choose to participate or not
participate. If they choose to participate, in return for the
ability to accept vouchers, they agree to follow rules, such as
participating in three public debates and accepting a lower
expenditure limit.<br>
<br>
The vouchers are to be funded by additional property taxes.<br>
<br>
It will be interesting to see how many residents actually give their
vouchers to candidates, whom they give them to (e.g., mostly to
incumbents or challengers), when they give them, as well as how many
and which kind of candidates participate, how candidates seek to
obtain vouchers for their campaigns (canvasing, events, ads), and
how the voucher system affects other sorts of campaign contributions
and independent expenditures.<br>
<br>
For all candidates, the initiative also lowers the contribution
limit from $700 to $500 and prohibits them from soliciting
contributions from any person or company with at least $250,000 in
city contracts or $5,000 in city lobbying expenses. I like the
latter idea, but $250,000 is too high to include most professionals
and consultants, who tend to be important contributors and to get
no-bid contracts.<br>
<br>
But there may be impediments to the program working, as there have
been in most local government public financing programs. There is
likely to be a suit to try to have the program, or an essential part
of it, declared unconstitutional. Major candidates may refuse to
participate. There may be issues about funding the vouchers (higher property taxes are not usually popular over the long run). And there could
be an attempt to underfund the ethics commission, which is assigned
with administering the program, and already has its hands full.<br>
<br>
The only other problem is that, since Seattle already has a good ethics program as well as good
election, transparency, and lobbying laws, a public
financing program may not change things as much as it might change
most other cities. That is, Seattle is not the best guinea pig for such a program.<br>
<br>
But let's hope that opponents will allow the program to proceed, if not just
for Seattle, but also for the rest of the country, which might
learn something about how such a program works in practice.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br />
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br />