One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.

Thomas Sowell

Right now there is a bill before the legislature that would allow cities to institute public financing, and we're organizing now so that when it passes we can get it on the ballot as soon as possible.

One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.

Thomas Sowell

The current system is unfair to the average working class person. Democracy should be accessible to all, not just to those who can afford it. Good ideas don't grow out of wealth, they grow out of life experience.

One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.

Thomas Sowell

Local Choice Public Funding of Campaigns

for Cities and Local Jurisdictions

Why Local Choice / Local Option?

Campaigns for local office have become too expensive! The result? Too few candidates can afford to run. Voters are denied basic democracy: a wide choice of candidates and views.

Public funding of campaigns levels the financial playing field and allows anyone to run – so that elections are about issues and voters, not about who is winning the campaign money race.

Should local government appear to be for sale?

Increasingly, candidates for local office must raise campaign cash from special interests that expect access and political favors in return: quid pro quo, in decisions affecting land use, development, and priorities for use of local public resources. Advocates for human services, for environmental sensitivity, for good government – cannot match the campaign resources of developers, who often seek short-term profit rather than long-term community stability.

Local Option is NOT a Mandate! – it’s Local Choice!

Under the Local Choice / Local Option bills, the legislature simply removes an inappropriate ban, so that local voters and councils can establish local programs – and only if they choose to! Why prevent local control? Local jurisdictions - cities, counties, PUDs, and ports – should be allowed to provide public financing for campaigns, at their option, for local elections.

What would it cost?

At the state level – nothing! Any public financing for local campaigns would be up to local jurisdictions and voters. Locally, it is affordable: Seattle’s program cost less than $1 per voter, a pittance, to make sure local government works for the people, not special interests.

History of Public Financing for local jurisdictions in Washington State

The City of Seattle had the first-in-the nation program, approved in 1978, providing public matching funds, one-to-one, for the first $50 raised by any candidate for city council. The program was challenged in court, and the State Supreme Court approved the program.

However, in 1992, statewide Initiative 134 was enacted, prohibiting local public financing programs. Portrayed as “campaign finance reform,” I-134 contained a little-known provision that prohibited using public funds for state or local campaigns. This provision wiped out Seattle’s public matching program and a program offered by King County – and ever since has prevented local jurisdictions from enacting a program of public financing for local races.

Meanwhile, the cities of Portland, Oregon, and Albuquerque, New Mexico, have successful and popular programs of public financing for local office. These programs provide full public funding of campaigns for candidates who qualify by gathering signatures of local voter support.

Legislative Proposals (introduced in January, 2007)

In the 2007 legislative session, companion bills SB 5278 / HB 1551 were introduced by Senator Rosa Franklin and Representative Joe McDermott, to restore permission to localities to design and enact public financing of campaigns for local office, at their option. Neither bill was approved in the Senate or the House before the cutoff date in March.

There should be no requirement for a candidate to participate in campaign financing.  There is a difference between public financing and campaing financing to some degree.  What you are describing here is public campaign financing.

Should a candidate choose campaign financing, that's it, no going back to private funds.  But, there should be no requirement that a candidate use the public system over the private system we use today.

Chris exposed one of the problems in campaign financing.  Potential costs.  If you are talking about resources, not just donated money, like equal airtime and low rates, I can get behind that.