FOLLOWUP: ‘Democracy Vouchers’ start arriving in the mail

img_1158-2

We mentioned them a month ago – and now the “Democracy Vouchers” created by voter-approved Seattle Initiative 122 are arriving in the postal mail, if you’re a registered voter, or if you requested them. They’re a type of public campaign financing, property-tax-funded, that you’ll be able to use in three races that will be on this year’s city ballots – the two at-large City Council positions 8 and 9, and City Attorney. So far, two candidates have qualified for them, but others have until early June to qualify too. So how do you use them? The city website explains it all here. Answer to a particularly popular question: No, you can’t give yours to someone else.

66 Replies to "FOLLOWUP: 'Democracy Vouchers' start arriving in the mail"

  • Nancy R January 4, 2017 (3:11 pm)

    This will be an exciting experiment to give more power to the people.   Politicians work for all of us,  not just for a few.  And it should encourage more people to run for office who might not know as many wealthy donor-types.

    • Peter January 4, 2017 (6:09 pm)

      That is wrong in every way. This is about enriching politicians with taxpayers’ money. Period. 

      • TheKing January 5, 2017 (3:43 am)

        This is a genius scam. A tax law imposed on only property owners to distribute money to politicians, if you don’t use your voucher…the unused money goes to politicians anyway. I think this is challengeable. 

        • Steve January 5, 2017 (7:17 am)

          Let’s hope so! Horrible idea.  Will just allow even morre horrible candidates to be elected to the council. Just you think iit cannot get worse…

    • ltfd January 4, 2017 (8:51 pm)

      Shred early, and shred often.

      • Seattlite January 4, 2017 (9:13 pm)

        ltfd…Completed shredding.

  • WSalive January 4, 2017 (3:39 pm)

    I’d like to use the coupon as a credit towards my property taxes. 

    • Nora January 4, 2017 (5:08 pm)

      Me too!

    • Peter January 4, 2017 (6:11 pm)

      People who object to thei tax money being given away to politicians should be allowed to cash these in a face value. We’re being robbed. 

  • chemist January 4, 2017 (3:47 pm)

    My reading of the recent Seattle Times editorial and Barnett’s comments about bundling makes it sound like the PDC hasn’t weighed in on the idea of handing over vouchers to an intermediary (presumably with the assignment name left blank by the giver) who then (fills in the candidate name and) donates them, en masse, to a valid voucher-accepting candidate. 

  • Chris January 4, 2017 (4:37 pm)

    I thought we failed this idea…gonna ignore the whole thing…a layer of bureaucracy we don’t need.

  • clark5080 January 4, 2017 (5:21 pm)

    Maybe goodspace guy will run for city council

  • Peter January 4, 2017 (6:08 pm)

    Stealing from taxpayers to enrich politicians vouchers arriving soon. 

  • steve January 4, 2017 (6:11 pm)

    I am really angry about this! My voting preferences should be confidential. These vouchers have my name plastered on them , as well as including a sku number.  What a bunch of B.S!!!  Do you wonder why rents are so high? It’s because of this idiocy. This is $10 a month of my rent!!!  I will either throw them in the trash, or send 1/2 to the Democrat and the other to the Republican. I’d like to be the one to  decide whether to give or not.  You want voter participation? Simple. Make it required to keep your Driver license! GRRRR!

    • WSB January 4, 2017 (6:46 pm)

      If you donate to a candidate, it’s public. That’s why how you use these – if you use them – would be. The city also says that’s a point toward ensuring you know yours went where you wanted them to go.

      http://www.seattle.gov/democracyvoucher/seattle-residents/faqs#How do I know my Democracy Vouchers are going to my selected candidate?

  • BMC January 4, 2017 (6:14 pm)

    WTF – why not put the $$ towards homeless shelters!

    • WSB January 4, 2017 (6:45 pm)

      As noted above, this was a specific initiative proposing raising tax dollars, up to $3 million a year, for public campaign financing. Separate measures are raising money for housing – the recent $290 million levy, for example, and the $29 million in bonds that CM Herbold espoused.

  • Scott A January 4, 2017 (6:59 pm)
    1. Any idea what database the the SEEC uses to verify signatures?  I’m assuming the county’s voter database is the obvious signature source – I’m trying to think of what city database has signatures.

    2. http://www.seattle.gov/democracyvoucher/about-the-program
    3. “The Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission will verify the signature on each voucher before releasing funds to the campaigns.”
    • WSB January 5, 2017 (12:46 am)

      I’ve just read a bunch of fine print and it says that King County Elections will do the verifying.

  • M January 4, 2017 (7:05 pm)

    I’d almost be in favor of these stupid things if there was any choice in our elected officials. They are all some variation of the same progressive agenda. I’ll use my vouchers toward any candidate that will oppose Sawant, Obrien, and Hermoldt. 

    • Seattlite January 4, 2017 (9:15 pm)

      M — You are so right on.

    • Steve January 4, 2017 (10:09 pm)

      Exactly!

  • Meyer January 4, 2017 (7:07 pm)

    I can’t say I’m stoked about this. It seems to favor incumbents who already meet the qualifications for the vouchers rather than the “little guy” who hasn’t gathered enough signatures yet to qualify.

    • Diane January 4, 2017 (7:40 pm)

      actually this will do the opposite; this will help non-millionaires and non-incumbents have a decent chance at running for office; Jon Grant is not an incumbent and he started gathering signatures at least a month ago; he already has at least 520 signatures; all of my vouchers will be going to Jon Grant in his campaign for City Council; we all voted for this and it won and I’m thrilled; it’s a huge improvement over the usual where most candidates who win receive majority of their big “donations” from highly financed corporations

  • Jay Koster January 4, 2017 (7:11 pm)

    I saw quite a few of them arrive in the mail… and then go straight into the recycling bin at our building.

    • Diane January 4, 2017 (7:48 pm)

      voter apathy in this country is just plain sad, and makes no sense; voting is the #1 way for each person to have a choice; these vouchers are giving us a the opportunity to financially support candidates of our choice, even if we don’t have money to donate; with these vouchers you get to support 1, 2, 3, or 4 candidates that you want to get elected; how can anyone make this out to be a bad thing?

      • B January 5, 2017 (12:10 am)

        This IS our money…collected through taxes.

  • Senior Citizen January 4, 2017 (7:17 pm)

    I already can not afford my property taxes and now they increase 

    my property taxes even more with such nonsense.

    • Diane January 4, 2017 (7:51 pm)

      who is “they”?  we the people voted for this, and it’s a very good thing

      • Peter January 5, 2017 (9:02 am)

        No, there is nothing at all “good” about this. This is robbing us and raising our cost of living to enrich politicians. The people who voted for this are fools. 

        • Mikekey January 5, 2017 (10:48 am)

          Actually, the “fools” are all the people here who are so suprised that this is happening.  Why didn’t they bother to vote and vote no.  And even if you shred them, you are still paying the property tax.  We are planning to sell our home and downsize to a smaller one.  You can bet it won’t be in the city limits!

  • wetone January 4, 2017 (7:55 pm)

    I wonder how many new city of Seattle employees will be hired to run and oversee this program and all associated cost to tax payers. There’s a reason why no other city’s do this. Only in Seattle………….people need to vote if your not happy with your tax dollars going for this crap. Into the fire pit they go……

  • jpawk January 4, 2017 (8:34 pm)

    Does a percentage of the tax designated voucher funds go directly to the candidate?  if 100%,  where is the money coming from to staff the office for the distribution, emails & phones?  If 30% of the voters toss them away, what happens to the projected revenue from the tax increase? I didn’t vote for this for many reasons,  and I regret not doing more research before the vote to help bring it down.

  • CitySmack January 4, 2017 (8:35 pm)

    I plan to BURN my vouchers. I will not participate in theft from me to give to others who do not earn it. No candidate deserves WELFARE.

    • Katie January 5, 2017 (9:21 am)

      So your prefer that all politicians be rich?

      • M January 5, 2017 (10:22 am)

        “Rich” is typically a bi-product of one’s hard work and intellect that translates to success in business. So, yes, I’d prefer that resume in my city counsel candidates over our current clan of progressive hippies. 

        • Amanda January 6, 2017 (5:54 pm)

          You know that’s not true, M. You can’t get rich working for a non-profit, teaching, or even running your own small business. The amount of money you make has more to do with career choice than hard work.

      • Seattlite January 5, 2017 (12:26 pm)

        Katie — Rich or poor what counts is someone who is honest, has leadership skills, wants to do the right thing and listens to the people and not special interest groups, developers or crooked politicians.

  • WSGuy January 4, 2017 (8:43 pm)

    I went to sleep last night worried that we, as a society, are not doing enough to commercialize political campaigns.  I awoke to this with great relief.  This city knows how to spend!

    I just hope that no candidate uses their funds to launder voucher money through a friend’s “campaign consulting” business and into their pockets.  Pools of free money have a way of attracting those sort of shenanigans. 

  • Fiz January 4, 2017 (8:49 pm)

    Nope.  Will shred it as soon as it arrives.   

  • Junction Lady January 4, 2017 (9:30 pm)

    I did not vote for these ridiculous vouchers.  After reading about the vouchers I opted to recycle them.  I have no apprecation for the time, energy & money spent on this “project”.

  • Wsres January 4, 2017 (9:37 pm)

    A tax increase for these? Who voted for this!? Not me! But if they are not used, I am taxed and the money sits in the pot…

    • Katie January 5, 2017 (9:22 am)

      Yup. That’s voting works. Sometimes you have to pay for things you don’t like because you get outvoted. 

  • LetsFundOurSchools January 5, 2017 (7:48 am)

    This is what democracy looks like. Experiments have to start somewhere and we voted for this one which will hopefully give more voice to the average person and less to the wealthy!

    We can’t just complain every year and never try anything different :)

    • WSB January 5, 2017 (8:52 am)

      Thanks, LFOS. Re: your last line, if those who don’t like this idea have something else they would like to try, it would be interesting to hear about that, or to explicitly voice support for the way campaign financing works now. – TR

  • MrsT January 5, 2017 (8:59 am)

    I am pretty shocked by the negativity about this. Seriously folks, we have to start trying new things. Have a little imagination and take some responsibility. This is one more simple way to participate in our democracy. Maybe in the process we will get some lawmakers with the guts to start taxing rich people and ease the burden on us. 

  • JS January 5, 2017 (11:07 am)

    I mailed mine back to the city and asked for MY tax money back.  I don’t wish any of my tax money going to Seattle politicians.  Imagine how ingenious these people are – getting MORE of our taxpayer money for themselves!  As far as taxing rich people, that record is broke people.

  • WSalive January 5, 2017 (1:19 pm)

    This is completely foolish. We can all vote however we  like- regardless of money wasted on misleading tv commercials, and countless mailers!! Forcing me to pay my own money to have my mailbox jammed with a bunch of stupid sensationalistic postcards, that are then tossed directly into the recycle bin is wasteful in every possible manner. Then I’m told I’ll be cited if I don’t recycle, or put food in the trash?! Ha! So stupid, it’s funny!

  • Shed January 5, 2017 (2:26 pm)

    Looks like it was pretty decisively approved by those who participated in voting on the Initiative.

    https://electionsdata.kingcounty.gov/2015/election-results-nov/two/Local%20measures/City%20of%20Seattle%20Initiative%20Measure%20No.%20122

    Looks like maybe more reading and voting on Initiatives is needed by some on this thread.

  • steve January 5, 2017 (2:38 pm)

    Contrary to what the voters hope for, this is going to cause a hard swing to the right for Seattle.  Mitch McTurtle could not be happier.

  • anonyme January 5, 2017 (2:52 pm)

    What happens to my hard earned tax money if the vouchers are thrown away or not used???  This should be a voluntary program, not more property tax increases for people who can’t afford them.

    I want a refund.

  • anonyme January 5, 2017 (2:59 pm)

    Also, it appears that the only position West Seattleites will be able to use the vouchers toward is City Attorney.  Who the F cares???  Seriously?  The voucher has immediately been rendered all but worthless.

    I want to use mine to elect a new Mayor – not that there should be any contest.  Doughboy is done.

    • WSB January 5, 2017 (3:01 pm)

      That is not correct. This year, the three positions eligible for the voucher funding are City Attorney and at-large (citywide) Council Positions 8 and 9.

    • Mickymse January 5, 2017 (4:32 pm)

      Unfortunately it will not apply to Mayor for this cycle… Due to concerns about the sometimes high costs of mayoral campaigns, that particular race was exempted this cycle to allow sufficient funds to build up in the system. It will apply to that race also in 2021.

  • anonyme January 5, 2017 (4:46 pm)

    Are council positions 8 and 9 open to voting in our district?

    • Scott A January 7, 2017 (8:38 am)

      Yes – they’re city wide positions.

  • WSalive January 5, 2017 (5:51 pm)

    There should be an option to submit your coupons to fund an initiative to repeal this  stupid waste of property taxpayer money. Everyone else can use our hard earned property tax money to make certain that underdog city attorney election campaigns are more evenly funded. 

    Wait. Really? The real life effect of these coupons (which represent real life dollars) is almost completely inconsequential. 

  • MsD January 5, 2017 (9:10 pm)

    How about putting them on Craiglist for sale to the highest wannabe politician bidder?  I didn’t vote for this Portlandia-inspired mess, so I’d like to find a way to offset the increase in my property tax.

  • Mike January 6, 2017 (7:04 am)

    I’ll send everyone a mailer with details on how to send me $100.  If you don’t, I’ll deduct $100 from your bank account and give it to me anyways.

    Thanks,

    Seattle Politicians

    • WSB January 7, 2017 (3:51 pm)

      Something that recent commenters seem to have missed:

      This was *not* proposed/approved by councilmembers or any other politicians. This was a citizen initiative drive.

      In fact, according to this story from the start of the signature-collecting drive that put it on the ballot, councilmembers actually DECLINED to put something similar on the ballot months earlier.

      http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/seattle-initiative-drive-seeks-public-campaign-financing-reform/

      If you think it should be repealed, you can start an initiative to that effect – or talk to councilmembers about it.

      • WTF January 9, 2017 (7:29 pm)

        I am ashamed to say I probably voted for this bill.  I’m a huge fan of campaign contribution limits and transparency.  But a voucher program to designate dollars to qualifying city posts?  Seriously?!  Who the hell even can tell you the local officials?  Moreover, I’m supposed to keep and mail in vouchers up to a 11 months after they were distributed.  Good luck getting as much as 10% return rate.  Mine immediately went into the recycle bin.  The homeless and mentally ill go without basic care and shelter and each of the Seattle tax payers are paying $11.50 for this nonsense.  This is a disgrace!  I wrote to my city council representative; Lisa Herbold and the City Mayor today.  If they don’t want take action to repeal this ridiculous measure (which was bundled into an otherwise good bill) as soon as possible, I will no longer support nor vote for them come next election!  

  • WS since '66 January 7, 2017 (6:22 am)

    Those crying the blues maybe didn’t get the memo about campaign
    finance reform. Either one wants campaign finance reform or doesn’t. Understood
    this isn’t the only alternative but it is the one that was on the ballot. The
    voters, those who decided to participate, approved the idea by almost a 2-1
    margin, 63% for vs 37% against. Did you vote to make your voice heard or do you
    think your voice is heard posting comments?

    Instead of just complaining and making sarcastic comments
    does anyone have an idea on what should be done? What would you do if you were
    king for a day about campaign finance?

    • AMD January 7, 2017 (4:21 pm)

      In Canada they have a system where there aren’t limits on campaign contributions, there are limits on campaign spending.  So everyone ends up spending the same amount of money, having deeper pockets doesn’t help at all, and in such a way that puts the responsibility for campaign finance equity on the campaigns rather than the donors.

      This initiative costs me less in a year than I spend in a day on coffee at Starbucks.  For those talking about needing your money back because you didn’t vote for it, in the time you spent railing against the initiative on the internet you probably could have found enough change in your couch cushions to reimburse yourself.  It’s not a huge tax.  If you don’t want to use the vouchers don’t.

      • WSalive January 10, 2017 (9:13 am)

        Couch change? I don’t know who has been on your sofa, but, where do you get those “numbers”? There are certainly far more voters than properties or property owners. At a hundred dollars per voter, divided by properties…?  Help me out, here?!

        • WSB January 10, 2017 (9:24 am)

          The tax increase is limited to $3 million per year for 10 years. And obviously how much you pay depends on what your property is worth. It’s $0.019 per $1,000 of assessed value. So if you have property worth half a million dollars, you’ll pay $9.50 a year.

          • WSalive January 10, 2017 (1:14 pm)

            Ok, thanks. $10 year X 10 years.

            So, the avg property owner pays approx $100 for this program, so we can all send coupons to election campaigns we would not otherwise fund. Hardly sofa change. 

            At least our local printing and advertising companies will benefit!

Sorry, comment time is over.