Opinion
The Problem With Seattle Elections Isn't Too Much Money, It's Too Little
City Council member Mike O’Brien is my favorite council member by far. I think he and I align on most issues. However, earlier this week, O'Brien argued that money has too much influence in Seattle city council races. I disagree. Seattle doesn’t suffer from too much money in local elections, but not enough.
O’Brien is right to be wondering why few incumbents got credible challengers. But his solution, putting public money into campaigns, is hardly the answer to that problem. People have a variety of reasons why they run for office or don’t, and money is only one of them.
The problem isn’t that there is too much money being spent on political campaigns in Seattle, but that there isn’t enough of the right kind of money supporting the right kind of candidates. I really want to see a City Council that works with the Mayor to put together a coherent vision for the future of our city as it grows over the next 100 years. I’d like to see that growth happen in compact, transit-oriented neighborhoods.
The likelihood of that happening is not being thwarted by millionaire NIMBYs pumping money into City Council campaigns. Money hasn’t corrupted the system when it comes to fighting growth. Instead, neighborhood opponents of density rely on rousing up lots of angry neighbors at council meetings. That presence—angry neighbors all up in the council's face—has a very significant impact on council behavior.
Does the $700 contribution by a developer somehow neutralize the impact from the hue and cry of 100 angry neighbors against a proposed new development? I don’t think so. The problem, from my political perspective, is that developers will give the council members that $700 no matter what the council does on an individual project. Developer money has neutralized itself by flowing largely to incumbents no matter what they do on land use.
As Erica recently pointed out, there is very little money being spent on independent expenditure campaigns in the city. Yet those campaigns are exactly what’s needed to start shifting influence away from the angry NIMBYs at public meetings (and in the comments sections of blogs) and toward smart, thoughtful planning to accommodate growth in our city.
I hope that O’Brien’s election reform proposals, whatever they end up being, don’t kill the golden goose. If developers in Seattle ever get their act together on funding significant independent expenditure campaigns, we actually might be able to fund a pro-growth slate to at least challenge the way we do "change" in Seattle today: status quo, plus incremental change, with lots and lots of process and talk in between.
O’Brien is right to be wondering why few incumbents got credible challengers. But his solution, putting public money into campaigns, is hardly the answer to that problem. People have a variety of reasons why they run for office or don’t, and money is only one of them.
The problem isn’t that there is too much money being spent on political campaigns in Seattle, but that there isn’t enough of the right kind of money supporting the right kind of candidates. I really want to see a City Council that works with the Mayor to put together a coherent vision for the future of our city as it grows over the next 100 years. I’d like to see that growth happen in compact, transit-oriented neighborhoods.
The likelihood of that happening is not being thwarted by millionaire NIMBYs pumping money into City Council campaigns. Money hasn’t corrupted the system when it comes to fighting growth. Instead, neighborhood opponents of density rely on rousing up lots of angry neighbors at council meetings. That presence—angry neighbors all up in the council's face—has a very significant impact on council behavior.
Does the $700 contribution by a developer somehow neutralize the impact from the hue and cry of 100 angry neighbors against a proposed new development? I don’t think so. The problem, from my political perspective, is that developers will give the council members that $700 no matter what the council does on an individual project. Developer money has neutralized itself by flowing largely to incumbents no matter what they do on land use.
As Erica recently pointed out, there is very little money being spent on independent expenditure campaigns in the city. Yet those campaigns are exactly what’s needed to start shifting influence away from the angry NIMBYs at public meetings (and in the comments sections of blogs) and toward smart, thoughtful planning to accommodate growth in our city.
I hope that O’Brien’s election reform proposals, whatever they end up being, don’t kill the golden goose. If developers in Seattle ever get their act together on funding significant independent expenditure campaigns, we actually might be able to fund a pro-growth slate to at least challenge the way we do "change" in Seattle today: status quo, plus incremental change, with lots and lots of process and talk in between.
