Democracy voucher

Last updated

A democracy voucher is a method of public financing of political campaigns used in municipal elections in Seattle, Washington, United States. It was approved in 2015 and debuted during the 2017 election cycle. The program provides city residents with four vouchers, each worth $25, that can be pledged to eligible candidates running for municipal offices. It is funded by a property tax and is applied on a first-come, first-served basis.

Contents

Implementation

Seattle

A democracy voucher issued for the 2021 primary and general elections in Seattle Democracy Voucher with book (51420868132).png
A democracy voucher issued for the 2021 primary and general elections in Seattle

The Seattle democracy voucher program was approved in a 2015 citywide referendum. [1] Municipal elections in 2017 were the first year the program was implemented. [2] [3] It is the first program of its kind in the United States. [4]

Under the program, each registered voter in Seattle received four $25 vouchers which they were eligible to give to any eligible candidates standing for election to municipal office (other Seattle residents who would normally be eligible to donate to campaigns could request vouchers as well). [5] To be eligible, candidates must have

  1. already raised between $1,500 and $6,000 from a minimum number of donors;
  2. agreed to campaign finance restrictions, including accepting no more than $250 of non-voucher funds from any individual contributor (or $500 for candidates standing for the office of mayor), and
  3. agreed to cap campaign spending to a determined limit. In addition, participating candidates must not have received any contributions from a person or organization with more than $250,000 in service contracts with the city. People who are not eligible to vote, such as permanent residents, were also eligible. [2] [6] [7]

Seattle City Council members serve 4-year terms, with roughly half of the seats contested every other year. The program was funded by a $3 million citywide increase in the property tax. The system was "first come, first served", with just 47,000 vouchers honored. [4]

The 2021 election was the first mayoral election to use democracy vouchers. During the primary election, the number of city residents contributing financially to election campaigns increased from 1.5 percent in 2017 to 3.6 percent in 2021. [8]

Outcomes

In 2022, a first of its kind study was conducted by the Journal of Public Economics on the effects of Seattle's democracy vouchers program for city council races within the two subsequent election cycles following the programs implementation. The study found a substantial increase in the number of unique donors at 350%, with a 53% increase in the total dollar amount of contributions, which the authors of the study attributed to the significant increase in small donations, or donations totaling less than $200. [9]

Moreover, the study also saw a statistically significant increase in the number of candidates taking part in the elections, at 86%, with attendant decreases in the electoral success of incumbent candidates. [9]

The total of contributions per city council race remained relatively stable from before and after the adoption of the program, at $2 million to 1.75 million, respectively. There was some evidence that suggested a slight depression of private donations compared to before the rollout of the program, though more scholarship and research on the subject is necessary to make any additional definitive claims. [9]

Oakland

In 2022, Oakland voters approved a "Democracy Dollars" program with 74% approval. It was modeled on the Seattle program, and will use money from the general fund. [10] Budget pressure delayed the rollout from 2024 to 2026. [11] [12]

Proposals

A similar plan was put forward by the 2020 presidential campaign of Andrew Yang. The campaign's "Democracy Dollars" would have given each registered voter $100 to put towards the political campaign of their choice annually. [13]

In 2016 in a statewide ballot initiative, South Dakota voters supported a bill that included provisions for democracy vouchers as part of a larger ethics reform bill called "the government accountability and anti-corruption act". The democracy voucher part of this bill provided voters two $50-dollar vouchers to be given to state candidates. [14] The bill passed with over 51% of the vote, but South Dakota Republicans repealed the bill in early 2017. An "emergency clause" was included in the repeal preventing resubmission of the ballot initiative. [15]

Advocates in other cities have put forward similar proposals, including in Los Angeles, California. [16] Los Angeles advocates have argued that democracy vouchers would lead to "a more diverse group of donors, and a more representative set of candidates and officeholders" were the policy enacted. [17]

Response

Supporters argue that the program makes campaign donors more representative of the overall population, [18] lets candidates fundraise for competitive campaigns without relying on big money, [19] and limits the influence of special interests over elected officials. [4]

Opponents claimed that, because the vouchers would be distributed ten months before the general election and were assigned on a first come, first served basis, the program would largely benefit incumbent political candidates rather than challengers, because the latter typically launch their campaigns at a later date than incumbents. As a result, they suggested that incumbents might receive all funds from the program, with available money completely depleted by the time challengers were able to organize campaigns. [4]

In Elster vs. City of Seattle, two Seattle property owners sued the city of Seattle in King County Superior Court in 2017, alleging the Democracy Voucher program violated their First Amendment rights by using their tax contribution to subsidize political speech. The city responded with a motion to dismiss rather than engaging with the complaint, and the motion was granted by the court. The plaintiffs appealed the decision, and the case was taken up by the Washington State Supreme Court, who affirmed the lower court's decision. [20]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Campaign finance reform in the United States</span> United States efforts to regulate fundraising for democratic election campaigns

Campaign finance laws in the United States have been a contentious political issue since the early days of the union. The most recent major federal law affecting campaign finance was the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002, also known as "McCain-Feingold". Key provisions of the law prohibited unregulated contributions to national political parties and limited the use of corporate and union money to fund ads discussing political issues within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election; However, provisions of BCRA limiting corporate and union expenditures for issue advertising were overturned by the Supreme Court in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Campaign finance</span> Fundraising for political campaigns

Campaign finance – also called election finance, political donations, or political finance – refers to the funds raised to promote candidates, political parties, or policy initiatives and referendums. Donors and recipients include individuals, corporations, political parties, and charitable organizations.

In the election of the United States held for government officials at the federal, state, and local levels. At the federal level, the nation's head of state, the president, is elected indirectly by the people of each state, through an Electoral College. Today, these electors almost always vote with the popular vote of their state. All members of the federal legislature, the Congress, are directly elected by the people of each state. There are many elected offices at state level, each state having at least an elective governor and legislature. There are also elected offices at the local level, in counties, cities, towns, townships, boroughs, and villages; as well as for special districts and school districts which may transcend county and municipal boundaries.

A publicly funded election is an election funded with money collected through income tax donations or taxes as opposed to private or corporate funded campaigns. It is a policy initially instituted after Nixon for candidates to opt into publicly funded presidential campaigns via optional donations from tax returns. It is an attempt to move toward a one voice, one vote democracy, and remove undue corporate and private entity dominance.

Matching funds are funds that are set to be paid in proportion to funds available from other sources. Matching fund payments usually arise in situations of charity or public good. The terms cost sharing, in-kind, and matching can be used interchangeably but refer to different types of donations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Campaign finance in the United States</span> Contributions to American election campaign funds

The financing of electoral campaigns in the United States happens at the federal, state, and local levels by contributions from individuals, corporations, political action committees, and sometimes the government. Campaign spending has risen steadily at least since 1990. For example, a candidate who won an election to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1990 spent on average $407,600, while the winner in 2022 spent on average $2.79 million; in the Senate, average spending for winning candidates went from $3.87 million to $26.53 million.

The presidential election campaign fund checkoff appears on US income tax return forms as the question "Do you want $3 of your federal tax to go to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund?".

In the 2008 United States presidential election, fundraising increased significantly compared to the levels achieved in previous presidential elections.

Political funding in Australia deals with political donations, public funding and other forms of funding received by politician or political party in Australia to pay for an election campaign. Political parties in Australia are publicly funded, to reduce the influence of private money upon elections, and subsequently, the influence of private money upon the shaping of public policy. After each election, the Australian Electoral Commission distributes a set amount of money to each political party, per vote received. For example, after the 2013 election, political parties and candidates received $58.1 million in election funding. The Liberal Party received $23.9 million in public funds, as part of the Coalition total of $27.2 million, while the Labor Party received $20.8 million.

Electoral reform in the United States refers to the efforts of change for American elections and the electoral system used in the US.

The financing of federal political entities in Canada is regulated under the Canada Elections Act. A combination of public and private funds finances the activities of these entities during and outside of elections.

Political party funding is a method used by a political party to raise money for campaigns and routine activities. The funding of political parties is an aspect of campaign finance.

<i>Republic, Lost</i>

Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress—and a Plan to Stop It is the sixth book by Harvard law professor and free culture activist Lawrence Lessig. In a departure from the topics of his previous books, Republic, Lost outlines what Lessig considers to be the systemic corrupting influence of special-interest money on American politics, and only mentions copyright and other free culture topics briefly, as examples. He argued that the Congress in 2011 spent the first quarter debating debit-card fees while ignoring what he sees as more pressing issues, including health care reform or global warming or the deficit. Lessig has been described in The New York Times as an "original and dynamic legal scholar."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">New York City Campaign Finance Board</span>

The New York CityCampaign Finance Board (CFB) is an independent New York City agency that serves to provide campaign finance information to the public, enable more citizens to run for office by granting public matching funds, increase voter participation and awareness, strengthen the role of small contributors, and reduce the potential for actual or perceived corruption.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">American Anti-Corruption Act</span> American model legislation

The American Anti-Corruption Act (AACA), sometimes shortened to Anti-Corruption Act, is a piece of model legislation designed to limit the influence of money in American politics by overhauling lobbying, transparency, and campaign finance laws. It was crafted in 2011 "by former Federal Election Commission chairman Trevor Potter in consultation with dozens of strategists, democracy reform leaders and constitutional attorneys from across the political spectrum, and is supported by reform organizations such as Represent.Us, which advocate for the passage of local, state, and federal laws modeled after the AACA. It is designed to limit or outlaw practices perceived to be major contributors to political corruption.

Jonathan Tivadar Soros is co-founder and partner of One Madison Group, a private investment firm. Before joining One Madison Group, Soros had been chief executive officer of JS Capital Management LLC, a private investment firm and, prior to that, co-deputy chairman of Soros Fund Management.

Every Voice was an American nonprofit, progressive liberal political advocacy organization. The organization was formed in 2014 upon the merger of the Public Campaign Action Fund, a 501(c)(4) group, and the Friends of Democracy. Every Voice, along with its affiliated Super PAC, Every Voice Action, advocated for campaign finance reform in the United States via public financing of political campaigns and limitations on political donations. The organization's president, David Donnelly, has said "We fully embrace the irony of working through a Super PAC to fight the influence of Super PACs."

RepresentUs is a nonpartisan not-for-profit organization focused on ending political corruption in the United States. Funded by donations and grants, it is run mostly by volunteers aligned in a grassroots organizing network, and it has brought in high-profile celebrities to advance its message. It advertises, produces videos, and generates publicity with speeches and demonstrations and protests.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2021 Seattle City Council election</span>

The 2021 Seattle City Council election were held on November 2, 2021. Two seats of the nine-member Seattle City Council were up for election.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2023 Seattle City Council election</span>

The 2023 Seattle City Council election was held on November 7, 2023, following a primary election on August 1. The seven district-based seats of the nine-member Seattle City Council are up for election; the districts were modified based on the results of the 2020 census. Four incumbent members of the city council did not seek reelection.

References

  1. ↑ "City of Seattle Restrictions on Campaign Finance and Elections, Initiative Measure No. 122 (November 2015)". Ballotpedia. Retrieved December 15, 2020.
  2. 1 2 Young, Bob (November 3, 2015). "'Democracy vouchers' win in Seattle; first in country". Seattle Times . Retrieved December 10, 2016.
  3. ↑ "Democracy vouchers coming to Seattle mailboxes soon". KING-TV . December 7, 2016. Archived from the original on December 11, 2016. Retrieved December 11, 2016.
  4. 1 2 3 4 Berman, Russell (November 10, 2015). "Seattle's Experiment With Campaign Funding". The Atlantic . Retrieved December 10, 2016.
  5. ↑ "Information for Seattle Residents - DemocracyVoucher". www.seattle.gov. Retrieved December 15, 2020.
  6. ↑ "Democracy Voucher Program: How to Qualify as a Candidate" (PDF). seattle.gov. City of Seattle. Archived from the original (PDF) on December 20, 2016. Retrieved December 10, 2016.
  7. ↑ Ryan, John (October 25, 2016). "$100 in Monopoly money—and just maybe, a better democracy—headed your way, Seattle". KUOW-FM . Retrieved December 10, 2016.
  8. ↑ Hyde, David; Todd, Gracie (August 11, 2021). "Did Seattle's Democracy Vouchers combat 'big money' in August's mayoral primary?". KUOW. Retrieved August 11, 2021.
  9. 1 2 3 Griffith, Alan; Noonen, Thomas (July 1, 2022). "The effects of public campaign funding: Evidence from Seattle's Democracy Voucher program". Journal of Public Economics. 211: 104676. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2022.104676. ISSN   0047-2727.
  10. ↑ "Oakland Voters Approve 'Democracy Dollars' Program to Boost Participation in City Elections". Sludge. December 15, 2022. Retrieved May 13, 2024.
  11. ↑ Wolfe, Eli (July 26, 2023). "Oakland's Democracy Dollars delayed, but not dead". The Oaklandside. Retrieved May 13, 2024.
  12. ↑ "Democracy Dollars Program | Oakland Fair Elections Act". City of Oakland. Retrieved May 13, 2024.
  13. ↑ "Yang's unusual proposal creates money in politics buzz at debate - The Fulcrum". thefulcrum.us. Retrieved May 13, 2024.
  14. ↑ Krieg, Gregory (November 10, 2015). "A new way to reform: 'Democracy vouchers' vs. Citizens United". CNN. Retrieved March 2, 2021.
  15. ↑ Krieg, Gregory (February 2, 2017). "South Dakota GOP uses 'emergency' rules to repeal anti-corruption law - CNN Politics". CNN. Retrieved March 2, 2021.
  16. ↑ https://lademocracyvouchers.org/ [ bare URL ]
  17. ↑ Commentary, Guest (November 10, 2021). "Here's a better way for LA to deal with campaign finance". Calmatters.
  18. ↑ "Who Funds Seattle's Political Candidates?". Sightline Institute. July 22, 2015. Retrieved December 15, 2020.
  19. ↑ "Democracy Policy Network". democracypolicy.network. Retrieved December 15, 2020.
  20. ↑ "First Amendment — Campaign Contributions — Washington State Supreme Court Holds "Democracy Voucher" Program Constitutional. — Elster v. City of Seattle, 444 P.3d 590 (Wash. 2019)". Harvard Law Review. 133 (3): 1121–1128. 2020. ISSN   0017-811X.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.