Dave Ross: Seattle democracy vouchers would rely on failure to achieve success

An effort to give Seattle residents more voting power could rely on people not participating.

Initiative 122 would authorize a 10-year, $30 million property tax levy to pay for vouchers that voters could use to fund their favored campaigns. Every registered voter would receive four vouchers worth $20 each to spend on candidates of his or her choice.

The backers of the effort say the initiative would help level the playing field by creating a publicly funded election system that would decrease the role of money in local politics. There would be a $500 limit an individual could donate to a candidate, while banning contributions from certain special interests, including contractors that do more than $250,000 worth of work for the city.

“The reason that young people are excited about Initiative 122 is that it is really moving to put the power of politics back into the hands of common people,” Sonny Nguyen, engagement coordinator for a group specializing in young voters and support I-122, told KIRO Radio’s Jason Rantz.

The idea may sound good on the surface, but critics of the initiative have pointed out some potential flaws. For starters, the program would be voluntary, meaning candidates that don’t participate can raise as much money as they want. If one candidate chooses to participate and his or her opponent doesn’t, that candidate can then raise unlimited private money, KIRO Radio’s Josh Kerns explained. It would also allow special interest groups to tell people how to use the vouchers.

MyNorthwest 2015 Election Guide

“By steering hundreds of thousands of dollars to favored candidates, special interests will have even more influence over politicians than they already do,” former Seattle Ethics and Elections chairperson Michele Radosevich said.

On top of that, reports show that the initiative to take “big money” out of politics is being supported by “big money” of its own.

But if those reasons don’t cause skepticism of the initiative, the numbers behind them might. Supporters say the levy to fund the vouchers would cost less than $10 a year on a median-priced home. The property tax would raise about $6 million. However, it would take $41 million in order to provide Seattle’s more than 410,000 voters four $25 vouchers, Kerns said.

“Well, they assume, as with most coupons, most people won’t redeem them,” Ross said.

About 13 percent of voters would receive the vouchers before the money runs out, Kerns continued.

“So, it’s a measure whose success depends on it failing,” Ross said.

That $6 million for the vouchers would actually be closer to $5 million, too. The cost of the program would cost about $600,000 to administer, Kerns explained.

The idea reminded Ross of the City of Seattle’s efforts to refund low-income drivers to offset the cost of $60 car tab feeds. In order to provide the drivers a $20 rebate, the city estimated it would spend up to $17 each in overhead costs. The city estimated 51,000 people would take advantage of the program, but far fewer actually did.