Boots & Sabers

The blogging will continue until morale improves...


Everything but tech support.

0657, 04 Nov 15

Seattle Votes for Democracy Welfare

Wow, this is stupid.

How would you like some coupons to spend on your favorite candidate?

That’s what Seattle voters will now receive after the successful passage of the “Honest Elections” referendum, which was introduced to diminish the influence of money in politics.

“Initiative 122” will radically transform the financing of local campaigns. Under the measure, voters will each be given $100 in “democracy vouchers” — four each, at $25 per — to be shelled out to the candidates of their choice.

It will also lower donation caps, ban contributions from corporations with significant city business interests, increase transparency and increase fines for electoral wrongdoing. Furthermore, officials who leave office will be required to spend three years on the sidelines before becoming eligible to register as lobbyists.

The story doesn’t say, but I assume that the coupons are paid for by taxpayers. So they are handing out money for the voters to spend on politicians. But since the coupons are not the citizens’ “own” money, they will treat it as such. Watch for this program to be rampant with fraud as politicians and their advocates trade pennies on the dollar for these coupons. How many folks who are already disinterested in the political process would be willing to sell their $100 coupon for $20 in cash?


0657, 04 November 2015


  1. scott

    Good impulse, weird way to go about it. Seems way too complicated. I just figured anyone who could establish him/herself as a viable candidate (signatures, etc) would get X dollars to run a campaign. No other contributions allowed. Simple. Why all the coupons and spending caps and other nonsense?

  2. Seriously

    Thinking isn’t your strong suit, so you should quit trying. Dipshit asshole.

  3. Kevin Scheunemann

    I’d sell mine for cash.

    This is as dumb as carbon credits.

  4. Dan

    You have to figure it is very liberal Seattle, where intelligent life is on the very low end, as are most liberal cities.
    There will be fraud, counterfeits, stolen coupons(will they replace them?) and it is probably unconstitutional with restricting money in the campaigns.
    But this is typical liberal puke and shows once again liberals are not smart, they really don’t know how to run things.

  5. scott

    Is there not even a tiny bit of concern about the influence of money on American politics here? Even a wee bit? I’m not sure what they’ve done is the right way to deal with it, but really? Nobody cares at all?

  6. Owen

    Public financing may have the impact to give candidates a chance who would have otherwise been marginal, at best, but it does nothing to “get money out of politics.” Even if the candidates are publicly funded, it is unconstitutional and unAmerican to forbid people from spending their own money on politics. Even in publicly-financed elections, we would still have 3rd party groups running ads, hosting events, and pushing voters to the polls. And this is as it should be. We have a right to use out own resources to influence our public affairs.

    The real problem is that there is so much politics in out lives. If government were a small entity that handled the few things it was intended to handle and otherwise left us the hell alone, then so many people wouldn’t be so invested in making sure “their guy” won.

  7. Kevin Scheunemann


    Only concerned about money from the hate America first foreign billionaires lkee George Soros given to all the liberal groups.

    We need resources great Americans to battle that evil.

    Soros will get around public campaign finance limitations to exert his anti-America influence. Influence of good, God-fearing, Americans will be taken out by your campaign, speech limitations.

    That’s the problem.

  8. scott

    So… my campaign finance reforms would limit “God-fearing” Americans, but not the people you disagree with? How’s that work, exactly?

    I think it would be a very positive thing for democracy if candidates running for congress or the presidency didn’t have to rely on lobbyists and the super wealthy to finance their campaigns. Headlines like make me wonder if it’s not already too late:

  9. Seriously

    More hatred of free speech from shithead Scott.

  10. Kevin Scheunemann


    Just pointing out the futility of your efforts.

    The cure for the hate speech Soros emits is more speech. God fearing, patriotic, Americans, out spending him.

    None of your proposals can prosecute a foreign billionaire, wishing the downfall of this cvountry, for influencing American politics.

    That is the problem.

  11. scott

    Soros is an American citizen, Kevin.

    I’ll ask again: how would the campaign financing reforms I’m describing hold back your friendlies but not mine? It’s nonsense.

  12. old baldy


    Soros is an American citizen, as is Adelson and the koch brothers. Where do you draw the line?

    I am just as “American” as you are, was born in northern WI of parents born in the US, served our country in a real nice resort in SE Asia (sarcasm here), but I don’t fear your “god”. What I do fear are closed minded ideologs like yourself that claim their belief is the right one, and mine is the wrong one. And then legislate that belief. A short review of history would reveal to you that religious freedom, also the freedom from religion is why folks moved to North America to begin with. But I also realize that doesn’t fit with your world view.

    “Belief in the supernatural reflects a failure of the imagination”.

    Ed Abbey

  13. Kevin Scheunemann

    Scott, Baldy,

    Didn’t say he was not an American citizen. His political positions and inside trader conviction is the antithesis of what it means to be an American citizen.

    Sorry if I was not clear about his Failed European Socialist views and the fact he spends almost all of his time out if the USA as the “foreigner” that he is.

    I don’t draw any line BECAUSE the cure for speech you disagree with is more speech!

    Any line you draw you diminish someone’s speech rights. You see how excited you both got when I wanted, somewhat mockingly, to limit Soros, but no one else.

    That is the farce of public campaign finance limitations….limiting speech, destroying the 1st amendment.

  14. scott

    “the cure for speech you disagree with is more speech!

    Any line you draw you diminish someone’s speech rights.”

    Interesting thought. But this is making a law about how campaigns are financed. It’s a law telling candidates the rules they must abide by to run for office in Washington. It doesn’t say anything at all about how Soros or the Kochs can spend their money. Just because I don’t allow a judge to take bribes doesn’t mean you’re limited in how you can spend your speech. I mean money. I’m not sure where the problem is.

    But the problem is you realize that the current state of affairs is working for you more than it works for liberals. Corporate America and the super wealthy are in league with evangelicals and have been for decades. If they have outsized influence, at least it’s keeping liberals down. You raise the specter of George Soros–someone I never think about or hear about unless I’m talking to right-wingers–and “union thugs” as if they actually have the same kind of influence on policy that Morgan Stanley or Exxon Mobile do. You’ve got a way to go convincing me of that.

  15. Dan

    Scott, why even bring your foolish idea up. It’s unconstitutional so come up with a constitutional idea and then let’s talk.

  16. scott

    I’d like to see that adjudicated unconstitutional. Pass a law saying that campaigns for congress or the presidency must be financed by public dollars and let someone take it to court. And if you’re right, it doesn’t pass muster–which I’m by no means convinced of–then my next suggestion is to amend the constitution. It’s been done a whole lot of times.

Pin It on Pinterest