I am as rabid a foe of big money in politics as you might meet. But the convoluted construction of Initiative 122 [“Big money behind Initiative 122 contradicts its purpose,” Opinion, Oct. 16] makes my head spin and makes me question my reliance on people I have heretofore had tons of respect for (League of Women Voters).
There is no way on God’s less-green earth that voters will manage their four $25 “vouchers” when fewer than 50 percent of them even vote for free. And the city is going to raise my ever-expanding property taxes to do that? Please take your hands off my property tax. The City of Seattle is already asking for a property-tax increase for the expiring transportation levy without being accountable for why it needs to tax more.
Adding I-122 makes zero sense and it has zero accountability or track record, either, for taking money out of elections. If all these worthies are so interested in political finance reform, go work on it in the larger statewide fashion that would actually mean something, rather than a Seattle-centric statement that means nothing, responds to a historic lack of huge political finance shenanigans and has no chance of working.
Miryam Gordon, Seattle
Large fundraising undercuts I-122
One of the more intriguing highlights of this 2015 election season is the intense fundraising battle between two highly motivated, very liberal women in the District 3 City Council race, Pamela Banks and Kshama Sawant.
According to a Times story [“In rare move, council members take sides in District 3 race,” News, Oct. 22], Sawant’s campaign has raised $400,000. while Banks’ has raised $340,000. The fact that both have been able to raise substantial funds from many individual donors demolishes the specious argument of I-122 supporters that Seattle’s candidates need any more infusion of funds via the convoluted pretzel of their proposal.
Individual voters, even the most progressive among us, are doing quite well supporting candidates, thank you very much.
Michael Shurgot, Seattle