Viva La Cola!

Founded in January 2009, PubliCola is a blog about Seattle written by journalists who are dedicated to non-partisan, original daily reporting that prioritizes a balanced approach to news. Started by longtime local editor and award-winning reporter Josh Feit, PubliCola is the first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol.

PubliCola was off and running. In June 2009, PubliCola hired another award-winning journalist, super-sourced Seattle city hall reporter Erica C. Barnett.

People were afraid that blogging would change journalism. Instead, we believe journalism can change blogging. Twenty-first century journalism may look and feel different, and yes Erica isn't afraid to get cranky, but we're committed to making sure online news still delivers independent, reliable, even-keeled coverage. And most of all, we're committed to making sure the coverage sparks honest civic debate.

Bringing you cola for the people, PubliCola is named after Publius Valerius PubliCola, the alias for the authors of the Federalist Papers—the original bloggers.

The first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol and Seattle city hall, PubliCola has been called a “must-read” by the Seattle Post Intelligencer and a hot “New Media Mover and Shaker” by Seattle Magazine—which also cited our own Erica C. Barnett as the city's No. 1 news nerd.

New Report Shows Influence of Money Declined in Council Elections

According to a new report by the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission, the amount and size of contributions to candidates in last year’s city council elections played less of a role than in previous years determining which candidates won. (The report doesn’t include much analysis of mayoral and city attorney elections because those only happen every four years.)

For example, in 2005 and 2007, the candidate with the most money won in eight out of nine contested elections. Last year, the candidate who spent the most lost four out of six contested local races. And the average size of campaign contributions declined substantially—from $213 in 2007 to $178 last year, a drop of more than 16 percent. That’s the first time the average contribution has declined in at least 16 years, which is as far back as records are available.

Other findings from the commission’s analysis:

• The total number of people making campaign contributions last year—8,192—increased substantially over 2007, although it was close to the average number between 1997 and 2007.

• Total fundraising for city council campaigns fell to its lowest level since 2003, to $1,628,828, almost $400,000 less than all council candidates raised two years ago. Last year, only two candidates (Sally Bagshaw, who won, and Robert Rosencrantz, who lost) raised more than $200,000.

• Candidates spent a third less on mail and literature, but twice as much on radio and TV ads, compared to 2005.

• Finally, independent expenditures—expenditures made for or against a candidate by third parties unaffiliated with the campaign—went up dramatically, totaling $134,495 in council races, nearly triple the record for the past ten years. That number doesn’t include the nearly $1.4 million the American Chemistry Council spent opposing the bag fee.

Below the jump, I’ve listed the top 20 contributors to all local candidates (including candidates for mayor and city attorney).

1. Matt Griffin, Managing Partner, Pine Street LLC ($6,700)

2. Nucor PAC of Washington ($6,600)

3. Seattle Mariners ($6,100)

4. Pacific Northwest Regional Council of Carpenters ($6,100)

5. John McCullough Jr., Attorney, McCullough Hill, PS

6. Craig Shafer, Owner, Hotel Andra ($5,800)

7. H. Jon Runstad, Real Estate Developer, Wright Runstad ($5,675)

8. Amalgamated Transit Union ($5,600)

9. Karen Gates Hildt, Attorney, Hildt & Reid ($5,600)

10. Robert Burkheimer, Burkheimer Management Co. ($5,500)

11. Washington State Council of County and City Employees ($5,400)

12. Judith Runstad, Attorney, Foster Pepper PLLC ($5,275)

13. Al Clise, Owner, Clise Properties ($5,200)

14. Mark Barbieri, Washington Holdings ($5,050)

15. B. Gerald Johnson ($5,000)

16. IFPTE Local 17 PAC ($4,900)

17. Bruce Blume, The Blume Company ($4,900)

18. IBEW Local 46 PAC ($4,681)

19. Hod Carriers and General Laborers Local 242 ($4,700)

20. John Goodman, Chairman, Goodman Real Estate ($4,700)


  • WOW!

    Before we draw any conclusions about this why don’t we wait until we have a fringe canidate with no money like Mike the Mover of Stan Lippman win an election over a canidate with money. When that happens then you might be able to draw some meaningful trend from this.

  • WOW!

    Before we draw any conclusions about this why don’t we wait until we have a fringe canidate with no money like Mike the Mover of Stan Lippman win an election over a canidate with money. When that happens then you might be able to draw some meaningful trend from this.

  • Marcee Stone

    To lead with the headline that the influence of money declined in council elections this year, doesn’t reflect what you report, nor what the Ethics and Elections website shows. Why leave out the $1.4M spent by the corporate interests against the small fee on using grocery bags at stores? Huge amount of money, huge influence on the outcome of the election (not exactly a populist revolt). A dramatic increase in independent expenditures does not show that the influence of money declined. The fact that some candidates had a harder time raising money in this economic environment shouldn’t be a surprise. Just ask any nonprofit how hard it is to raise money right now. But what’s really interesting to me is that in every election, the number of smaller donors (those who contribute $100 or less) decreases. They represent low single digit percentages against the much larger percentage of larger contributers. So in this city those who can afford to contribute to candidates, whether up to the $700 they are allowed, or those who contribute whatever they like to an independent expenditure organization (PAC), still mightily influence the results of elections. If you have a bigger wallet, you have more free speech than those who have a coin purse. But now, of course, the Supreme Court has blessed that. Public campaign financing is essential to our democracy. It may be the only thing that will keep us safe from becoming a complete corporate-tocracy. Now, someone is bound to point out the recent decision in the Arizona supreme court this week. Well, it struck down part of their Clean Elections Act but will certainly be appealed in the 9th Circuit. The newer Clean Elections laws being written remove the fair fight funds mechanism because it was expected this might happen. Essentially, Clean Elections laws are constitutional and do not run afoul of the 1st Amendment because these programs are optional. I hope that the economy will bring us back to the day when we can fund robust Clean Elections programs all around the country. And by the way, don’t forget to ask our Senators Cantwell and Murray to support the Fair Elections Now Act in the Senate and your representatives to support it in Congress.

  • Marcee Stone

    To lead with the headline that the influence of money declined in council elections this year, doesn’t reflect what you report, nor what the Ethics and Elections website shows. Why leave out the $1.4M spent by the corporate interests against the small fee on using grocery bags at stores? Huge amount of money, huge influence on the outcome of the election (not exactly a populist revolt). A dramatic increase in independent expenditures does not show that the influence of money declined. The fact that some candidates had a harder time raising money in this economic environment shouldn’t be a surprise. Just ask any nonprofit how hard it is to raise money right now. But what’s really interesting to me is that in every election, the number of smaller donors (those who contribute $100 or less) decreases. They represent low single digit percentages against the much larger percentage of larger contributers. So in this city those who can afford to contribute to candidates, whether up to the $700 they are allowed, or those who contribute whatever they like to an independent expenditure organization (PAC), still mightily influence the results of elections. If you have a bigger wallet, you have more free speech than those who have a coin purse. But now, of course, the Supreme Court has blessed that. Public campaign financing is essential to our democracy. It may be the only thing that will keep us safe from becoming a complete corporate-tocracy. Now, someone is bound to point out the recent decision in the Arizona supreme court this week. Well, it struck down part of their Clean Elections Act but will certainly be appealed in the 9th Circuit. The newer Clean Elections laws being written remove the fair fight funds mechanism because it was expected this might happen. Essentially, Clean Elections laws are constitutional and do not run afoul of the 1st Amendment because these programs are optional. I hope that the economy will bring us back to the day when we can fund robust Clean Elections programs all around the country. And by the way, don’t forget to ask our Senators Cantwell and Murray to support the Fair Elections Now Act in the Senate and your representatives to support it in Congress.