Initiative 1464 in Washington State (Campaign finance reform, etc.)

Regular_P

Just end the season.
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
74,223
Reputation
9,527
Daps
200,878
Really not sure how I feel about this one. :jbhmm:

A "yes" vote supports creating a campaign finance system allowing residents to direct state funds, known as "democracy credits," to qualifying candidates, repeal the non-resident sales tax exemption, restrict employment of former public employees and lobbying, and revise campaign finance laws.

A "no" vote opposes changing the campaign finance system.

Initiative design
What are "democracy credits?"
Initiative 1464 would establish “democracy credits” for registered voters and other state residents eligible to contribute to campaigns under state law. Each eligible individual would receive three credits, each of a $50 value, to donate to qualified campaigns and candidates of their choosing during even-numbered years. The measure would specifically authorize credits to be contributed to state legislative candidates. However, the Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) could expand the program to statewide elected offices. If the Washington Attorney General deems it legal to apply credits to federal candidates, then the PDC could expand the program to federal elected offices. Furthermore, the PDC could expand the credits program to cover elections in odd-numbered years.[2]

To pay for the credits, the initiative would repeal the nonresident sales tax exemption and require nonresidents to pay sales tax on purchases in Washington.

Candidates would need to meet certain requirements to receive democracy credits, including:[2]

  • collecting at least 75 private contributions of at least $10.
  • promising to not accept private donations exceeding half of the maximum limit for the office they seek.
  • promising to not spend more than $5,000 of their personal funds.
How does the measure change campaign finance rules?
In addition to the democracy credits program, Initiative 1464 would modify lobbying and campaign finance rules. It would restrict former elected or appointed officials from being paid to lobby their prior office within three years of leaving office. It would also limit contributions by public contractors and prospective public contractors to $100 per election.[2]

Campaigns that violate campaign finance rules would be required to take actions to remedy their violations in addition to paying a fine. Half the money from fines would be distributed to the PDC, which it would use to enforce campaign finance laws.

Initiative 1464 would require reporting the top five contributors to political action committees that contribute to other campaigns.

I like the premise behind it, but I don't like the idea of state funds going directly to politicians. Feels like there'd be easy work-arounds to get that money and I'd rather it came straight from people's pockets instead of state funds. I'm leaning no on this. :jbhmm:

Anybody in here have an opinion on it? :ld:
 

No1

Retired.
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
28,699
Reputation
4,569
Daps
62,790
Really not sure how I feel about this one. :jbhmm:





I like the premise behind it, but I don't like the idea of state funds going directly to politicians. Feels like there'd be easy work-arounds to get that money and I'd rather it came straight from people's pockets instead of state funds. I'm leaning no on this. :jbhmm:

Anybody in here have an opinion on it? :ld:
Why would you rather is come straight from people's pockets instead of a publicly funded system? It's much easier to get money diverted to candidates that way than to get people to give money directly from their pockets. Also, this way, it would literally encourage campaigning for every vote.
 

Regular_P

Just end the season.
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
74,223
Reputation
9,527
Daps
200,878
Why would you rather is come straight from people's pockets instead of a publicly funded system? It's much easier to get money diverted to candidates that way than to get people to give money directly from their pockets. Also, this way, it would literally encourage campaigning for every vote.
Good point. For some reason, the initiative wasn't that clear to me.
 

DonKnock

KPJ Gonna Save Us
Joined
Mar 31, 2015
Messages
27,156
Reputation
7,840
Daps
88,725
Reppin
Houston
Why would you rather is come straight from people's pockets instead of a publicly funded system? It's much easier to get money diverted to candidates that way than to get people to give money directly from their pockets. Also, this way, it would literally encourage campaigning for every vote.

The public funding system seems ideal, but it took a major blow after Citizen's United with SuperPACs being able to "independently" coordinate with politicians. Any sort of public financing system than doesn't also reign in Super PACs won't get much done in terms of fairness of results.

It took another blow after the Arizona public financing system got struck down.

Supreme Court strikes Arizona’s ‘matching funds’ for publicly financed candidates

The previous court was against taking money out of politics and I don't think Trump's appointee is going to do much to alter that balance.
 
Top