Democracy Dollars

Democracy Dollars for Real Democracy

Modern political campaigns have become dominated by large donations from mega-donors like the Koch brothers and George Soros or large corporate interest driven political action committees and labor unions. Going where the money is has skewed the political agendas of both the left and right and eliminated the voices of everyday people politicians are supposedly elected to serve. 

Two Supreme Court decisions have enshrined these large, dark money donations into our constitutional landscape by making money into “protected” political speech. Those rulings probably will not be revisited, much less reversed, anytime soon. The challenge has become how to dilute the impact of the large donors by giving everyday working people something of value that can be solicited and won with a discussion about issue based platforms politicians run on and promise to enact.

Many working people now are disillusioned with politicians and the political process and believe their individual voices are not being heard by those beholden to large money donors. Many live paycheck to paycheck and cannot afford even a modest political contribution. Those feeling disenfranchised stay away from the polls, feeling their voices no longer matter. Younger voters tend to not even bother to register.

The city of Seattle may have found a solution. The city came up with “Democracy Dollars.” It is simple, elegant, scalable to national proportions and completely constitutional. 

Seattle collects property taxes, as do all municipalities. City leaders decided to add a small amount to each property tax bill, about $11 on a $500,000 home, to fund a voucher program that started initially with Seattle city council and city attorney races. Each registered voter was then given four $25 vouchers to use on those races. Those running for those seats could opt into the voucher program or choose not to, relying instead upon the regular campaign finance rules. Those candidates who opted in had to agree to spend no more than $300,000 on the election. 

Seattle collected $3 million a year in property taxes to pay for the voucher program starting in 2016. Seattle residents spent $1.4 million in vouchers in the last election. The remaining balance will be carried forward for future election cycles. The program is set to expand to more races in coming years as the fund surplus grows. 

A recent study shows that only 8,200 residents gave money to Seattle city races in 2013. In 2016, more than 25,000 residents gave vouchers and money to candidates who ran in those same races. A younger more diverse electorate became involved politically with the implementation and growth of the voucher program. 

The voluntary nature of candidate participation makes the voucher program constitutional. Candidates cannot be forced into a public funded election system under current Supreme Court rulings, unless they agree to public funding for their campaigns.

The Democracy Dollar system scales up well to a national level. Two Yale Law professors wrote the outline in 2017. Given the numbers of registered voters, a voucher system could generate just about the same amount of aggregated individual donations as special interests pump into the system in large contributions. In 2012, all candidates for federal offices and their nominally “independent” supporter groups spent about $7 billion on their races. That went down to about $6.8 billion in federal races last year. With $100 vouchers, registered voters could pump $6.5 billion into the same races.

This year Rep. Ro Kanna, (D-CA) and former Senator Russ Feingold put together a federal solution called the Democracy Dollars Act. It provides 50 “Democracy Dollars” to every registered voter for use in federal elections, $25 for presidential elections, $15 for Senate races and $10 for House campaigns. 

These amounts seem small but when multiplied by millions of voters, the power of the PACs and dark money donors become diluted. Think about a fundraiser for 100 people where you can raise $2500 for a presidential candidate with the best issue based agenda. The system turns individual voters into someone the candidate has to convince in order to obtain that voter’s voucher support. 

If you want a democracy where each voter really has a voice, support Democracy Dollars voucher systems everywhere.

Social Responsibility

Claiming Social Responsibility

Requires Hard Choices

“Social Responsibility” is generally thought to include working with a higher purpose than mere profitability, a striving to improve our society and strengthen community life.

To some on the right side of the political spectrum, the phrase has taken on a pejorative meaning and they use it to label left leaning folks and groups as “do gooders,” consistent with their world view that we should just care about ourselves and not each other. 

Some organizations use “social responsibility” as part of their mission statement. Claiming this mantle is meant to show a concern for the well being of others and a commitment to making the communities they serve better through their good works. 

Our local Y (formerly the YMCA) and the national Y organization have staked a claim to being socially responsible. The Y touts its social responsibility in its promotional materials and offerings. It stresses “healthy living” by offering exercise and fitness classes, youth programming, nutritional and health screenings, child care and other endeavors meant to promote long, healthy lives for all ages of members.

I have long been associated with the Y. I learned to swim in Y pools as a kid. I attended Y sponsored summer programs and camps well into my adolescence. As I aged, I came back to the Y to regain lost fitness, continue my cardiac rehab, and reconnect with other seniors in my community. I try to get to the Y on Washington St. three times a week to work out and meet with my personal trainer, who has helped me stay alive.  By partnering with Silver Sneakers and other health insurance programs for seniors, the Y has made membership free to those on fixed incomes.

All of these activities certainly entitle the Y to claim that it acts in a “socially responsible” manner. Unfortunately, when attempts were being made to expand the Y’s social responsibility activities to include more current social issues, the current Y management was not interested.

The first issue came in the form of a request to make the Y a “Safe Space” for people who felt attacked or threatened in the new wave of anti-immigrant, anti-LBGTQ sentiments that sprang up after the last presidential election. The Y was asked to participate in “Safe Space” training and to post a small poster in the window indicating that the Y would offer protections to those harassed or threatened. The former “Social Responsibility” director refused the requests, indicating that the Y does not discriminate against people of color, those with non-majority sexual orientation or gender expression or those in minority or immigrant groups. She did allow placement of the “Safe Space” poster on a community bulletin board in an upstairs hall in the building, but refused to replace it after it mysteriously disappeared from the board.

The second attempt to engage the Y in an expanded vision of  “social responsibility” involved its fund raising program that included accepting funds from and advertising for a local business whose mission is to encourage the taking of human life by armed violence. Again the Y dropped the ball and refused to even discuss the matter at a recent Board of Directors meeting. 

The Y started a campaign to solicit funds from local donors. In exchange for a $1,000 donation, the donor got his or her name on a small banner hanging from the rafters in the Y lobby. For a $2500 or larger contribution, the donor received a much larger banner hanging closer to the floor with their name. Most names on the banners are well known members of Washington County’s donor class.

One prominent name on a large banner on the first row is Delta Defense coupled with the logo of the US Concealed Carry Association. I have written here before about Delta Defense’s owners and their attempts to purchase respectability with corporate largess. For those who do not know, the company provides support to the concealed carry/self-defense movement and advocates for an individual’s absolute right to take human life through armed violence.

When I tried to point out that the Y’s claim to “social responsibility” was inconsistent with taking Delta Defense money and advertising its brand, the Executive Director and the Executive Committee of the Y’s Board of Directors decided not to engage in the discussion about gun violence in our community and refused to bring the issue before its full Board for a discussion of its “social responsibility” policy. 

Organizations claiming the mantle of “social responsibility” cannot ignore the social issues of our time just because they are controversial or may anger some of their members. If you are going to be socially responsible, you have to be willing to examine what that means and take positions consistent with your mission even if it means giving back some money and letting marginalized people know they are welcome and safe.

Waring Fincke is a retired attorney and serves as a guardian for the elderly and disabled with a Sheboygan County non-profit agency.