“My opponent only listens to people who think she is great.”
Things were already heating up at Sunday night’s District 3 debate with challenger Pamela Banks tossing more than a few barbs at Kshama Sawant — plenty prepared to return fire, herself. Two controversies in the wake of the debate may be a sign of more chippy-ness to come.
First, a subplot to the 37th District Democrats endorsement of Banks has generated allegations that the vote for the candidate was “bought” by the Bruce Harrell campaign:
An SEEC complaint alleges that, before the deadline to become a voting member of the organization in time for endorsements, 15 new memberships were paid for in one batch, with sequential money orders purchased at the same location.
It gets sketchier: These new memberships came on the heels of the Harrell campaign calling and asking if it would be OK for them to pay for new memberships (they were told it was not).
After this group of new members showed up and voted, Harrell and Banks — both of whom didn’t get enough votes in the primary endorsements to actually gain the 37th Dems’ endorsement — were both endorsed publicly. But some weren’t convinced they were acting independently.
The incumbent Harrell is running to lead South Seattle’s District 2. The campaign says the allegations are baseless. You can read the full complaint at Seattlish.
District 2 update: 104 votes counted. Harrell: 72, Morales: 30, No end: 2. Harrell gets 37th Endorsement.
— 37th LD Democrats of WA State (@37Dems) September 22, 2015
Earlier in September, Banks failed to secure a key endorsement from the 43rd District Democrats despite a plea for party unity.
UPDATE 10/9/2015 11:28 AM: At a Thursday morning discussion of a proposed “small business action plan,” CHS asked Banks about the controversy in the 37th.
“They’re basically accusing people of fraud,” a defiant Banks said. “You don’t tie my name to fraud. That’s one thing you don’t do. That’s about my reputation. Or that of Council member Harrell’s.”
Banks said she is disappointed at what she characterized as an issue disrespectful to “young people, people of color, immigrants and refugees” but said she is not planning a formal response to the ethics complaint brought over the endorsement. “I got the endorsement. It’s going to be on my website,” she said. “You can’t take it back.”
Banks said she’s not worried about her support in her home legislative district.
“I’m a PCO there. If they don’t want to carry my lit, I will carry my lit and so will my supporters in the 37th.”
In another issue on the ethics side of the ledger, the Sawant camp has run afoul of campaign finance laws for not properly documenting $36,000 in contributions this summer.
CM @cmkshama will pay $500 fine to city for failing to report $36K in campaign contributions in timely manner. Doc: http://t.co/erUkhl4x5X
— Erica C. Barnett ericacbarnett on all platforms (@ericacbarnett) October 6, 2015
UPDATE 10/8/2015 12:56 PM: Oh, look. Another controversy. Publicola reports that Sawant’s pledge to create a millionaires tax in Seattle is unconstitutional — and alleges that the councilor knows it is an impossible promise to fill:
Rasmussen, who told me he wasn’t allowed to hand over the city attorney’s opinion, did call Sawant’s campaign pledge “misleading” and that “people running for office should propose real solutions. Or at least be honest. The honest thing to do,” he said, “would be to say, ‘elect me, and I will work to change the state constitution.’ You could have nine city council members for an income tax…and I think we do…but we’d have to change the state constitution to do anything.”
Campaign contribution update
Meanwhile, the fundraising machines in District 3 continue to be well-oiled. The battle remains the highest-funded of any of the City Council races — in fact, only the “Honest Elections” Campaign Finance Reform initiative has generated more cash. But it’s a close race with more than $790k contributed to the initiative fight and more than $771k total so far in the D3 race from the primary through this point in the campaign.
The patterns in contributions for the Sawant and Banks campaigns continue with the incumbent drawing more than twice the number of contributors but the challenger stepping up with enough deep-pocketed backers to keep pace. The Banks camp has touted its homegrown contributors saying the campaign has drawn 45% of its contributions from within the district — “more than two times my opponent,” Banks said. The Sawant campaign has countered by trumpeting that it, too, has attracted more than 500 D3 donors.
Can we have a key for the first chart please? Can’t guess who’s red and who’s blue. Sawant is _much_ more left-wing and (in the rest of the world) would be RED, but the Republicans seem to be RED in this country.
Oops. Labels fell off in update — fixed!
Look at the average contribution figure for both Sawant and Banks. At less than $273 per contributor, it does not support the argument that we have a money problem in Seattle campaign politics. Hence, no need for the “get the money out of politics’ Initiative. Plus the Initiative is underfunded so the vast majority of voters would not be able to avail themselves of the $100 democracy vouchers the Initiative purports to offer. if you want to publicly fund Seattle elections do t honestly with a fully funded mechanism that draws funding from most Seattle residents rather than only from property owners.
In case the D3 donor math contortions were confusing, Banks has about 520 D3 donors and Sawant has about 500. Because of the total number of contributors to her campaign, Sawant is only at ~17% D3 money where Banks is at 45%. That’s how they got to ‘more than two times as much’ when they have about the same volume of donors from D3.