Above, Sawant celebrates — Below, Banks with a group of Capitol Hill business supporters (Images: CHS)
“If we are serious about solving the most urgent problems that face the constituents, we have to do what works: having grassroots movements inside City Hall”
Since her first campaign for public office as the “Occupy” candidate in 2012, Seattle City Council member Kshama Sawant has battled criticism about the effectiveness of activism in office.
With less than a week to go before Election Day on November 3rd, the socialist City Council member and candidate to lead District 3 says you only need to look at what she has accomplished on the minimum wage and housing affordability over the past year for an answer.
“A majority of people in the district are truly progressive and are looking at our record,” she said. “If we are serious about solving the most urgent problems that face the constituents, we have to do what works: having grassroots movements inside City Hall.”
Those grassroots movements have been fueled by galvanizing a small army of young workers, students, and activists — a group that had been detached from City Council campaigns.
Seattle Urban League president and Sawant challenger Pamela Banks has amassed a very different backing, one she says is more diverse and neighborhood oriented. Drawing on her years of experience in the Department of Neighborhoods, a founding board member of the Garfield High School Foundation, and organizer for little league baseball, Banks says she has an unparalleled relationship with district residents. Banks touts herself as a “city problem-solver.”
As president of the Urban League, Banks said she’s not opposed to activism in office as long as it focuses on local issues.
“You have to bring dark to light,” she said. “I know my community, I know the issues that are plaguing the community. It’s not about doing a rally. I keep telling people, ‘I want to do the work.’”
On issues, Sawant expands most of her causes to a global, universal scale while Banks focuses on the nuts and bolts. Both candidates are courting small business support as they enter the homestretch — but Sawant, naturally, is doing so by proposing forward looking, pioneering legislation while Banks champions building up existing programs in her four-point plan, which includes a City-backed loan program. Sawant’s plan released Tuesday is rent control for small businesses.
The two different leadership styles have played out in fundraising. Sawant has sworn off corporate campaign donations and touts just over 3,200 individual donors as proof of her populist appeal (Banks has 1,299). On the other hand, Banks has amassed 38% of her donations from within District 3 compared to Sawant’s 22%.
While district elections were supposed to get us less costly elections, that certainly hasn’t been the case in its inaugural year. Sawant has possibly set a new record for the most raised in a Seattle City Council race.
Even more money has flowed in recently thanks to independent expenditures. Progressive Seattle PAC has raised at least $15,423 for Sawant while the recently created Neighbors for Banks group has raised at least $18,000. In response to Banks’s call for both candidates to reject the groups, Sawant said there was a clear difference between the union-backed political action committee supporter her and the developer-backed group supporting Banks.
“There’s not a difference,” Banks said. “That doesn’t make sense to me.”
Sawant’s time away from City Hall at speaking engagements and rallies has been a cornerstone of Banks’s criticism. A longtime political consultant who was hired by Sawant in 2014 tells CHS a major part of his job was to help the City Council member connect with constituents and policy experts.
City Clerk documents obtained by CHS show Sawant spent $46,000 of her 2014 City Council office budget to hire longtime political strategist Jeff Upthegrove. According to Upthegrove, Sawant wanted to hire as many people as possible upon entering office, but could only offer benefits to a limited number under city rules.
Each council member gets roughly $323,000 in city funds for staffing and an additional $8,500 for non-staffing expenses for things like travel and magazine subscriptions according to Eric Ishino, finance manager for the city’s legislative department. Any leftover funds from staffing expenses can be used for other expenditures, like consultants.
To better understand how Sawant’s activist style fits in with the rest of the current City Council, an itemized list of member office budgets shows Sawant was the only one to spend city funds on consulting services. Invoices from Upthegrove meetings show he advised Sawant on energy committee issues, budget planning, and coordinating town hall events.
UPDATE: A list of each council member’s staff costs for 2014 obtained by CHS shows Sawant’s budget balance, which was used to pay Upthegrove. 
With all that, it’s decision time for anybody left undecided. After re-reading all of CHS’s District 3 coverage and mailing your ballot (c’mon District 3!), your final order of business will be deciding which election night party to attend. Banks will take over 18th Ave E U’s Tougo Coffee and Bannister while Sawant will be at her usual party spot inside Melrose Market Studios.
Interesting how this article is framed, “Activist versus Problem Solver.”
Iin the short time Sawant has been in office, she has been helping solve problems such as wage inequity. (The $15 Minimum Wage would not have happened if she was not in office.)
Sawant also gets called “divisive.” yet she got Burgess and the other establishment Council folks to support the her measure asking the state to allow rent control. She also got local business people like Meinert to join with her small business action plan.
I think “divisive” is a code word that people use to express their disdain for the regular folks being involved in democracy. Our pseudo progressive political establishment doesn’t like it when ordinary people crash the gates.
Perhaps divisive is a code word, but I also think that it can be the right word to describe tactics that involve aggressive language supported by loud followers that shout down other voices that don’t go along with their perspective. Everyone has their right to their opinion. But no one person’s is more valid than anyone else’s. And that’s my opinion.
I am pretty much certain Sawant has no idea how to run an economy, and yet she is consistently battling for positions of disenfranchised District 3 voters.
I believe Banks is a competent, qualified representative of the “non gentrified” part of District 3, and will definitely handle things by working within the system, rather than by shouting loudly from outside it.
It really shakes down to how much you value a loud accuser versus a quiet and competent manager.
I’d be happy with Banks, unless she proves to be more of an insider than she’s letting on. .
Good luck with Sawant, District 3 will matter not to her as she plows ahead with her 2 item agenda and SEIU money.
Whether it’s the extreme Right or Left, it leads to loud screaming of talking points and an inability to listen and consider other points of view. The harder work is in the middle trying to find common ground. And then getting things done. Of the two, there’s no question from my perspective, that Banks is the one willing to do the work.
It’s strange to hear people talk about how Sawant is only concerned with issues outside of the district, and that she isn’t willing to “put in the work” like Banks apparently would.
Personally, I’ve seen Sawant involved in a lot of the specific local issues at play in the district.
Obviously the minimum wage comes to mind. She has been at the center of re-zoning/density discussions, she has tried to push on municipal broadband, has been involved in efforts to combat higher hate crime rates. All important issues in the district.
Sawant undoubtedly ties local issues to the national and global scale in her rhetoric. But that does not automatically mean prioritizing national issues over local ones. Sometimes it can just mean acknowledging that the local is influenced/impacted by the national/global.
Many simply don’t like Sawant’s politics, and would prefer Banks, and that’s fair. But trying to say Sawant doesn’t care about the district is just an unfounded personal attack.
I like that Sawant points out what she would like to get done if she had the ability to enact change, rather than simply shrugging and saying it’s out of her hands.
So 78% of Sawant’s contributions come from out of District 3.I wonder whose pocket Sawant will be in.Sawant is no Sociaist,she is a money grubbing Capitalist who pretends to be a Socialist when it suits her.Contribution rules need to be changed for District elections,The only contributions that should be allowed should come only from REGISTERED voters in that district.
The article is unclear when the payments to consultant Upthegrove occurred. Was that in 2014, or also in 2015 when he was working on the campaign too?
Sorry. Updated to clarify we’re just talking about 2014 money.