In snail mail boxes all over Seattle, registered voters are getting an unusual envelope filled with something called, “Democracy Vouchers.” Each registered voter in town will get $100 worth of vouchers in $25 increments. The idea is that anyone with a voucher can give it to the candidate of their choice provided that the candidate agree to certain limits on their fundraising. The candidate must:

• File for office;
• Collect requisite signatures and contributions (e.g. 400 signatures and $10 per signature for at large City Council seat);
• Submit the petitions;
• Collect and then redeem the vouchers for cash payments from the City;and
• Accept contribution limits (see below)

You’ll notice that a voter can add their voucher to their $250 contribution so the individual limit is essentially $350.

Here’s a couple of other odd provisions. The first one is ripe for legal challenge:

Does this mean individuals or companies or non-profits. I can’t think of anyone, who would, out of their own bank account, spend $10,000 on a lobbyist. So does the Government Affairs guy at Boeing get cut out of the vouchers? How does that work? It seems really dubious for a person paying taxes into a program to be denied access to it because of their job. We’ll see what the courts say.

Here’s another odd one:

Weird. So if Jon Grant is running for the at large Council seat and his opponent raises $500,000, Grant can raise as much money as he wants. Does he keep the vouchers? Does he have to give them back? I thought that was the idea, “to get money out of politics!”

And that brings me to my main point: the purpose of the vouchers is to, well, I can’t quite get a straight answer out of advocates for the program like the Sightline Institute other than some version of, “It means less money in politics.” But does it? That’s still a lot of money. And is the idea, too, that we would get more involvement so we’d get better people running for office — people that might have, you know, unpopular views. You’d think.

But here’s what a socialist told me about the program and whether it would help Jon Grant, a proponent of rent control and a host of other, really bad, but really popular, housing policies:

It solves the problem of needing large sums of money to run for office, and yes, I think it will benefit people I support.

And at last report that seems like exactly what’s happening, Grant is already up to $50,000 in democracy vouchers. The socialists and everyone in town who advocates for growth moratoriums and height limits, are against microhousing, and for taxing new housing will be rushing to give Grant their vouchers. Good work Sightline Institute. I really don’t get it. I think that supporters like Sightline will be in real trouble with urbanists and the housing community when Grant’s win is attributed, in part, to democracy vouchers.

Also, and this is another reason why sometime smart people shouldn’t be left alone with legislation, this is a form of price control for campaign spending. The guys at Sightline seem to be saying, just like advocates for rent control, the price is just too high! Let’s put a limit on spending. But what does campaign money fund? Communication, and for a pro market person to stand up to the people that will be supporting Grant, is going to take money to make that case to people on the fence.

And vouchers will create inflation of campaign costs. When consultants and mail houses realize there is a set universe of dollars, they are going to charge more for their work, knowing there won’t be more money raised in the future. And instead of chasing dollars, candidates will be chasing vouchers.

A great business idea would be a service that charged 10 percent on all vouchers wrangled for the candidate. This is almost inevitable. Do you get it? By limiting expenditures you’re not limiting corruption or greed, you’re making it harder for views that are good economics but unpopular from getting a fair hearing. That makes no sense. If anything, we need more money in politics, and that’s why a matching funds program would make a lot more sense.

But sometimes feeling passes for cleverness and long term thinking about democracy and how it works. When Congresswoman Pramila Jaypal took to the floor of the Congress she protested the election of Donald Trump as electoral votes were counted. She was gaveled down by Vice President Joe Biden. About 5 minutes later I got this in my e-mail in box:

I pointed out that Jaypal’s stunt was intended to get her attention but also to raise money. She probably raised a lot. I said, “She’s fitting right in” when I posted this to Facebook. To which one of her supporters responded:

I’ve got no problem with her raising money. I have a problem with it being necessary.

Yeah, me too. And rent. I’ve got no problem with people working to pay rent, but I have a problem with it being necessary. It’s unfortunate that we’re wasting $3,000,000 tax payer dollars on a gimmick that is likely to get someone antithetical to our agenda elected while doing absolutely nothing to benefit democracy. Once again, instead of taking the obvious root of increasing the supply of money to engage in democratic communication, Sightline and others have tried to limit supply. Hardly democratic.