The Selfish Party

The Sunday Seattle Times lead article on Aug. 30 was titled "Patrons of politics: Washington state's top 50." I dove into it, curious to read about the motivations of the largest campaign contributors in Washington State. What I found instead was an article that was eager to focus on small details, while deliberately ignoring more important, systemic questions.

The tone was set on page one, with the following assertion: "... it turns out the fattest cats of the local political scene are nearly as diverse in their views about government, the role of politics in American society and even their own relevance to it all as any random group of people plucked off a downtown Seattle street." Obviously it's been a long time since the reporters who wrote this piece--Danny Westneat, Tom Brown, and Susan Byrnes--have talked to a random cross-section of people on downtown Seattle streets. Or maybe they just hang out on the sidewalk outside the new Nordstrom's store. After admitting in the opening paragraphs that the donors on the top 50 list are "all rich," "all white," and all "obsessed in some way with politics," this story quickly veers away from the realm of investigative journalism into a strange sycophantic trip.

Deeper in the article, more general demographic details of the donors are given; the authors cite a study by the Joyce Foundation in Chicago: "The Joyce study found that 95 percent of big contributors are white, 80 percent are male, and 81 percent make more than $100,000 a year." Rather than drawing any conclusions from that--for example, this might explain why we have a socially reactionary state legislature right now--the authors proceed to pick a few of the donors from the list and talk about their quirky reasons for giving.

We're treated to a haphazard discussion of personal beliefs: some contributors are anti-abortion, some pro-choice, while others differ over gun control or environmental regulations. Yippee. There's one thing they all share that's never mentioned: the ability to buy a greater voice in the political process. Yet the authors take great pains to give an example of how one contributor was unable to influence a candidate to whom he had donated money. They focus their attention on one donor who poured money into the charter schools initiative, only to see it defeated at the polls. Poor guy. He's still donating, though: "People said we were buying the election, but I'm very proud of what we did. It takes money to have a public discussion of important ideas, and this was worth every penny spent." The obvious conclusion is that only a small handful of rich, white folks have the money to get their issues even discussed and voted on--a conclusion that escaped The Seattle Times reporters.

Buried even deeper in the article is the statements made by a political lobbyist, Martin Durkan Jr., who said that his donations are simply "operational overhead" for his business: "my contributions have been very good investments for me, my family and my clients." Durkan, a self-proclaimed Democrat, even goes on to openly express contempt for mass participation in the political process: "Take a look at public-access television, and that's what you'd get if we had public financing of elections. We'd all be paying to listen to candidates from the Ku Klux Klan and the Naked Butt Party." (As opposed to listening to a Democrat lie about committing sexual harassment in The White House, or watching murders run the country, I suppose.)

The article came with a handy graph: a list of the donors, how much they gave, and who they gave to: Democrats or Republicans. Of course the article itself makes no attempt to analyze the list as a whole. For example, the largest donor, Paul Allen, spent three-fourths as much as all the other donors combined, just to buy the Seahawks football stadium election. Considering that his team will get a new stadium funded primarily with taxpayer money, that $6.4 million was a wise investment for him.

The second largest donor was Thomas Stewart, who gave over $2 million to the state Republicans, most of it donated illegally. Interestingly, when I got out my calculator and added up some of the figures on the list, I found that Stewart alone had donated almost as much money to state Republicans as all the Democratic donors combined. Here's how the totals break down by party, if we eliminate Allen, who doesn't give to Dems or Repubs: Republicans, $4,766,832; Democrats, $2,110,532 (less than half of the Republican take); and donors who gave to both parties, $1,183,385.

No donors on the list gave large sums to third parties, although a couple of Democratic donors also gave to "liberal causes," "arms control," "ballot measures," and "environment." Likewise some "Republican" donors gave to "charter schools," "Seattle Commons," "anti-regional transit," "initiatives," and "conservative causes." The list is mysteriously missing major donations to issues that impact most Americans, such as: "racial discrimination," "affordable healthcare," "affordable childcare," "public schools," "access to higher education," "pro-public transit," or "affordable housing."

There was no mention of funds for elder care services. No family planning money. No funds for expanding opportunities for teenage girls at risk for early, unwanted pregnancies. No funds for kids of both sexes who live on the street. No money for drug rehab. No money for fixing up low-income housing. Nothing for job training. No donations for community centers, youth centers, or new public parks and open spaces. No funds for basic prenatal healthcare for poor, pregnant mothers. Nothing for underpaid childcare workers ... in short, nothing for basic services to make our society a better place to live for everybody. Far from being a "Naked Butt Party" platform, such an agenda would enliven political debate considerably.

Looking at the list, I saw a group of privileged folks who buy air time and candidates' ears for largely frivolous or secondary issues--issues that have meaning only for them. This, of course, may explain why most folks don't vote or otherwise participate in electoral politics. Count on The Seattle Times to report only the data, and then stop short of analyzing it.