Amazon Spent a Ton of Money on Seattle Elections. It Probably Wasn’t Worth It.

Money can’t buy everything!

Ted S. Warren / AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Update, November 11, 2019: On Saturday, Kshama Sawant declared victory in her Seattle City Council race. She called her election “a repudiation of the billionaire class” in front of a banner that said, “TAX Amazon.”

When Amazon pumped $1.5 million into influencing Seattle’s City Council elections in its final weeksā€”a rather startling bump on the $25,000 spent four years ago, according to Reutersā€”it begged the question: Can Amazon buy an election? (And, uh, is Prime delivery worth your complicity?)

The main race to watch was that of Kshama Sawant, a socialist who led an attempt to impose a “head tax” on rich technology companies in the form of a per-employee charge on large corporations making more than $20 million per year. It was passed in 2018, and then quickly repealed by the council, but it got the attention of tech giants in town like Amazon and Microsoft.

At first, it appeared she lost her bid for reelection, and that Amazon had flipped the seat. But this afternoon, as the votes have trickled in, Sawant took the leadā€”edging over 50 percent. As KUOW reported, several of the candidates supported by Amazon’s money are trailing. (There is another round of votes to be dropped into the results this Friday evening at 8 p.m..)

Even so, the Amazon-bought-the-election narrative doesn’t quite fit. Sawant’s opponent, Egan Orion, told local outlets he wished Amazon had stayed out of it. “In my race, it was completely unnecessary,ā€ he said. ā€œWe had record fundraising.”

Not to be too Kai Ryssdal, but let’s just run some numbers on how crazy it got. About 74,000 people are registered to vote in Seattle’s District 3. Orion raised $402,056; Sawant raised $523,056. According to public filings, Orion netted nearly $420,000 in independent expenditures. Notably, the PAC that Amazon was funneling the big bucks to, Civic Alliance for a Sound Economy (CASE)ā€”associated with the Seattle Chamber of Commerceā€”gave $278,891 to Orion, but they also gave around $20,000 to Sawant too, weirdly. People for Seattle, another business affiliated PAC, added another $40,463 to Orion; Sawant’s independent expenditures totaled $22,044.

That isā€”if you include both candidatesā€”more than $20 per registered voter.

Once the vote total comes in on Friday night, it could be even higher, if we make the bold assumption that not everyone registered actually cast a ballot.

As I wrote in October, there has also been a tension between the flood of money from independent expenditures and a new public financing model called Democracy Vouchers, which aims to calm (if not actually defeat) the influence of corporate cash by giving each Seattle resident up to $100 for political spending.  Some critics expressed concern that it only further motivated powerful PACs and corporations to invest in local races. Locally, it seemed Sawant’s leftist persona (which leans to Trotskyite) had ignored the ire of the tech companies, inspiring a flood of cash. We noted in earlier reporting that the technology upper crust certainly pitched in:

People for Seattle, a PAC close to the Chamber of Commerce that has nearly $400,000 in contributions from tech executives like Tom Alberg (Amazon), John Stanton (ā€œwireless pioneerā€œ), Christopher Larsen (Microsoft) has circulated flyers that call Sawant an ā€œextremist.ā€

Whatever the case for the money surge, what seems surprising is that it still fell short. Sawant looks primed to win; one of the candidates CASE gave the most to, Jim Pugel, a former police chief, is behind too. (Pugel got less coverage than Orion’s claim to beat Sawant, but he received a $319,600 boost from CASE and $135,835 from People for Seattle.)

Perhaps Seattle will see a return of the head tax after all.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate