A law Lorena González devised now benefits her Seattle mayoral campaign

Due to the new law, Amazon from Seattle, which employs around 60,000 people and pays taxes here, cannot financially participate in the debate about the operators of the store.

Meanwhile, major unions like Unite Here, based in New York City and UFCW in Washington, DC, can spend on city elections in favor of González until the cows get home.

As of Monday morning, two-thirds of independent spending on their campaign came from abroad, compared to nearly 5% of adversary Bruce Harrell’s spending.

And yes, there is a difference between being outside the state and controlled by others, but more on that in a moment.

One thing is clear: the upcoming mayor’s race between González and Harrell will be tight and fierce. Any advantage for either candidate could decide the race – and the future direction of our city.

The bill was passed under the guise of electoral reform, but it unfairly limits one side of our usual political divide in Seattle: business. If the goal was to eliminate outside influence, it didn’t hit all the mark.

“Is [the law] Do you want to prevent foreign interference in city elections? ”asked Rob McKenna, former Washington attorney general. (McKenna is also a board member of Crosscut parent organization Cascade Public Media.) “Or should business community participation in city politics be blocked?”

Perhaps González knew she was running for mayor or council when she drafted these rules a year and a half ago. I don’t know what was on her mind or on her heart. However, there is an apparent level of hypocrisy in shutting down posts from rooted companies while leaving the gate wide open to unions based outside of the state.

“This law was passed because it was a solid policy,” said Alex Koren, González’s campaign manager. “That was a loophole. … A panel of national experts came and presented how foreign actors use this loophole through companies to influence elections. This law was passed unanimously, including [with votes from] Councilors Debora Juarez and Alex Pedersen supporting Bruce Harrell and it was signed by the Mayor.

The vote came after Amazon, with its lousy political acumen, poured $ 1.5 million into the 2019 city council elections and lost almost every race it tried to influence.

Seattle residents have finally found something they can agree on! Nobody likes it when a huge corporation tries to unduly influence a local election.

Personally, I don’t care what Amazon can and can’t do.

But as travel guru Rick Steves often says on his TV show when he stands in front of a quaint 300 year old winery or chocolate factory: “Let’s take a look.”

If you look at Monday’s independent editions, Harrell had received more money than González, even though she had the much higher proportion of outside contributions. Their major contributors are unions, local and national. Its are stores and real estate, but some stores, as mentioned, are locked by law.

If you add up the individual donations and vouchers offered to candidates, González has 11% out of town and Harrell 14% in that category.

Candidates have no control over where the submissions come from. But it is strange to think that our elections can be influenced by unions outside of a state with a national agenda.

The opposite of that, of course, is when a global company like Amazon with a global agenda participates? Fair question, but I think the company’s huge presence here gives it the right to speak on local matters.

The corporate / union divide is persistent in our politics, although Seattle has always been more successful with those entities working together on things like the light rail and parking and library taxes.

Many Seattle residents, myself included, appreciate the unions. I was a union member in the Newspaper Guild for many years. Workers need protection.

You are wondering if this current electoral framework is legal. Many attorneys and experts I’ve spoken to don’t believe the Foreign Influence Act will stand up to legal challenge. Since no company has come forward to contest it – think trademark damage – it remains the law of the country.

“I don’t think it would stand up to legal challenge,” said Mark A. Smith, professor of political science at the University of Washington. “The Supreme Court has ruled time and time again that companies cannot cut spending as long as it does so regardless of the candidate.”

In 1976, Smith stated, the US Supreme Court ruled that spreading a message through spending was a form of speech and could not be restricted while separated from a candidate’s own campaign. This principle applied to both companies and individuals.

Congress tested this principle through the McCain Feingold Act of 2002. The court lifted the McCain Feingold Restrictions on Domestic Corporate Spending in its 2010 decision by Citizens United.

Different rules apply to overseas businesses, and the new Seattle law loosely defines what makes a business overseas.

So you’re saying these are apples and oranges, and not necessarily Washington-grown apples. Foreign influence is one thing, extra-state influence is another. Agreed. But foreign money is still out of control.

I agree with those who say that union money is more sacred than corporate donations because union dues reflect and involve the sentiments of working people. When making political contributions, huge corporations are unlikely to care what their employees think.

The independent expenditures mentioned here are funds that were largely collected and spent during elementary school, with some additional funds arriving recently. The same interests on both sides are likely to inject additional funds into the parliamentary elections.

So right now we have a potentially illegal law that lays down the rules for an important election that blatantly puts one side at a disadvantage. Seattle residents either don’t know this, or they shrug their shoulders and say Amazon (and other companies) got what they deserve.

That seems too easy. We all want, should want, for elections to take place on a fair playing field.