I thought the problematic “news vouchers” proposal was dead, after Seattle activist Katie Wilson couldn’t find enough support to put it before voters.
But it’s now back as a plank in Wilson’s surprisingly strong campaign for mayor.
“This is part of the reason why I’m running for mayor,” Wilson said in an August podcast discussing news vouchers.
Wilson’s campaign is pitching news vouchers as a way to “Trump-proof” Seattle.
That’s about as likely as Mexico paying for the border wall. It also does the opposite of what it promises, by injecting Trump’s specter into a local issue where he’s irrelevant, and potentially goading him to respond. But it may still resonate with distraught voters looking for anything that sounds anti-Trump.
Politics aside, I think news vouchers are a bad idea, even though they are proposed as a way to strengthen independent journalism.
First, two wrongs don’t make a right.
The vouchers are a derivative of the “democracy vouchers” program that Seattle created in 2015. It levies a property tax to fund $25 vouchers mailed to residents who can donate up to four of them to political campaigns.
Voters renewed the program in August despite its dismal performance. It sells well, because it purports to empower voters and offset the influence of big money in elections. But it hasn’t lived up to the platitudes.
In past elections fewer than 10% of residents used the vouchers, meaning Seattle’s mostly producing the world’s most expensive junk mail. A growing share of the taxes is used to prod residents to participate. Vouchers have yet to blunt the influence of big-spending PACs on Seattle elections but they have benefited insiders and enriched some consultants.
In short, Seattle’s 800,000 residents will end up spending $75 million on a feel-good failure.
Wilson has proposed taking around $10 million from Seattle taxpayers to fund news vouchers. Details aren’t final but residents may get two or three $50 “news notes” to donate to local outlets.
Her campaign website says around $9 million could support 50 new reporters. That works out to $180,000 apiece so perhaps I should join her crusade.
But if the democracy vouchers are a guide, a pile will go to City Hall overhead and most coupons will end up in the bin.
Another 50 reporters sounds good but don’t be fooled into thinking this is “a viable journalism funding model for the 21st century,” as the campaign says.
Municipal property taxes are not the way to revive the journalism industry. They take too much from a limited tax base and provide too little in return.
I’ve advocated for government support of the news industry but at the federal or state level. City-funded news is more vulnerable to corruption and influencing, or at least will create that impression more than federal subsidies.
Seattle’s news vouchers would undermine emerging business models that are stabilizing local news. More than 90% of local reporting is done by for-profit outlets increasingly dependent on subscription revenue.
Wilson originally insisted that voucher-supported news stories must be given away for free. That would fracture the paywalls funding most newsroom jobs while boosting competitors without paywalls.
On the podcast she said she’s softened her stance on paywalls, which is good. But the devil’s in the details.
Based on how the program was developed, I suspect the biggest beneficiaries will be partisan, niche outlets that advance political narratives favored by Wilson and voucher proponents.
That outcome would undermine trust in the independence of local news. Instead of pioneering local solutions to big national problems, as Wilson’s campaign suggests, that would jeopardize efforts to support journalism where it’s most needed: rural and suburban news deserts.
Perhaps I’m overly suspicious. Wilson may truly just want to help local journalism.
But I can’t shake the feeling that she’s not being fully transparent, just like she’s been vague about how she’s stayed afloat as an activist running a money-losing lobbying group.
The voucher effort points to some affiliations.
Both democracy vouchers and news vouchers were dreamed up by progressive East Coast politicos and think-tanks aligned with big labor. They have used Seattle as a sandbox to test expensive policy ideas because its generous and empathetic voters can’t say no when their buttons are pushed.
One of these proponents, the Center for Economic and Policy Research, hosted the August podcast with Wilson. Its economist, Dean Baker, mentioned that he and others have been pushing news vouchers for years, some since the 1990s.
“Success has many fathers,” Wilson joked in response.
Wilson told Baker she was unable to find enough legislative support or donors to back an initiative for news vouchers. That’s another red flag.
A political committee formed in 2024 to pursue the initiative did receive $20,000 in June from Real Change, a nonprofit that publishes a weekly newspaper supporting the homeless population. Wilson called it out during the podcast as an enthusiastic supporter of news vouchers.
Real Change is also a lobbying group aligned with Wilson. About a third of its program spending went to advocacy and organizing, according to its latest tax report, including advocating for “progressive revenue sources” that are Wilson’s cornerstone issue.
I appreciate Real Change’s work to empower low-income residents and publish a newspaper.
But I have a problem with persuading taxpayers to “save local news” and having the proceeds — intentionally or not, directly or indirectly — support lobbying for a mayor’s causes.
That’s an example of why Wilson’s news voucher proposal is problematic. It sounds good on the surface but the closer you look the worse it seems, and you may not be getting the full story.
