Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The Fahey Q&A: Estevan Muñoz-Howard on Seattle's Democracy Voucher Program

The Fahey Q&A: Estevan Muñoz-Howard on Seattle's Democracy Voucher Program

Estevan Muñoz-Howard.

Since organizing the Voters Not Politicians 2018 ballot initiative that put citizens in charge of drawing Michigan's legislative maps, Katie Fahey has been the founding executive director of The People, forming statewide networks to promote government accountability. She regularly interviews colleagues in the world of democracy reform for The Fulcrum.

Estevan Muñoz-Howard is Senior Director at Ktisis Capital, Treasurer for the Funders’ Committee for Civic Participation, and Executive Board member of Voices for Progress. He has over 15 years of experience leading programs and coalitions in the nonprofit sector, including the successful Honest Elections Seattle campaign of 2015—a historic initiative to implement the world’s first Democracy Voucher program. He is passionate about inclusive democracy, community organizing, and the diffusion of power.


Fahey: Tell us about your background; what led you to get involved with the Democracy Dollars Seattle Campaign?

Muñoz-Howard: Making change has always been an overarching theme for me. My political theory classes piqued my interest, particularly the role of money in politics. I saw the power of money and corporate interests in shaping economic policies and recognized that money was consistently at the root of efforts to block progress on issues I cared about. This perspective led me to think about what we can do as citizens to wield our power to change the system.

On my return to Washington in 2007, I joined a group of like-minded people aiming to overturn the statewide ban on public financing for local jurisdictions. We began exploring the feasibility of creating a program in Seattle. In 2012, the City Council asked the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission to propose a public financing model, and our group acted quickly, creating a small donor matching system proposal that heavily informed the policy, ultimately recommended by the commission.

When the City Council referred the proposal to the 2013 ballot, late in the year, many funders had already committed their resources to other campaigns. Despite this, our team championed the campaign—door-knocking to raise limited funds in fervent hope of a victory. Ultimately, the measure failed but surprisingly garnered 49.63% of the vote—just 1,400 votes shy of victory in a city with over 500,000 voters.

The narrow loss allowed us to fail forward, with several funders calling us to explore future partnerships. We went on to raise an initial $300,000 to pursue public financing once again and decided to pursue a ballot initiative campaign, allowing us to be more aspirational in responding to voter interests instead of focusing on what was politically palatable. With this strategy shift, we explored innovative alternatives to the small donor matching system, leading us to raise $1.5 million and create a new campaign finance model called the Democracy Voucher Program.

Fahey: How does the Democracy Voucher Program work?

Muñoz-Howard: The program provides adult residents of Seattle with an opportunity to designate four $25 vouchers to qualified candidates of their choice. The vouchers can be split among different candidates for mayor, city council, and city attorney, provided those candidates adhere to spending and fundraising caps.

Fahey: How is the program funded?

Muñoz-Howard: It is funded by a 10-year property tax levy, the smallest in the city’s history. It raises $6 million per election cycle ($3 million/year), used to fund the program. The levy is up for renewal later this year.

Fahey: It has been 10 years since the Honest Elections Seattle citizen-led initiative was passed. How has this campaign finance reform impacted local elections?

Muñoz-Howard: The program has had a transformative impact on Seattle’s electoral landscape, with a five-fold increase in the number of small donors participating, particularly among historically underrepresented communities. It has diversified the candidate pool and donor base and reduced the influence of big money in elections. A new standard for transparency and accountability in local politics was set while promoting equitable participation across socioeconomic demographics. It will take time to realize the program’s full potential but we’re well on our way.

Fahey: How does this reform benefit small and large donors and candidates alike?

Muñoz-Howard: Small-dollar donors have a stronger voice, more power to influence campaigns, and more faith in local democracy. Large donors have a reduced burden as they no longer have to carry a candidate’s campaign, shifting their role from funder to ambassador.

Candidates can run based on their desire to help their communities instead of catering to the interests of wealthy donors. They are incentivized to engage with the people in their communities, as every resident is now a likely voter.

Fahey: The property tax levy funding the program expires at the end of 2025. Where are you in the process of renewing support, and which offices are impacted?

Muñoz-Howard: We are working with the city council to refer the levy renewal to the ballot this fall, and are optimistic it will be renewed. Our coalition recently participated in a press conference with the Office of the Mayor, officially launching the levy renewal effort. We encourage Seattle voters to contact their city council members about renewing the funding.

Fahey: What do you need the most help with, and how can people get involved?

Muñoz-Howard: Campaign funding is the biggest need. We encourage residents to contact the city council to let them know you support the program. Anyone interested in getting involved can go to: peoplepoweredelections.org.

Fahey: Do you have any words of advice for citizens wanting to do something about an issue with our political system?

Muñoz-Howard: People have real power to innovate locally, where money is less entrenched. Cities and states truly are laboratories of democracy, and so much is possible with just a few committed individuals. Find people who share your passion and explore what you can collectively accomplish!

Fahey: In what way does the program strengthen democratic ideals?

Muñoz-Howard: It does so by increasing public voice, inspiring civic engagement, restoring faith in the democratic process, and mitigating the influence of money in politics. It is an important step forward that helps amplify the voices of everyday people in our democracy.

I am excited about the potential for other local jurisdictions to replicate the program, using Seattle as a model. Oakland has already passed it, and several cities are actively working on campaigns.

Fahey: If you were speaking with a high school student or a new immigrant to the country, how would you describe what being an American means to you?

Muñoz-Howard: To be American is to be a work in progress. We have an imperfect system that from the beginning was not made for everyone, yet we have power to tip the scales toward justice. When we feel powerless, we cannot lose sight of the role we each play in making the world a better place.

Read More

Blank Checks and Empty Promises: The Collapse of Congressional Fiscal Power

A politician counting money in front of the US Capitol Building.

Getty Images, fStop Images - Antenna

Blank Checks and Empty Promises: The Collapse of Congressional Fiscal Power

From Governing to Grandstanding

There was a time—believe it or not—when Congress actually passed budgets the old-fashioned way: through debate, compromise, and the occasional all-night session, not theatrics designed to appeal to cable news and social media. The process, while messy, followed a structure: hearings, markups, votes, and compromises. That structure—known as regular order—wasn’t just congressional tradition. It was the scaffolding of democratic accountability. It has also been steadily torn down.

Deadlines and dysfunction better define today’s Congress. Instead of the back-and-forth of healthy deliberation, Congress relies on continuing resolutions and last-minute omnibus bills. Budget gimmicks that were once used only during fiscal emergencies—backloaded cuts, timing shifts, reconciliation sleight-of-hand—are now the rule, not the exception. Congress has shifted from prioritizing policy to prioritizing the message and crafting political narratives.

Keep ReadingShow less
Outside Money, Inside Influence: How National Donors Shaped the 2024 Congressional Elections

An individual voting with money.

Getty Images, Orbon Alija

Outside Money, Inside Influence: How National Donors Shaped the 2024 Congressional Elections

In 2024, campaign fundraising in federal elections was more nationalized than ever. Candidates for both the House and Senate continued a decades-long trend of relying less on donations from the voters they represent and more on contributions from donors across the country. The nationalization of campaign contributions, once a concern among elections experts, is now a defining feature of congressional campaigns.

An analysis of 2024 House and Senate campaign data reveals just how deeply this transformation has taken hold. From candidates in small states with limited donor bases to top congressional leaders with national profiles — and especially in competitive races in battleground states — non-local campaign contributions were ubiquitous.

Keep ReadingShow less
Who Really Pays for Congress? Local Donors All but Disappear in 2024

Hundred dollar bills.

Giorgio Trovato on Unsplash

Who Really Pays for Congress? Local Donors All but Disappear in 2024

WASHINGTON, D.C. - There is an old saying: All politics is local. However, many voters may get the impression this is becoming less and less a reality -- particularly in US House and Senate elections where candidates are elected to represent specific districts or states, but campaign to a national audience.

This is because local influence in the most contested races is dying out -- a statement not contrived from opinion, but fact.

Keep ReadingShow less
Money in politics
Super PACs tied to major parties misled voters, complaint alleges
erhui1979/Getty Images

Is It Possible To Reverse Course on the Corruptive Influence of Money in American Politics?

A $288 Billion Dollar Proto-Presidency?

The 2024 presidential election saw Elon Musk spend over a quarter of a billion to elect President Trump, which is exactly $288 million according to The  Washington Post report of the final tally of campaign spending on January 31, 2025. Did that staggering campaign contribution buy the billionaire the right to attend cabinet meetings and stand beside the President in the Oval Office and at other events? Did those millions buy a Proto-Presidency, complete with the opportunity to run a department aggressively dismantling government and radically changing what government does for ordinary Americans while personally benefiting from government contracts? Professor Lawrence Lessig argues that ‘Musk is the clearest example of the corrupting influence of money in politics.’ According to a recent PEW study, 72% of Americans agree that money is the number one corrupting influence in politics. So, what can be done? Are we too far down this road to make meaningful change, or are there options?

Keep ReadingShow less