The initiative that aims to level Seattle’s political playing field by weakening the influence of big money, has raised some big money of its own.

That’s a point KIRO Radio’s Jason Rantz raised while discussing the issue with Heather Weiner ofHonest Elections Seattle, a group backing Initiative 122. Rantz notes that the organization has received $200,000 from one out-of-state donor. Then there’s a $5,000 donation from an Issaquah man &#8212 in state but out of town. Two Seattle donors each gave $10,000.

“Doesn’t that show you that it’s not necessarily bad for big donors to give money to causes they support?” Rantz asked.

“I recognize the irony that in order to fight big money, you need big money,” Weiner responded. “Just like fighting fire with fire.”

Weiner is quick to note that, despite Rantz’s point, initiatives and causes are different than voting for decision makers.

In November, the decision to change the landscape of Seattle politics will be placed in the hands of the city’s voters.

How?

If passed, Initiative 122 would create a publicly-funded election system with the aim of decreasing the role of money in local politics. It would also place a limit &#8212 $500 &#8212 on the amount of money a person can donate to a candidate. The average Seattle voter would be allotted four $25 vouchers, which they could then give to the candidate of their choice.

The issue has its pros and cons, and Seattleites have already begun choosing sides. For example, The Seattle Times recently published an editorial opposing the initiative.

“What we see in recent studies, such as the one in the Seattle Times, is about half of the money candidates raise comes from the same .3 percent of Seattleites over and over again,” Weiner said. “Typically, these folks live in high-end neighborhoods with beautiful views and that’s where candidates spend most of their time &#8212 dialing for dollars and knocking on those doors, going to cocktail parties, and raising money from those folks.”

“If we level the playing field and say candidates can raise money from anybody, and that everybody has the ability to give candidates money, we think that will really improve our democracy,” she said.

Nearly 30,000 voters have signed a petition to include the initiative on the upcoming November ballot. Candidates who use the public funds would do so voluntarily. Therefore, a candidate could still be funded privately. But candidates who opt-in would have certain regulations placed upon them. For starters, a candidate would have to obtain donations from 150 supporters before being considered for public funds. They would also have to agree to participate in public debates. All candidates would comply with campaign spending limits.

“Meaning you can only spend x-number of dollars whether you raise them privately or publicly on campaign literature or TV ads and so on,” Weiner explained.

Weiner said the new system would provide an incentive for candidates to meet and understand all voters, not just a select, wealthy few, while also allowing for a more diverse candidate field.

But Rantz argues that a diverse candidate field could be filled with people a voter vehemently disagrees with.

“Some of the concern I have about this particular bill is that it would allow for you to use my money, because we are taking taxpayer dollars for this, to fund campaigns that I may not agree with,” he said.

Weiner counters that the level playing field is really what the tax dollars are buying.

“[We] belong to a society where we have decided to pool our resources for many things &#8212 schools, roads police, fire. I may never have children to send children to those schools, I may never need the police or fire department, and I may never drive on any of those roads,” she said.

“For our society and our democracy to function properly, we should all pool our resources for that,” she continued. “It’s the same thing here with candidates. Right now, our elections are being controlled and bought by people who have access to a tremendous amount of money. Regardless of what their political leanings are … those are the people who are controlling our elections. They are privately bought elections.”

Or another example would be, Rantz noted, Seattle’s perennial candidate GoodSpaceGuy, who continually runs for various public positions. Rantz would not want to contribute to GoodSpaceGuy.

But Weiner said that people like GoodSpaceGuy would have to first convince 150 other voters to back him first. Then he would have to walk around and actually interact with voters.

“We may end up giving money to someone that we may not philosophically or ideologically support,” Rantz argued. “I totally understand the perspective of people who say we have too much big money [in politics], but just because people are rich, it doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t get to influence public policy and candidates they feel passionate about – on either side.”

Weiner said that the big money that I-122 attempts to address has more to do with other situations. For example, a CEO organizes a board to contribute to a candidate. Then the CEO’s company also contributes. Then the company contributes unlimited funds to a PAC backing a candidate.

“That isn’t really a democracy. That is someone who is buying an election,” Weiner said. “Under Citizens United there is nothing we can do to limit a corporations ability to give money to an independent expenditure. But what we can do is empower ordinary voters and everyday people to participate in the process.”

Despite sympathizing with people who want to remove excess financial influence in politics, Rantz just can’t support the initiative.

“I want more people actually voting, I want more people engaged,” he said. “I would rather see the money from organizations backing you, put into telling voters and making their case, rather than making it harder for the opposition to get involved.”

Weiner maintains that, in the end, the elections provided through public funding of campaigns would be beneficial to all Seattleites. She notes that the city used to have publicly funded campaigns, and under that system, the city elected its last African-American mayor, Norm Rice.

“It is better for our democracy to pool our resources and have candidates compete on their ideas and their connections to voters rather than compete on their connections to wealthy voters,” Weiner said.