The Real Losers in Seattle’s Mayoral Election? Oligarchs.

Of course, the oligarch effect can hurt a candidate of any ideological orientation, as when 82 billionaires backed Kamala Harris for president in 2024, while only 52 backed Trump. With $1.5 billion to spend in short order, the Harris campaign shelled out for neoliberal abbondanza—a dazzling tidal wave of ads, drone shows, influencers, canvassers, rallies, an Oprah town hall, and extravagant celebrity concerts. Even a Gen Xer could scent out the call sheets and pre-pro meetings. After Trump won, he duly trolled Harris for overspending.

Back in Seattle, with the election finally decided, the mayoral campaigns are folding their tents and settling their books. Bruce Harrell’s campaign spent $282,000 on broadcast advertising; Wilson spent $200,000. Harrell spent $86,000 on wages, salaries, and benefits; Wilson spent $153,000. And then the Harrell campaign spent $158,000, almost twice what it paid in wages, for something called “Management and Consulting.” For this same mysterious expense, Wilson spent less than $7,000.

Rejecting the input of stuffed-suit consultants is one thing. But rejecting money is another. If socialist billionaires—all none of them—started to give to progressive candidates, would the candidates really decline? Maybe not on moral purity. But if big PAC money and lavish spending actually hurts a politician’s chances at victory, that might be a curious new incentive for thrift.