In August, the city of Seattle put its ” one-of-a-kind,” “democracy voucher” program to the test. It flunked.

Just weeks after the poor first showing by Seattle’s program, a group in Minneapolis began pushing for a similar program to be implemented. It is their hope that by following in Seattle’s footsteps, democracy vouchers would “create a more participatory and more representative democracy” in Minneapolis’ local elections. Before Minneapolis residents are saddled with an expensive, new program, they should know exactly what they are getting themselves into.

Seattle’s democracy voucher program gives registered voters four $25 vouchers they can donate to candidates. The program was supposed to “turn the table on the traditional power map of Seattle.”

But like The Who warned, “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.” The power map still looks the same.

More than 92 percent of the total funding went to three well-established candidates: one incumbent and two activists with deep ties in the political community. Pete Holmes, the incumbent candidate for city attorney, received $56,925. John Grant, the former president of the Washington Tenants Union, collected $250,000. Teresa Mosqueda, a labor official, received $173,125. That’s a far cry from a supposedly ” populist and deeply egalitarian reform.”

City council candidate Hisam Goueli said he “saw the program as a great opportunity for a first-time candidate like himself to run a competitive campaign.”

Until he tried it.

Unfortunately for him, the process of collecting the vouchers was a maze. Goueli spent so much time grappling with the program’s red tape that “instead of getting [his] message out, [he was] trying to get democracy vouchers.” He finally qualified for nearly $20,000. But he only got the money a few days before the election, after it was too late to spend it.

Far from a new idea, tax-financed campaigns have existed for years in places such as New York City, Los Angeles, Arizona, Connecticut, and Maine. These programs are usually marketed around the appealing ideas of reducing government corruption and promoting more competitive campaigns. As it turns out, there’s no evidence corruption goes down or competition goes up. Indeed, such schemes seem to foster new forms of corruption.

Seattle police are currently investigating Sheley Secrest, a failed candidate for city council. Secrest’s former campaign manager accused her of contributing money to her own campaign, then disguising it as donations from Seattle voters to obtain the vouchers. The Seattle Times contacted five individuals listed as Secrest donors. All five denied giving her campaign a contribution.

For her part, Secrest denies the allegations. While the investigation continues, the alleged fraud is a reminder that these programs create new avenues for corruption. Before the democracy voucher program, there was no reason for candidates to create straw donors or lie about the identities of their contributors. It’s clear that tax-financing incentivizes such bad behavior.

Seattle’s democracy vouchers are also the subject of an ongoing lawsuit, due to a quirk in the program. Funding comes from a new property tax, which can’t be appropriated anywhere else in the budget.

The original proposal left the option open for funding to come from general revenues, but the city declined. As a result, a minority of taxpayers are forced to fund candidacies they may vehemently disagree with. The plaintiffs, two Seattle area property owners, argue “the First Amendment forbids the city from compelling property owners to fund viewpoints they oppose.”

Some maintain this is only the first test for Seattle’s democracy vouchers and hiccups are inevitable. This may be true, but it’s inarguable that the measure is benefiting incumbents and the well-established at the expense of upstart candidates and political newcomers, while simultaneously creating troubling new avenues for waste and corruption.

It is telling that a number of the troubles that have plagued so many other tax-financing programs are already popping up in Seattle. Several studies testing the claims made in support of taxpayer-financed campaigns have found time and time again that these programs don’t achieve their goals.

Currently, $3 million per year is being allocated for democracy vouchers. If the program grows and more candidates start qualifying for vouchers, so will the price tag.

Unfortunately for residents of the Emerald City, it appears that after just one primary election, the city’s “one-of-a-kind” program is really just more of the same. Tax dollars wasted on politicians.

Fans of Seattle’s democracy voucher program asked if the plan “sound[ed] like a pipe dream?” In light of the results witnessed so far in Seattle, the answer for Minneapolis residents appears to be a resounding yes.

This post originally ran in The Washington Examiner on October 19th 2017.