A democracy voucher is a method of public financing of political campaigns used in municipal elections in Seattle, Washington, United States. It was approved in 2015 and debuted during the 2017 election cycle. The program provides city residents with four vouchers, each worth $25, that can be pledged to eligible candidates running for municipal offices. It is funded by a property tax and is applied on a first-come, first-served basis.

A similar plan was put forward by the 2020 presidential campaign of Andrew Yang. The campaign's "Democracy Dollars" would have given each registered voter $100 to put towards the political campaign of their choice annually.^{[citation needed]}

In 2016 in a statewide ballot initiative, South Dakota voters supported a bill that included provisions for democracy vouchers as part of a larger ethics reform bill called "the government accountability and anti-corruption act". The democracy voucher part of this bill provided voters two $50-dollar vouchers to be given to state candidates.^[9] The bill passed with over 51% of the vote, but South Dakota Republicans repealed the bill in early 2017. An "emergency clause" was included in the repeal preventing resubmission of the ballot initiative.^[10]

Advocates in other cities have put forward similar proposals, including in Los Angeles, California.^[11] Los Angeles advocates have argued that democracy vouchers would lead to "a more diverse group of donors, and a more representative set of candidates and officeholders" were the policy enacted.^[12]

Supporters argue that the program makes campaign donors more representative of the overall population,^[13] lets candidates fundraise for competitive campaigns without relying on big money,^[14] and limits the influence of special interests over elected officials.^[4]

Opponents claimed that, because the vouchers would be distributed ten months before the general election and were assigned on a first come, first served basis, the program would largely benefit incumbent political candidates rather than challengers, because the latter typically launch their campaigns at a later date than incumbents. As a result, incumbents might receive all funds from the program, with available money completely depleted by the time challengers were able to organize campaigns.^[4]

• Government and politics of Seattle
• Washington State Public Disclosure Commission