[img_assist|nid=1024|title=John Burbank|desc=|link=none|align=left|width=160|height=104]Seattle's 36th Legislative District is one of the most reliably blue districts in the state, a place where constituents rarely disagree over the core issues, and if anything they will have differences over what constitutes the best form of democracy. That idea came about again recently when, at a Democratic debate in the 36th District Thursday night, candidates John Burbank and Reuven Carlyle differed on the implementation of spending caps for their state House race where State Party Chair Dwight Pelz recently named Burbank the official nominee when the District decided not to endorse any single nominee.

After a question was asked about public election financing where both candidates affirmed their support of the idea, Burbank turned to Carlyle and asked if he would agree to spending limits in this year's race. Carlye declined.

Specifically, Burbank proposed that a cap of $50,000 in the primary and $50,000 in the general be imposed on the race. Any amount raised over these limits would be donated equally between the 36th District Democrats and local food banks.

"The reason we never get genuine campaign reform is that politicians have a conflict of interest and the lure of money to win and buy elections always trumps the public interest," stated Burbank said in a press release which can be found here, where he claimed he would continue to push for spending limits.

[img_assist|nid=1026|title=Reuven Carlyle|desc=|link=none|align=right|width=120|height=156]His opponent, Carlyle, was irritated with the claim. He suggested that Burbank's question at the debate was nothing but a gimmick and an attempt to create a "gotcha" moment.

"I am sorry that my opponent is having so much trouble raising money for his campaign," Carlyle told PolitickerWA.com. "As a registered lobbyist in Olympia for the past decade, he's had plenty of time to work on this issue and his silence has been deafening."

He continued his logic that Burbank only suggested this cap now because Carlyle was outraising him, and that if he were serious about the issue of public financing then they could have spoken at the beginning of the campaign, or at least before the debate.

"I would never trivialize the serious issue of meaningful campaign finance reform," Carlye stated earnestly. "If he were serious about this important public policy issue, he would have raised the idea at the beginning of the campaign instead of mid stream before I was more than $50,000 ahead in fundraising and his coffers were already running dry. More importantly, he would have handled it in a more dignified, thoughtful and non political fashion instead of as a silly debate gimmick."