A lengthy post circulating online recently from Reddit, attempted to paint Jake Seegers as a man with hidden motives, questionable associations, and a carefully concealed agenda.
I read the entire thing.
Some of the concerns raised are fair questions. Public office should involve scrutiny. Transparency matters. Candidates should expect people to examine their finances, business relationships, political history, and public disclosures.
But after reading through the post carefully, what stood out to me was not evidence of corruption. What stood out to me was how quickly speculation, implication, and guilt-by-association became substitutes for proof.
And honestly, that concerns me more than the allegations themselves.
I say this as someone who is neither a Republican operative nor a political insider. I am a recovered drug addict. I know many other recovered addicts pepersonally. We agree that things have gone too far in one direction, and it isn’t a good path. We deal with witnessing open drug use in public, triggering behaviors and being told that “ we are uncompassionate” if we speak out about it.
I think it is important to explain why many people like me are even listening to candidates outside the usual political establishment in the first place.
The Difference Between Questions and Conclusions
The original post repeatedly uses language like:
“may or may not”
“potentially”
“interesting”
“where is the transparency?”
“hidden agenda”
This creates an atmosphere of suspicion without actually proving wrongdoing.
There is a major difference between:
“This is a confirmed ethics violation” and
“I personally think this should maybe have been disclosed.”
Those are not the same thing.
If there are actual violations of Washington State disclosure laws, then the Public Disclosure Commission exists to investigate them. That process matters. Evidence matters. Due process matters.
But much of the post relies less on direct evidence and more on connecting emotional dots:
wealthy family
Texas connections
faith-based charities
development background
out-of-state donations
The implication becomes: “Look at all these associations. Doesn’t it make you uncomfortable?”
Maybe some people are uncomfortable with it. But discomfort is not proof of corruption.
The Problem With Guilt By Association
One of the major themes of the post is that Jake’s family foundation donates to conservative or faith-based organizations.
So what exactly is being alleged?
That supporting religious charities automatically makes someone dangerous? That medical missions are suspicious because a family foundation helped fund them? That charitable giving becomes sinister if the people involved are politically conservative?
I am not deeply religious myself. But I think we are entering dangerous territory when we begin treating philanthropy itself as evidence of hidden extremism.
The article repeatedly tries to turn normal things into sinister things:
a coworking office becomes suspicious
charitable grants become suspicious
property ownership becomes suspicious
family wealth becomes suspicious
outside donations become suspicious
At some point we have to ask whether we are evaluating actual behavior, or simply constructing a narrative around someone we already decided we dislike.
Why People In Recovery Are Paying Attention
This is the part I think many people in local politics do not fully understand.
A lot of us who struggled with addiction have spent years watching systems fail in real time.
We have watched:
overdoses climb
public disorder worsen
families collapse
property crime become normalized
people cycle endlessly through addiction without accountability or recovery
working people feel increasingly ignored
Some of us were part of that chaos ourselves.
Recovery changes your perspective. You become brutally honest about consequences. You learn that enabling dysfunction is not compassion. You learn that good intentions do not automatically produce good outcomes.
That is one reason many recovered addicts are politically homeless right now.
We do not fit neatly into ideological boxes anymore.
Some of us are exhausted by performative politics. Some are tired of being told obvious problems are not real. Some are tired of local leadership that feels stagnant, defensive, or disconnected from everyday reality.
That does not mean we worship candidates. It does not mean we become MAGA extremists. It does not mean we suddenly support every conservative policy.
It means we are looking for people who at least acknowledge the system is not working. And we look towards those who want to try something different.
The “Hidden Agenda” Narrative
One thing I noticed throughout the post is that almost every fact is presented in the most suspicious possible framing.
If Jake advocates reopening access to Olympic Hot Springs Road while owning nearby parcels, then the assumption becomes financial self-interest.
But lots of locals support reopening access for recreation, tourism, and public use.
If his family has a background in development, then the word “Build” on a campaign sign suddenly becomes ominous.
If he has supporters from Texas or California, it becomes evidence of outside influence instead of the fairly normal reality that people donate to friends, family members, or candidates they know personally.
Again, none of this means people should stop asking questions. Public scrutiny matters.
But there is a line between scrutiny and narrative construction.
What I Actually Care About
I care less about whether someone’s grandparents were wealthy and more about:
whether local leadership is effective
whether our communities are safer
whether addiction and disorder are being addressed honestly
whether economic realities are improving for ordinary people
whether local government is responsive and accountable
I also care deeply about whether people can disagree politically without immediately trying to portray each other as secret extremists or hidden villains.
Because once politics becomes entirely about suspicion, nobody trusts anybody anymore.
And communities fall apart that way too.
I am a true independent voice.
Given my past, I will be supporting change. And most of us in recovery feel the same about this candidate. We will be voting for Jake!
