[EL] (non-Seattle) Washington campaign finance laws

[BZall at aol.com]

While Seattle may have rigorous enforcement, other parts of the "other"  
Washington do see the occasional oddity. For example, an October 19 Letter  to 
the Editor confessed coordination between an "independent" PAC and a  
three-candidate block running in a white-hot election for a tiny rural  hospital 
district review board (the campaign's so heated because the ten-bed  
hospital is Catholic-run, and one of the slate candidates runs a  blog called 
"Catholic Watch" and has targeted Catholic hospitals for not  starting to offer 
"death with dignity" and abortion):
 
 
 
We contacted our chosen candidates  and told them we wanted to form a 
campaign committee to elect all three of them.  We told them we would coordinate 
with them to ensure that our message was  consistent with their individual 
messages but we would run our own  campaign. 
They agreed on the condition that  they would also be free to do their own 
campaigning. We contacted the state  Public Disclosure Commission and were 
told that what we were proposing was  perfectly legal as long as we 
registered as a separate campaign and submitted  our own reports. With that, The 
Committee to Elect Barbara Sharp, Bill Williams  and Monica Harrington was born. 
http://www.sanjuanjournal.com/opinion/letters/333365581.html.  

Yes, coordination is a reportable in-kind contribution in Washington.  
Washington State Republican Party v. Washington State Pub. Disclosure  Comm'n, 
141 Wash. 2d 245, 263, 4 P.3d 808, 818 (2000); see also, RCW  
42.17a.005(13)(a)(ii); WAC 390-05-21(3)(a). 
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=390-05-210.  No, neither the committee nor the candidates reported the $3,000 
of  "independent" spending as a contribution to the candidates. I asked the  
committee for more info; no answer. 
 
 
Barnaby  Zall
Of Counsel
Weinberg, Jacobs & Tolani, LLP
10411 Motor City  Drive, Suite 500
Bethesda, MD 20817
301-231-6943 (direct  dial)
bzall at aol.com  

 
In a message dated 10/30/2015 12:53:10 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
wmaurer at ij.org writes:

 
The WashPIRG  publication seems to be trying hard to make it seem like 
Seattle has a  deregulated, laissez-faire campaign system now that can only be 
fixed by  taxpayer-financed campaigns. That’s not the case. Seattle has 
extremely low  contribution limits--$700 per election cycle (meaning primary and 
general  combined) for a media market of over 3 million people. In addition, 
the  contribution limits and other regulations are rigorously enforced by 
the  Seattle Ethics and Election Commission, whose management and staff are 
very  smart, scrupulously even-handed, and non-political. The Seattle City 
Council  also has fairly active turnover, with challengers often unseating 
incumbents.   
I can honestly say  I’ve never seen a single television commercial for a 
city council or mayoral  candidate here in more than 20 years and my anecdotal 
impression is that  people here don’t have much of any idea of who is 
running or the policies for  which they stand until they receive their voters 
guides from the Secretary of  State’s office and King County Elections. Hard to 
have undue influence when no  one actually sees much of a result of that 
influence. 
Moreover, the report  itself says that around 60% of the donors contribute 
less than $500 to a  candidate—hardly a plutocracy. If Seattle has elected 
officials that can be  bought for the price of a nice pair of shoes, then 
there are bigger problems  with the city government than any campaign finance 
system can solve.   
Bill   
 





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20151030/84bab4cf/attachment.html>