PDC sent complaints against two Building Industry Association Groups to Rob McKenna

"Our campaign finance laws are among the best, but they are meaningless if they are not enforced," former Washington State Supreme Court Justice, Faith Ireland.

On July 25, 2008, two former Washington State Supreme Court Justices, Faith Ireland and Robert Utter, along with A-1 Builders of Bellingham and others, alleged in a 45 day Citizen Action Letter to WA State Attorney General Rob McKenna, that the Building Industry Association of the State of Washington used Return on Industrial Insurance (ROII) program proceeds to illegally fund campaigns. http://www.biaw.com/Documents/how_program_works.pdf

A Public Disclosure Commission staff report concluded the BIAW had illegally solicited, received and retained more than $584,000 from its local associations without registering as a political action committee. The report also determined that the group failed to report its contributions to ChangePAC.

Tom McCabe, Executive Vice President of the Building Industry Association of Washington claims that the BIAW has been singled out by the Public Disclosure Commission because it is supporting Dino Rossi, Governor Christine Gregoire's opponent in the 2008 race for Governor.

Brad Shannon, of The Olympian tells readers: "State campaign-finance regulators sent a pair of complaints against two powerful builder groups to the state Attorney General’s Office today for possible punitive action.

Members of the state Public Disclosure Commission appeared split on whether the Building Industry Association of Washington’s actions were “egregious,” as PDC chairman Ken Schellberg put it — or a one-time oversight and mistake, as commissioner Jim Clement appeared to view it.

At issue is $584,528 the Building Industry Association of Washington’s member services corporation solicited from local builder groups in July 2007, collected and then gave to a BIAW political action committee in August this year to spend on the governor’s race. 09-007

Also at issue is $707,950 that the Master Builders Association of King & Snohomish Counties collected from member contractors through its “Just 10 % Program” for use in campaigns. The names of donors through that program have not been made public." 09-008

Entire post can be read here: http://www.theolympian.com/politicsblog/story/585953.html

Public Disclosure Commission Reports of Investigation for the Master Builders and the Building Industry Association can be read here: http://www.pdc.wa.gov/home/enforcement/reports/enforcement.aspx?Title=2008&Page=http://www.pdc.wa.gov/home/enforcement/reports/2008.aspx

Robert Faturechi of The Seattle Times tells readers: "A subsidiary of the Building Industry Association of Washington violated state campaign-finance laws, the state Public Disclosure Commission has ruled.The commission will pass its findings on to the state Attorney General's Office, which will decide whether to prosecute.The decision by the Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) is a blow to the builders association, which stirred controversy in recent months with an ad campaign aimed at derailing Democratic Gov. Christine Gregoire's bid for re-election.

After a complaint from a citizens group led by two former state Supreme Court justices, the PDC, which oversees campaign-finance regulations, began an investigation into the building association's political activity.

Monday's vote in favor of reporting the violations to the state Attorney General's Office follows a similar recommendation by the commission's staff last week."

The commission's 4-0 vote was unanimous.

The entire article can be read here: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008181318_webbiaw16.html By Robert Faturechi
Seattle Times staff reporter
Monday, September 15, 2008

Chris McGann, Capitol Correspondent for the Seattle Post Intelligencer writes: "The Public Disclosure Commission has determined that one of the state's most politically aggressive industry groups violated campaign finance law while amassing its multimillion-dollar campaign fund.

The Building Industry Association of Washington has spent more than $2 million through its political action committee ChangePAC in an effort to oust Democratic Gov. Chris Gregoire.

This summer a citizen group that included two former state Supreme Court justices filed a complaint through the state Attorney General's Office, alleging that the BIAW had illegally operated as a political action committee.

The complaint was forwarded to the Public Disclosure Commission for an investigation. A staff report concluded the BIAW had illegally solicited, received and retained more than $584,000 from its local associations without registering as a political action committee. The report also determined that the group failed to report its contributions to ChangePAC.

The complaint has been returned to the state Attorney General's Office, where it will be evaluated. Attorney general spokeswoman Janelle Guthrie said the office would make its decision about whether to file a lawsuit by Friday.

If the state does not take action, the citizens who filed the original complaint -- former Justices Faith Ireland and Robert Utter -- would be entitled to sue on behalf of the state.

Ireland called on McKenna to take the matter to court.

"Our campaign finance laws are among the best, but they are meaningless if they are not enforced," she said in a statement."

The entire article can be read here: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/379260_pdc16.html?source=mypi

Draft of Public Disclosure Legislation Prohibiting false and defamatory statements about candidates for public office

Sticks and Stones -

Defamation of Character: the act of making untrue statements about another person that damages his or her reputation and standing in the community. Wikipedia tells us, in law, defamation (also called calumny, libel, slander, and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image.

Here is a draft copy of the Public Disclosure Commission's special request legislation regarding the prohibition of false and defamatory statements about candidates for public office. I sincerely hope this legislation moves forward and is introduced in the 2009 Legislative Session.
_____________________________________________
BILL REQUEST - CODE REVISER'S OFFICE
_____________________________________________
BILL REQ. #: Z-0080.1/09
ATTY/TYPIST: SCG:seg

BRIEF DESCRIPTION: Prohibiting false and defamatory statements about candidates for public office.

1 AN ACT Relating to false and defamatory statements about candidates
2 for public office; amending RCW 42.17.530; and creating a new section.

3 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:

4 NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. (1) The concurring opinion of the Washington
5 state supreme court in Rickert v. State, Public Disclosure Commission,
6 161 Wn.2d 843, 168 P. 3d 826 (2007) found the statute that prohibits
7 persons from sponsoring, with actual malice, political advertising and
8 electioneering communications about a candidate containing false
9 statements of material fact to be invalid under the First Amendment to
10 the United States Constitution because it posed no requirement that the
11 prohibited statements be defamatory.
12 (2) It is the intent of the legislature to amend chapter 42.17 RCW
13 to find that a violation of state law occurs if a person sponsors false
14 statements about candidates in political advertising and electioneering
15 communications when the statements are made with actual malice and are
16 defamatory.
17 (3) The legislature finds that in such circumstances damages are
18 presumed and do not need to be established when such statements are
19 made with actual malice in political advertising and electioneering

1 communications and constitute libel or defamation per se under RCW
2 9.58.010 (1) or (3). The legislature finds that incumbents,
3 challengers, voters, and the political process will benefit from
4 vigorous political debate that is not made with actual malice and is
5 not defamatory.
6 (4) The legislature finds that when such defamatory statements
7 contain a false statement of material fact about a candidate for public
8 office they expose the candidate to contempt, ridicule, or reproach and
9 can deprive the candidate of the benefit of public confidence, or
10 prejudice him or her in his or her profession, trade, or vocation. The
11 legislature finds that when such statements falsely represent that a
12 candidate is the incumbent for the office sought when in fact the
13 candidate is not the incumbent they deprive the actual incumbent and
14 the candidates of the benefit of public confidence and injure the
15 actual incumbent in the ability to effectively serve as an elected
16 official. The legislature further finds that defamatory statements
17 made by an incumbent regarding the incumbent's challenger may deter
18 individuals from seeking public office and harm the democratic process.
19 Further, the legislature finds that when such statements make, either
20 directly or indirectly, a false claim stating or implying the support
21 or endorsement of any person or organization when in fact the candidate
22 does not have such support or endorsement, they deprive the person or
23 organization of the benefit of public confidence and/or will expose the
24 person or organization to contempt, ridicule, or reproach, or injure
25 the person or organization in their business or occupation.
26 (5) The legislature finds that defamatory statements, made with
27 actual malice, damage the integrity of elections by distorting the
28 electoral process. Democracy is premised on an informed electorate.
29 To the extent such defamatory statements misinform the voters, they
30 interfere with the process upon which democracy is based. Such
31 defamatory statements also lower the quality of campaign discourse and
32 debate, and lead or add to voter alienation by fostering voter cynicism
33 and distrust of the political process.
34 Sec. 2. RCW 42.17.530 and 2005 c 445 s 10 are each amended to read
35 as follows:
36 (1) It is a violation of this chapter for a person to sponsor with
Code Rev/SCG:seg 2 Z-0080.1/09

1 actual malice a statement constituting libel or defamation per se under
2 RCW 9.58.010 (1) or (3) under the following circumstances:
3 (a) Political advertising or an electioneering communication that
4 contains a false statement of material fact about a candidate for
5 public office((. However, this subsection (1)(a) does not apply to
6 statements made by a candidate or the candidate's agent about the
7 candidate himself or herself));
8 (b) Political advertising or an electioneering communication that
9 falsely represents that a candidate is the incumbent for the office
10 sought when in fact the candidate is not the incumbent;
11 (c) Political advertising or an electioneering communication that
12 makes either directly or indirectly, a false claim stating or implying
13 the support or endorsement of any person or organization when in fact
14 the candidate does not have such support or endorsement.
15 (2) It is not a violation of this section for a candidate or his or
16 her agent to make statements described in subsection (1)(a) or (b) of
17 this section about the candidate himself or herself because a person
18 cannot defame himself or herself. It is not a violation of this
19 section for a person or organization referenced in subsection (1)(c) of
20 this section to make a statement about that person or organization
21 because such persons and organizations cannot defame themselves.
22 (3) Any violation of this section shall be proven by clear and
23 convincing evidence. If a violation is proven, damages are presumed
24 and do not need to be proven.

--- END ---
Code Rev/SCG:seg 3 Z-0080.1/09

It's that time of year again! (Campaign Books are open for public Inspection)

Sadly, no one at the Bellingham Herald or KGMI is interested in researching alleged campaign violations to determine if a candidate has the character and integrity to hold public office.

If the 2007 election cycle is any indication of the local media's position on PDC/FEC or Hatch Act complaints, it appears that reporters and radio personalities would rather attack the character of the individuals filing the complaint, than research the alleged violations for themselves.

Why is public disclosure important? The public disclosure process provides a method for individuals to raise genuine and legitimate concerns about campaign reporting and for those concerns to be independently investigated; and, for appropriate action to be taken by the PDC or other enforcement agency to ensure that all sources of campaign financing are reported so voters can make an informed decision about candidates BEFORE an election takes place.

Professor James Davidson Hunter of the University of Virginia is co-author of a study that determined Americans have conflicting feelings about character in public figures. http://www.virginia.edu/surveys/press/sapc-dayprog.htm

The report, “The Politics of Character,” found that the moral character of candidates “is trumpeted, but more as the absence of corruption than as the display of particular virtues.” Said Bob Gibson, reporter from the Daily Progress, in Charlottesville, VA.

According to Professor Hunter's study, there isn't much coherent thinking going on about the importance of ethics and values in government. In fact, Americans in general appear to be willing to put up with a wide array of bad behavior without questioning the effect that behavior can have on the way we are governed, (as demonstrated by recent federal indictments in Alaska VECO scandal and the mayor of Detroit's legal woes).

So, if you are one of those political junkies that believes local, state and federal candidates have an obligation to obey the law, you're going to have to do some independent research to determine if candidates are filing accurate and timely reports.

According to state public disclosure law, campaign books must be open to the public by appointment between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM during the eight days before the primary and/or general election, except Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays. Inspections are by appointment only.

Candidates are required to list the address (location of the books) on line 10 of the C-1 form. Line 10 also provides contact information for scheduling an appointment to inspect the books.

The PDC does not accept PO Boxes or out of area addresses for campaign book inspections.

Campaign contact information can be found on C-1 forms, filed with the Washington State PDC. A candidate's books can be reviewed by appointment.

To determine the location of a candidate's books, click here. http://hera.pdc.wa.gov/wx/fieldsearch.asp

Here are a few hints to assist you in your efforts. (The PDC website is not easy to navigate).

Click the "show choices tab" across from filer name. Scroll down until you find the candidate that you are interested in. (Last name is listed first). Select your candidate's name. Click the send query button at bottom of page.

Scroll down to C-1 form. Open form.

Scroll down to line 10.

The street address, room number and city where campaign books will be available will be listed here.

If you are refused an appointment by a candidate or campaign staffer, call the PDC at (360) 753-1111. The PDC gets about four complaints a year from citizens who have been refused an appointment to inspect a candidate's books.

PDC (Public Disclosure Commission) COMPLAINTS

Think you found something? Want to file a complaint? Read this first: http://web.pdc.wa.gov/home/enforcement/default.aspx

Please note that the filing of a complaint requires complainants to sign an oath verifying that the information posted in the complaint is true to the best of the complainant's knowledge.

My personal approach? Go after the candidates who have demonstrated a pattern of violations. Anyone can make one or two mistakes. I prefer filing complaints against candidates who appear to have an established pattern of late or inaccurate reports throughout the campaign.

*Hint - if you find a number of violations - file a public disclosure request of e-mails between the candidate, the candidate's staff and the PDC. It's a great way to identify alleged violations that have not been corrected by the campaign.

PDC manuals, brochures and key filing dates can be found here: http://www.pdc.wa.gov/filers/default.aspx

FEC (Federal Election Commission) COMPLAINTS

Did you find campaign donations from individuals or businesses that are from Canada or another country? File a complaint with the FEC here: http://www.fec.gov/eeo/complaintforms.shtml

How to file an FEC Complaint Brochure: http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/complain.shtml

HATCH ACT COMPLAINTS
If you're looking for Hatch Act information - please go here: http://www.osc.gov/hatchact.htm

Before requesting an advisory opinion from Office of Special Counsel (OSC), please take the time to research the candidate's employer and the source of federal funding. This information is usually available on the employer's website or by request. Be polite. Believe it or not, manners are still important.

Hatch Act complaints can be filed on line: Once again, do your homework. You are filing a legal complaint that may trigger court or enforcement action. Make sure that your documentation of an alleged violation is complete and well-organized before you file the complaint. https://www.osc.gov/efile/dsp_login.asp

Happy Sleuthing!
:)

Public Disclosure Resources for Candidates

The Public Disclosure Commission is responsible for collecting and providing public access to campaign finance reports, lobbyist reports and candidate financial reports. The PDC is also responsible for enforcing Public Disclosure Laws. http://www.pdc.wa.gov/home/About/pd_in_wa.aspx

The Public Disclosure Commission was formed by Initiative 276 to ensure that the antiseptic qualities of "sunshine" and consistent, transparent, campaign reporting rules provide residents of the state of Washington with an open, honest election system. The initiative passed in 1972 with 72% of the vote indicating that a majority of Washington Voters support public access to campaign finance reports.

Candidates have a legal obligation to read and abide by all PDC rules and all PDC reporting deadlines.

Below, please find the links to important documents that can be printed out to assist candidates with filing timely reports. The PDC has published a brochure titled "Getting Off to the Right Start" to assist candidates with start up questions. http://www.pdc.wa.gov/archive/guide/brochures/pdf/2008/2008.Bro.Canfoot.pdf

PUBLIC DISCLOSURE SOFTWARE

PDC software can be downloaded here: http://www.pdc.wa.gov/filers/default.aspx

PUBLIC DISCLOSURE TRAINING

The PDC also offers training for candidates and political action committees. The next series of classes will be offered on June 21, 2008. Classes are also scheduled for July and August. If you want to avoid having a complaint filed against you, it is a good idea to attend the classes and familiarize yourself with Campaign Reporting laws. http://www.pdc.wa.gov/filers/buttons/training.aspx

If you have a software calender program, you may want to enter the reporting deadlines with a tickler reminder so you don't accidentally miss a filing deadline.

2008 KEY REPORTING DEADLINES

Here is the link for key reporting dates for 2008 Candidates: http://www.pdc.wa.gov/archive/filerassistance/whatsnew/pdf/2008.KRP.Can.pdf

Here is the link for 2008 Political Committee reporting dates: http://www.pdc.wa.gov/archive/filerassistance/whatsnew/pdf/2008.KRP.Com.pdf

CANDIDATE FILING REQUIREMENTS

Local and Judicial Candidate Filing Requirements http://www.pdc.wa.gov/filers/candidates/local/Default.aspx

State Executive and Legislative Candidate Filing Requirements http://www.pdc.wa.gov/filers/candidates/state/default.aspx

POLITICAL ADVERTISING

For information on Electioneering Communications http://www.pdc.wa.gov/archive/guide/pdf/07-01.pdf

For information regarding In-Kind Contributions and the 21 day rule http://www.pdc.wa.gov/archive/rulemaking/pdf/03.24.2004/WAC390-16-207.pdf

MANUALS AND GUIDELINES

Political Advertising: http://www.pdc.wa.gov/archive/guide/brochures/pdf/2008/2008.Bro.Adv.pdf

Electioneering Communications Guide http://www.pdc.wa.gov/archive/guide/brochures/pdf/2008/2008.Bro.ElectCommGuide.pdf

PDC INTERPRETATIONS

The Public Disclosure Commission staff has published a series of PDC Interpretations and Guidelines for Agencies and Candidates. Please note that the PDC interpretations do not appear to address candidates who are considered Civil Servants under RCW 41.06.250 nor do these interpretations appear to address issues related to state, local and federal employees that are covered by the Hatch Act.

I have written the PDC requesting information about how existing PDC interpretations are affected by Civil Service laws, but have not received an answer at the time of publication http://www.pdc.wa.gov/Home/laws/guide/interpretations.aspx?Page=http://www.pdc.wa.gov/home/laws/guide/commission.aspx

Why is it important to obey campaign finance laws? Many elected officials are charged with the responsibility for modifying and adopting laws and rules that govern the behavior of local and state citizens. Judicial Candidates are responsible for interpreting and enforcing state law. I do not believe that it is too much to ask for a candidate to demonstrate that he/she understands, respects and upholds the laws of our state before they assume the responsibility of public office.

The Public Disclosure Commission relies on Citizens, political organizations, and political parties to file complaints against candidates who allegedly violate state campaign laws.

Information about filing a Public Disclosure Request or Complaint is listed below.

Public Disclosure Requests http://www.pdc.wa.gov/public/recordsrequest.aspx

How to file a complaint http://www.pdc.wa.gov/Home/enforcement/Default.aspx

Past Enforcement Cases can be found here http://www.pdc.wa.gov/home/enforcement/default.aspx

It's Time to Clean House at the PDC

On November 16, 2007, Todd Donovan filed a complaint with the PDC alleging that Pike’s Realtor mailings qualified as in-kind contributions as opposed to independent expenditures.

Donvoan's complaint states that the mailers appear to have been carefully coordinated with the Pike campaign based on strong similarities with regards to graphics, colors, logos, and themes. The Realtor’s pieces also appear to lack the proper sponsor identification wording specifically required for independent expenditures.

A May 15th PDC staff report states that the Realtor’s Quality of Life PAC spent $46,650.47 for seven district mailers that were in-kind contributions supporting Crawford ($12,874.60), Pike ($19,038.23), and Farr, ($14,737.64). Only Larry Farr reported the in-kind contributions, as directed by the Realtors. (Let’s give a gold star to Larry Farr for honesty and integrity - he reported the in-kind donation promptly).

Candidate’s Crawford and Pike did not report receiving in-kind contributions in the amount of $12,874 and $19,038.23 respectively. Both the Crawford and Pike campaigns said they believed the mailings to be independent expenditures and therefore have not reported receiving any in-kind contributions for RQL PAC.

Phil Stutzman’s staff report to the Commission recommends that the Commission dismiss the allegations against Dan Pike. Stutzman feels dismissal is appropriate because the Pike campaign attempted to avoid coordinating its activities with the Realtors and believed it’s the expenditures to be independent expenditures, based on conversations with PDC employees.

Mr. Crawford reports a similar experience with the PDC.

I find it deeply troubling that a Washington State Public Disclosure Commission employee mislead candidates into thinking in-kind contributions are not – in fact – in-kind contributions.

After all, the Public Disclosure Commission is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that Washington Candidates and political organizations obey Washington’s campaign finance laws.

I’m not a suspicious person by nature, but I must admit, now that I have had an opportunity to review the Stutzman report, I question the PDCs impartiality in the Pike Campaign.

Why? I get that yucky, sinking feeling everytime I read the series of e-mail exchanged between Dan Pike, Pike’s campaign treasurer, Ken Bronstein, and Randy Unruh, the PDC Political Finance Specialist for the Pike and McShane Campaigns.

In an e-mail dated July 19, 2007, Unruh writes Dan Pike to inform him that he has been assigned to monitor his campaign, and hopefully keep on top of any problems before they turn into complaints. His e-mail reads, “I have been assigned to monitor the candidates running for Mayor of Bellingham. I have reviewed your reports that have been submitted to the PDC. Below is a list of errors that need to be addressed immediately”. Unruh closes the e-mail with a warning to Mr. Pike –“You are in a hotly contested race and I am sure your financing will be looked at. If someone were to complain prior to you correcting these errors it may lead to an investigation and possible enforcement, which we are trying to avoid.”

O.k. I understand and appreciate that the PDC needs to be involved in monitoring campaign activity - so the above statement doesn't raise any red flags - but, on October 31, 2007, Unruh sent an e-mail to Ken Bronstein. “The PDC has received a formal complaint from Elisabeth Britt concerning the Dan Pike Campaign. The Complaint is in a fact finding phase and may not be logged in. I have been able to dispel most of the complaint, but need some information on the remainder. Ms. Britt states that the Pike Campaign has three fundraising events recently:
September 18, 2007 – at the Bellwether Hotel
September 29, 2007 – at the American Museum of Radio
October 3, 2007 – This was “hosted by Developers”

I have found expenses for room rental for the musician and for Food and Beverages from the Harborside Bistro, and in-kind contributions of food, catering and Radio Museum room rental.
Where is the information on the Bellwether Hotel (Expenses or In-kind contributions) and the fundraiser hosted by the developers (room, food, in-kind expenses)? Can you designate which of the recorded in-kind contributions and the expenses is for what fundraiser?

I need a written explanation now, and then we can decide how to record what is determined.”

The above correspondence raises a question regarding the PDCs neutrality in regulating campaigns. First, Unruh warns the candidate that he has significant errors that need to be addressed or it is likely a complaint will be filed. Then, when a complaint is filed, Unruh writes that he is doing everything in his power to dispel the complaint, even though he can not find the information he needs to dismiss it... then, out of the blue, he announces he is preparing a "will not investigate memo now." without fully investigating the complaint. Pike leaks the e-mail to the media, claiming that the PDC has told him investiation into funds is over -but nothing could have been further from the truth.

Pike's alleged state and federal campaign violations raise a number of questions that no one wants to address: For instance, how do we measure the negative impact of a large infusion of illegal campaign funds on the outcome of an election? Should an investigation be opened to determine if the illegal donations resulted in a skewed election? What steps should the PDC take when a candidate calls the office to reveal that significant amounts of cash are about to be spent by a PAC during the last 21 days of an election? Should the PDC employee in question have notified his superiors so they could investigate the alleged in-kind contributions and issue a stop order to prevent the Realtors from sending out mailers that violated the $5000 dollar limit during the final 21 days before the general election?

What recourse do law abiding citizens and candidates have under these circumstances? Does any one care if elections are fair?

Do candidates have an obligation to verify information with a supporter? Does the PDC? Or, do we rely on private citizens, like Todd Donovan to report alleged violations?

Pike’s PDC reports only list $700 in contributions from the Realtors, when in reality Pike received $19, 038 in-kind donations from the realtors and an undisclosed amount in additional Independent Expenditures from the Realtors for additional support.

According to Pike’s C-4 from October 30, 2007, the Pike campaign had only raised $46,833.24. Therefore it is not a stretch for me to state that a last minute infusion of $20,000 (approximately $14,o38 after subtracting the $5,000 limit) plus dollars into the campaign provided Mr. Pike a significant illegal advantage over his opponent.

Sam Crawford reported raising $20,458.24 in his October 30, 2007 C-4. So an additional $12,874 ($7,874 after subtracting the $5,000 limit) probably gave Mr. Crawford an illegal advantage over his opponent as well. The Realtors also paid for T.V. ads for Mr. Crawford.

Clearly, organizations like the Realtors think that they are buying something when they make huge cash donations to candidates – which leads me to ask, what exactly is for sale? What is it that PACs demand and politicians like Crawford and Pike supply? After all, identifying the “product” in the political marketplace is the first step in making informed decisions. (I can understand why the Whatcom County Realtors would be involved, but why the state chapter)?

You may not personally like Dan McShane or Ken Mann, but when did not liking someone justify breaking the law to win an election? Tell me, at the end of the day, who is responsible for illegal campaign spending? The candidate, the donor, or the PDC Officer who allegedly gave the candidate and/or his staff erroneous legal advice? (How about all of the above).

If Dan Pike’s past behavior is any indication of his future behavior, he will finger point, stomp around in another self-important huff and blame everyone else for his campaign troubles. Too bad Bret Bonner isn’t around to rant and rave about how his good friend Dan Pike is being railroaded by bitter, angry McShane supporters...

As an incumbent, Whatcom County Council member Sam Crawford should have known better and had nothing to lose by reporting the Realtor's in-kind donations. Most Crawford supporters expect that Crawford receives significant Realtor support. All he had to do is ask the Realtors to provide him a copy of the mailer - that would have answered any questions he or his campaign staff had regarding the donation (in-kind or Independent Expenditure)?

Me? I think it’s time to clean house at the Public Disclosure Commission. Political Finance Officers have an obligation to provide accurate, timely information to candidates. Especially beginner candidates. If an employee provides erroneous information, he/she should be held accountable. Especially when large sums of money are involved and the outcome of an election is at stake.

In closing, I would like to urge the legislature to draft legislation that allows the Attorney General to remove elected officials from office when campaign violations become so pronounced that they have the ability to adversely affect the outcome of an election. Of course, the legislature will never draft that legislation, so it will be up to the citizens to write an initiative if they want to ensure that elections are in fact, open, honest and transparent.

If we don’t take steps to address the problem, Washington voters will be left at the mercy of PACs flush with cash who find it more expedient to pay court-ordered fines than obey the campaign finance laws of this state.

Lee Clark Apologizes for Campaign Violations

March 4, 2008

Anchorage Daily News: “Alaskans are right to be disappointed and upset with me. I today pled guilty to a federal offense, predicated upon what were in essence violations of Alaska campaign finance laws, which I committed by requesting pre-primary and primary campaign contributions from VECO."

“It is ethically and morally wrong for a public official to violate Alaska’s laws under any circumstance. It is particularly wrong when it involves a request for campaign funds from a company such as VECO, which was supporting important legislation then before the Administration and the Legislature. No one is more aware of my inappropriate conduct than I am. For this I sincerely apologize to all Alaskans."

"I specifically apologize to then candidates for governor in the 2006 Republican primary, John Binkley and Sarah Palin. Nothing can justify breaking Alaska's campaign finance laws to unfairly benefit one candidate. Such actions hit at the heart of our democratic system by making the public cynical about government."

"Not only were my violations of Alaska's campaign finance laws wrong and unethical, they were stupid. They were a shortcut to raising campaign funds because I saw myself as "too busy" to make the phone calls that I could have made to potential contributors to legally raise the money. I should have drawn a line between my job and the campaign and simply left fundraising to the campaign fundraisers. For this I especially apologize to my family for whom what was to have been four years of public service has been transformed into a nightmare."

It's refreshing to note that the majority of elected officials in this nation are willing to take full responsibility for their behavior and decisions, without attacking the character and motivations of the indivduals who filed campaign complaints against them.

Lee Clark made a mistake - but, he possessed the maturity and ethical backbone to admit that he made a mistake, openly, to the entire state of Alaska.

Read the full story here: http://www.adn.com/politics/story/334151.html

http://palintology.com/2008/03/04/clark-apologizes-for-campaign-violations/

The Public's Right to Know

Last month, three bills were introduced in the House regarding public access to public records.

HB 2839 – Legislation designed to stop government agencies from suing record requesters to block public disclosure requests.

HB 3231 - seeks to limit the use of attorney-client privilege to block public disclosure requests

HB 3251 - would prevent self insurer's from threatening to cancel a local government's insurance for refusing to comply with a public disclosure request.

The three measures were placed in the House State Government & Tribal Affairs Committee.

____________________________________________________________________

HB 2839: An Act relating to an agency’s access to superior court for the purposes of the public disclosure act; and amending RCW 42.56.540.

The Public Records Act (PRA) requires agencies to respond to public record requests within five (5) business days. It also requires that all state and local government agencies make all public records available for inspection and copying unless they fall within certain statutory limitations.

Under certain circumstances, agencies have the right to take additional time in order to notify third parties or agencies affected by the request or to determine if the request includes material that is exempt under PRA.

The bill analysis tells us "any person who is denied the opportunity to inspect or examine or copy a public record can file a motion in Superior Court to learn why the agency has refused access to the record. The Court may examine the record in detail in order to establish if the refusal is consistent with the statute that exempts or prohibits disclosure.

An agency or a person who is named in the record, or to whom the record specifically pertains may file a motion asking the Superior Court to enjoin disclosure of the public record. The Court may issue an injunction if it finds that release of the information is clearly not in the public’s interest and would substantially harm a person, or would substantially damage vital government functions.

In Soter v. Cowles Publishing Co. (No. 78574-1) the Court held that agencies, as well as persons named in the record, may seek such judicial determination if the exemption applies and obtain an injunction if applicable. The bill was scheduled a public hearing on January 29, 2008." The opinion can be found here: http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/785741.opn.pdf

The entire measure can be found at: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2007-08/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/2839.pdf

____________________________________________________________________

HB 3231: An Act relating to the public disclosure of records relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party; and amending RCW 42.56.290.

Again, the Public Records Act (PRA) requires all state and local governments to make all public records available for public inspection and copying unless they fall within certain statutory limitations. According to the bill analysis, the provisions requiring public records disclosure must be interpreted liberally and the exemptions narrowly in order to effectuate a general policy favoring disclosure. A denial of public records request must be accompanied by a written statement of the specific reasons for denial.

The bill analysis tells us “any records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pre-trial discovery for causes pending in Superior Court are exempt from disclosure under the PRA. The Washington State Supreme Court has defined “Controversy” as completed, existing or reasonably anticipated litigation and has recognized this protection is triggered prior to the official initiation of litigation and extends beyond the official termination of litigation.”

Two men, Rowland Thompson, Allied Daily Newspapers of WA, and Andy Cook, of the Building Industry Association testified against allowing a government agency to sue a requester. If an agency is in doubt, Thompson recommended that the agency refuse the public disclosure request and allow the requester to determine if they want to pursue the request in court. “It can be a way to intimidate requesters,” said Cook. The BIA was sued by Pierce County over a public disclosure request for fraudulent voter registration forms.

Committee Summary of Bill: "The current Public Records Act exemption for records relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery is narrowed to apply only in cases of an on-going controversy. In addition, any records created prior to the filing of litigation; or notice of legal claim is subject to disclosure."

The entire measure can be found at: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2007-08/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/3231.pdf

_____________________________________________________________________

HB 3251: An Act relating to local goverment self insurance programs; and amending RCW 48.62.011 and 48.62.101.

Local governments have the authority to individually or jointly self insure against risks.

Committee Summary of Bill: "A self-insurance program is not able to define the terms under which an entity complies with the Public Records Act. A self-insurance program is not able to define the terms under which an entity complies with the PRA. A self-insurance program may not cancel or threaten to cancel insurance coverage based on an entities decision, in consultation with its attorneys, to release public records in compliance with the public records act."

The entire measure can be found at: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2007-08/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/3251.pdf

Fiscal Note is here: https://fortress.wa.gov/ofm/fnspublic/showPackage.asp?RecordID=pdfs/2008/p19032.pdf

"The public’s right to know of the financing of political campaigns… far outweighs any right that these matters remain secret and private.”

This is the second post in a series of posts reviewing Public Disclosure Commission Hearings regarding alleged campaign violations. Complaints are routinely filed by citizens, political parties, candidates, candidate staff, supporters, political organizations and employees of the Public Disclosure Commission, when alleged campaign violations have taken place.

Second Case: Geoff Simpson, State Representative from the 47th Legislative District

Background Information: On September 19, 2000, a complaint was filed by Senator Don Benton, who at the time was the chair of the Washington State Republican Party alleging violations of RCW 42.17.130 by Mr. Geoff Simpson, a successful candidate for State Representative from Covington, for use of City of Kent Fire District property and personnel in his 2000 election campaign ads. The Public Disclosure Commission held a Hearing In January of 2002.

RCW 42.17.130 forbids the use of public office or agency facilities in campaigns.

“No elective official, not any employee of his office nor any person appointed to or employed by any public office or agency may use or authorize the use of any of the facilities of a public office or agency, directly or indirectly, for the purpose of assisting a campaign for election of any person to any office or for the promotion of or opposition to any ballot proposition. Facilities of public office or agency include, but are not limited to, use of stationary, postage, machines, and equipment, use of employees of the office or agency during working hours, vehicles, office space, publications of the office or agency, and clientele lists of persons served by the office or agency: Provided, that the foregoing provisions of this section shall not apply to the following activities: (3) activities which are part of the normal and regular conduct of the office.”

Senator Benton filed a complaint against Geoff Simpson alleging a violation of 42.17.130 for the use of City of Kent Fire District property and personnel in his campaign literature. Attached to the complaint were portions of Mr. Simpson’s political advertisements containing: 1) pictures of Simpson wearing business attire sitting at a City Fire District desk, photos of Simpson outside with his family wearing a polo shirt with fire logo, 2) photos of Simpson garbed in fire gear, holding a fire hose, and wearing a helmet; 3) an ad with pictures of Simpson, the first dressed in fire bunker gear, the second in a fire department uniform taking someone’s blood pressure; 4) an ad containing pictures of Simpson working on a car in fire gear working on a car with other firefighters in firefighter gear; and a picture of Simpson standing outside of City Hall in business attire.

On December 21, 2000, Mr. Simpson was interviewed under oath by the PDC. Simpson told the PDC that the "4N" marking shown on the firefighter’s helmet is not an official fire department designation; that the other firefighters and all of the fire gear photographed were from the SEA TAC Fire Department, not the Kent Fire District. Furthermore, Simpson stated that it was his understanding that Fire Chief Jim Downs of the SEA TAC Fire Department gave verbal approval for Simpson to have photos taken at the SEA TAC Fire Department, provided that no department insignias were visible in campaign brochures.

Calvin Hoggard, City Manager for the City of SEA TAC told the PDC that “the City has a long standing policy prohibiting the political use of City facilities and equipment and prohibiting political activity by City employees while on duty or on City premises, in accordance with RCW 42.17.130.” The prohibition against political activity is clearly outlined in the Employee Handbook.

The Public Disclosure Commission filed administrative charges against Mr. Rojecki, a City of SEA TAC Fire Department employee and firefighter, who was also president of the local firefighter’s union, coordinated the photo shoot and arranged for the use of on Duty City of SEA TAC firefighters. In other words, the PDC is serious about enforcing 42.17.130, which forbids employees of public agencies to use facilities to assist in political campaigns.

This is a long and complex case with pages of testimony and evidence. But it is good example of how the Public Disclosure Commission interpets the use of public facilities and property for political use. If you would like additional information, please click the links below.

The Public Disclosure Commission fined Mr. Simpson $2,500 (with $500 suspended) for violating RCW 42.17.130.

http://www.pdc.wa.gov/archive/compliance/reports/pdf/Simpson%20Geoff.pdf

http://www.pdc.wa.gov/archive/compliance/reports/pdf/Rojecki%20Kevin.pdf

http://www.pdc.wa.gov/home/enforcement/results/Default.aspx

The Public Disclosure Commission April 2006 Strategic Plan Progress report noted that 94% of candidates file reports on time.

Sunshine Laws

A Washington State public audit of local public agencies found dozens of government employees who violated state law by witholding documents that the law says they must release.

The audit was the first of it's kind to examine Washington's Public Records Act, which defines a public record as any document prepared, owned, used or kept by a state or local agency. These records are presumed to be public, unless specifically exmpted from public disclosure by law.

In 1972, the Washington State Legislature declared, "Government isn't a secret business or club." It belongs to the citizens, and the public has every right to access records and participate in government proceedings.

Meanwhile, police and sheriff department's denied public requests for information regarding property crimes at least 55% of the time, while sheriff's departments refused about 16% of the requests to produce lists of sex offenders. Health Departments denied about 8% of the requests for restaurant inspections. The lack of compliance with public disclosure requests recently gained the state of Washington a "F" in a national study on compliance with sunshine laws.

Governor Gregoire told media that the lack of compliance is due to agencies being understaffed and untrained. That filling public disclosure requests is resource intense and costly.

State law says that in releasing the information, agencies are not allowed to ask the person making the request why they are requesting the information. If parts of a document are exempt from disclosure, the agency may black out only the information that can be exempted. It can not withhold the entire document if only certain parts are exempt.

What are your thoughts regarding "sunshine laws." Do you think that public disclosure laws place too heavy a burden on state agencies and law enforcement officials? Or, does the media and public have a right to access government documents?