Court supports public disclosure of campaign donors


Yakima Herald-Republic

Links
Email_black_18  E-mail           Print_black_18  Print           
Advertisement

More 'Opinion'

  1. Ruling underscores school districts' need for levies
  2. State must assure safety of its most vulnerable citizens
  3. Enforcement is key to any panhandling decision
  4. Bid to unionize child-care centers still a bad idea
  5. Confidential bank oversight won't return confidence
  6. Here's a chance to make a difference for heart attack victims
  7. CWU's plea for stable state funding is sensible (and unlikely)
More Stories:   Today's News | This Week

"The public's right to know
of the financing
of political campaigns
and lobbying and
the financial affairs
of elected officials and
candidates far outweighs
any right that these matters remain secret and private."

 

-- Revised Code of Washington 42.17.010(10)

 

It's with justifiable pride that the state of Washington, noted for efforts at transparency in government, boasts one of the toughest, voter-approved disclosure laws in the country.

And it just got tougher now that the U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up a case involving violations of campaign disclosure statutes in the 2004 state attorney general's race.

The state Supreme Court had ruled that a political committee backed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce broke campaign finance laws when it refused to disclose the donors behind ads in the 2004 race. The U.S. Chamber, working with a state group called the "Voters Education Committee," paid for advertisements criticizing Democratic attorney general hopeful, and former state insurance commissioner, Deborah Senn, who won a hotly contested Democratic primary with former Seattle City Attorney Mark Sidran before losing to Republican Rob McKenna in the general election.

The committee initially refused to register as a political campaign group with the state or reveal the source of its money. The committee later reported a $1.5 million donation from the U.S. Chamber, which in turn declined to reveal any of its donors, saying it didn't raise any money specifically for the campaign against Senn.

Since then, the courts have rightly held that the hiding of sources of campaign money behind group attack ads not only violates the spirit of the disclosure law, but the letter as well. Members of the nation's highest court didn't even offer any comments as they this week declined to take up the dispute.

State legislators, citing the Senn ads, later amended campaign finance law to specify that third-party groups buying ads in a political campaign must be prepared to disclose their donors.

 

The state Public Disclosure Commission sued the Voters Education Committee to force financial disclosure. The committee countersued, arguing that Washington's campaign disclosure law was an unconstitutional restraint of free speech.

The state high court subsequently rejected the committee's argument that the statute was vague.

"Contrary to VEC's assertions, these disclosure requirements do not restrict political speech -- they merely ensure that the public receives accurate information about who is doing the speaking," Justice Mary Fairhurst wrote for the majority.

Well said then, and it still applies now. Public disclosure of campaign financing means just that, and individual sources of "soft money" are not to be conveniently hidden behind generic committees spewing attack ads for the benefit of one candidate over another.

In this state, the people demand to know what's going on and who's behind it.

 

* Members of the Yakima Herald-Republic editorial board are Michael Shepard, Sarah Jenkins, Bill Lee and Karen Troianello.