Two debates in which Craig Pridemore is disinclined to participate are whether Democrats or Republican are the worst at violating campaign disclosure rules (both groups are guilty) and whether allowable campaign spending should be increased or decreased. Those arguments can be staged at another time.
For now, the state senator from Vancouver is passionate about an informed electorate. That desire transcends party lines, and that’s why Pridemore’s efforts to increase campaign disclosure rules should draw bipartisan support in the upcoming legislative session.
Two examples — one from each partisan camp — demonstrate the need for Pridemore’s pre-filed Senate Bill 5021:
Moxie Media of Seattle became notorious this year for gathering campaign contributions from labor unions and state employee groups and diverting the money into two new political action committees (PACs) without following state disclosure laws. In fact, Moxie created dozens of PACs to evade disclosure rules.
Among the targets was state Sen. Jean Berkey, D-Everett, who apparently wasn’t liberal enough for Moxie’s contributors. She lost to Democratic challenger Nick Harper and now says she will ask colleagues to refuse to swear him in because she was beaten by ill-gotten gains in the campaign spending wars. Attorney General Rob McKenna seemingly strengthens Berkey’s case; on behalf of the state, he has sued Moxie Media.
Demonstrating that unscrupulous campaign spending is exclusive to no political party, an arm of the conservative Americans for Prosperity this year put Sen. Eric Oemig, D-Kirkland, in its crosshairs and mailed an anonymous flier without filling out the proper paperwork. Oemig lost to Republican Andy Hill.
Clandestine, nefarious campaign spending victimizes more than just unfairly targeted candidates. It intentionally leaves voters — even the ones who most diligently research the campaigns — under-informed. This is why the state Public Disclosure Commission, one of the nation’s best, was created. And here’s what Pridemore would do about these most recent violations:
His bill would require that a PAC’s name identify its creator, the person or the group. (Sounds perfectly natural, but under current law, PACs work assiduously to disguise their origin.)
PACs that are created to support or oppose a candidate would have to name that individual, his or her party, the office sought and the year of election. (Imagine how voters could benefit by such a full and proper disclosure.)
Two PACs would be prohibited from using the same name.
Any group or person creating more than two PACs would be presumed to do so to conceal donors’ identities.
PAC-to-PAC contributions — beyond established political parties and caucus political committees — would be banned.
The threshold for “electioneering communication” would be lowered to $1,000 from the current $5,000, and the mandatory electronic filing threshold for candidates and PACs would be lowered to $5,000 from $10,000.
Fines for each violation would be increased to $10,000 from the current maximum of $4,200. Why is this necessary? Doug Ellis, interim director of the PDC, recently noted that the current fine is so low that groups spending millions of dollars on campaigns often consider those fines “just the cost of doing business.”
This year a record $60 million-plus was spent on campaigns for several initiatives on the ballot. It’s up to the legislators to make sure that money is spent properly. More importantly, lawmakers must make sure voters are fully informed. Democracy thrives on disclosure. Deceit, though, feeds off secrecy.
