OLYMPIA — The Environmental Protection Agency and a Puget Sound tribe say a Washington watchdog agency should step away from an investigation into whether the What’s Upstream advocacy campaign violated state law.
In separate statements made public Friday, the EPA and Swinomish Indian tribe both challenged whether the Public Disclosure Commission should pursue a complaint filed by Save Family Farming.
The EPA said a federal audit will answer whether What’s Upstream organizers misspent public funds. The tribe said the PDC has no jurisdiction over how a tribe spends money.
PDC Executive Director Evelyn Fielding Lopez said the office will review the responses before deciding whether to take enforcement action. The PDC can issue a fine of up to $10,000 or refer a case to the state attorney general’s office to seek stiffer penalties in court.
It’s unclear whether the PDC can enforce a penalty against a tribe, she said.
“It’s a very interesting question. That’s one that a court has not been asked to resolve,” Fielding said. “We would say anyone who participates in a campaign or in lobbying is subject to these laws.”
Save Family Farming alleges that What’s Upstream lead organizer Larry Wasserman, the tribe’s environmental policy director, failed to register What’s Upstream as a political committee or grass-roots lobbying group. The complaint also named EPA Northwest Administrator Dennis McLerran and Seattle lobbying firm Strategies 360.
Save Family Farming Director Gerald Baron said that if tribes are exempt from campaign laws, they could be used by groups to shield political activities.
“It’s potentially a lucrative source of income for the tribes,” Baron said. “It would drive a truck through our state campaign laws.”
Lawyers representing the Swinomish stated that the tribe was responding to Save Family Farming’s complaint as a “courtesy” to the PDC.
“The PDC has no authority to regulate how tribes spend their funds,” according to the 11-page response. “Tribal officials are immune from state enforcement actions.”
The attorneys charged that the complaint was an “obvious attempt to gain publicity, stifle and distract public awareness of harmful agricultural practices.”
What’s Upstream organizers in late 2015 launched a revised website that encouraged residents to ask legislators to consider mandatory buffers between farm fields and waterways, though no specific legislation was mentioned.
Environmental groups involved in What’s Upstream said in a letter to supporters that the campaign was timed to influence the 2016 Legislature.
Wasserman’s reports to the EPA over several years said the purpose of the campaign was to change state regulations.
In its response to the PDC, the tribe denied trying to influence state lawmakers.
“The intent was not and could not have been to influence legislation because no actual or proposed legislation ever existed,” attorneys wrote.
