Defending Mayor Ed Murray’s crusade to rein in the scourge of electioneering, his spokesperson says that his proposed ordinance is merely intended to remove “confusion” over what political activity is or is not prohibited:
When asked about the bill’s connection to Sawant, a spokesman for the mayor said, “There seems to be some confusion over whether or not political activity related to official events organized by city staff is currently prohibited.”
“There certainly won’t be any confusion after this new language is adopted,” added the spokesman, Jason Kelly.
Uh-huh. Except, here’s the new language that’s being proposed:
No elected official, nor the official’s agent, shall engage in campaign activities at, or adjacent to, any official city public event that is organized by that elected official or any employee of the official’s office. The campaign activities may not occur during the event or at any time that attendees of the public event are present.
The glaring problem with this language is that it defines neither “official’s agent” nor “campaign activities”—and neither does section 2.04.300 of the municipal code that it amends. (Or “adjacent to,” for that matter.) Who exactly qualifies under the law as an “agent” of an elected official? I dunno. What exactly is a “campaign activity?” Beats me. If a Sawant supporter, on her own initiative were to pass out a Sawant campaign flyer on the steps of City Hall at a Sawant organized public forum, would that make Sawant legally liable for her actions? I guess that’s up to the courts to decide.
So much for removing any confusion.
Essentially, this ordinance bars Council member Sawant and her office from organizing any “official city public event” by attempting to make her legally liable for any action taken by one of her “agents” (whatever that means). And it pretty much only applies to Sawant, because she’s the only elected official who can claim any sort of meaningful grassroots support—a base that is at times unruly, undisciplined, and not under anybody’s direct control. Because grassroots!
I mean, seriously, if Sally Bagshaw were to organize a forum, do you really think she’d have to worry about overly-enthusiastic supporters showing up and violating section 2.04.300? I don’t think so.
Only Sawant needs to worry about involuntarily violating this ordinance because only Sawant has a large base of supporters enthusiastic enough to actually show up.
I’m not an attorney, but both the vagueness and broadness of this ordinance strikes me as unenforceable… though that doesn’t mean they can’t create a legal nightmare for Sawant in the process of trying. At the very least, this ordinance would produce an endless parade of bogus ethics complaints. At the very worst, it could ultimately prompt a legal challenge seeking to overturn Sawant’s reelection under section 2.04.500:
If the court finds that the violation of any provision of this chapter by any candidate or political committee probably affected the outcome of any election, the result of the election may be held void and a special election held within 60 days of such finding.
Unintended consequences? Maybe not.*
* Full disclosure: I enthusiastically support Sawant. I mean, like duh-uh.
What this proposal says, in effect, is that Sawant didn’t violate any rules, in spite of Burgess’ hysterics and Bagshaw’s complaining. Otherwise, why the need for new “rules”?
Who wrote this proposal? I am also not a lawyer but I have written a couple of memos and been to a rodeo and that proposal is sub-idiotic.
I, for one, don’t really want to walk through displays of city council candidate propaganda when I walk into a public meeting at City Hall. If Sawant is allowed to do this, then why not have city council candidates politicking outside council chambers during any public meeting? It’s unseemly and inappropriate, that’s why. Let’s let City Hall be about government, and let’s let electoral politicking go on somewhere else. Yes, Sawant’s campaign activities got the ball rolling, but this is really about all campaigns, not just hers.
@1 Yes.
@2 And yes!
@3 The legal problem with this ordinance is that it doesn’t spell out what activities are prohibited, and it attempts to make the official legally liable for anything a supporter might do. Somebody screams “Vote Sawant” in council chambers and that’s enough to prompt an ethics complaint.
Democracy is messy. Let’s not drag the courts into this.
It really makes me wonder when I see how hard the Democrats are trying to undermine progressive values.
Then I remember we’re’er the most regreasier taxed state and big she’ll fish received the green light from the executive branch to dump nuero-tnuero-toxin in our waters and have to stop and think about what the party actually stands for.
If someone stood just outside the entrance door to a polling place and handed out campaign flyers on election day, would it matter whether that person was doing it on their own or by instruction from a campaign?
It’s an ordinance proposal at this point, and there are plenty of opportunities to modify the language before it actually goes up for a vote.
While I’m sure Goldy is most worried about some Tracy Flick-type going a little overboard with the campaign buttons and getting in a bit of trouble for it, the ordinance is actually directed at activity such as the political director of the Sawant camp
http://www.capitolhillseattle......ct-3-ring/
telling a Sawant council staff member how to set up tables outside an event Goldy at one time claimed was non-political (notice how he doesn’t do that anymore?), and then Sawant campaign workers using those tables to solicit signatures and recruit volunteers.
http://www.seattletimes.com/se.....cal-rally/
All of which happened at an event organized by two city council members, only one of whom is running for re-election. The flyer and Licata’s announcement
http://licata.seattle.gov/2015.....tgXRV.dpbs
involve the rest of council only through the use of council chambers.
It was a political event, Sawant herself repeatedly referred to it as political, they used council chambers to conduct it, and her campaign staff made sure to take full advantage of the opportunity.
It crossed an ethical line and it smells. If that concerns you
Goldy @GoldyHA
Looking forward to live-blogging from council chambers and being fined for violating Seattle muni code 2.04.300: http://horsesass.org/politicia.....upporters/ …
at all, maybe you’re sitting closer to the stench than you realize.
@7 exactly, Goldy has changed his story so many times in order to justify Sawant it is funny. Trying to equate some imaginary scenario of a rogue campaigner in order to justify Sawant using City Hall for her orginized campaign workers is pathetic.
Why is everyone so concerned about the ethics of having some tables promoting a candidate, wringing their hands, worrying that we’re crossing a line, when literally every other elected official is obviously bought off by corporations and we have state legislators giving the middle finger to the state supreme court, our system of checks and balances, and OUR FUCKING KIDS. Congratulations on taking the red herring, hook, line, and sinker, you fucking idiots.
@7 @8 Oh no! I’m besmirching the proud name of HorsesAss.org!
From muni code: “City officer or employee or agent” means every person elected or appointed to any City office or position of employment, including volunteers performing work for the City, when acting within the scope of their City duties.
So that’s what an agent is. (Took me 2 seconds to find it, btw–probably less time than it took you to proclaim your confusion about what the word means, twice). Anyway: Given that agent is defined as someone who works or volunteers for the city itself, as opposed to a campaign worker or volunteer, I suspect a rule would be required to expand that definition to include campaign staff who don’t work for an incumbent in his/her elected position. But I, too, am not a lawyer.
Which is all just a long way of saying, I think you may be right that it’ll be hard to enforce, but I still can’t help pointing out your blinkered contempt for the mayor and everyone whose name isn’t Kshama Sawant.
Cool, Ms. Barnett reads this blog. Didn’t Goldy take her to task a couple of years ago for trying to smear Sawant? And it took this long for the payback?
For the record, my name is not Kshama Sawant, but Goldy has never shown contempt for me, blinkered on otherwise.
Cool, Ms. Barnett reads this blog. Didn’t Goldy take her to task a couple of years ago for trying to smear Sawant? And it took this long for the payback?
For the record, my name is not Kshama Sawant, but Goldy has never shown contempt for me, blinkered or otherwise.
@11 Re-read my post. The wording is accurate.
@12 I have no contempt for the mayor. I like Ed. I’m just not an apologist for the political status quo who has ever concerned himself with maintaining access to the corridors of power.
” I’m just not an apologist for the political status quo who has ever concerned himself with maintaining access to the corridors of power.”
Ouch! (But true.) Keep reaching for the stars Erica and someday soon you’ll be working for the Blethen family.
Why don’t we let incumbents run their campaigns out of their government offices, like they did in the old days?
There is a Kshama photo on the Facebook link; how did you get the photo?
@18 Not sure, but it wasn’t the one I’d intended to load into Facebook. Clicked on the wrong one and didn’t notice. But Facebook won’t let you edit the photo when you edit the post, so I couldn’t swap it out.
Perhaps an intrepid reporter should ask the Mayor’s office to explain why seeking this new ordinance isn’t in fact a campaign activity? Then follow up with appropriate questions that would put the mayor or his spokesman in a poor position. The ordinance is unconstitutional on it’s face, and even the mayors supporters on the council should tell him to take this caltrop and stick it somewhere.