Of course it’s probably too little — and obviously much too late for the 2004 election — but King County Superior Court Judge Richard Jones has ruled that the $1.5 million in vicious attack ads run against Deborah Senn on the eve of the Democratic primary for Attorney General, constituted “express advocacy” by urging voters to vote against Senn. The court also held that the so-called Voter Education Committee (VEC) illegally failed to identify its funding source (the US Chamber of Commerce) and register as a political committee.
In upholding the regulatory actions of the Public Disclosure Commission, the judge soundly rejected the VEC’s claims that they had a First Amendment right to keep secret the corporate funding. The judge ruled that WA voters are entitled to truthful and accurate information in ads designed to influence the vote.
Yeah, like that’s gonna happen.
In a press release issued this morning, Deborah Senn said that the legal victory sets the stage for legal proceedings against the VEC and the US Chamber of Commerce that could impose stiff financial penalties for the illegal ads.
“This is an important victory for the voters’ right to know and to protect the electoral process against massive last minute negative campaign ads funded by out of state interests who are attempting to illegally sway voters in Washington State.”
According to Senn’s attorney, Mike Withey, the anti-Senn ads were part of a national campaign by the US Chamber to defeat judicial and attorney general candidates nationwide who had a record of being pro-consumer and protecting the preservation of the jury trial.
“The VEC was nothing more than a catchy but misleading name, a local “sleeper cell” which the US Chamber used to manipulate an election while standing in the shadows, free from public disclosure and accountability. This was a US Chamber operation from start to finish.”
Senn and Withey are holding a press conference today at 10 am.
Apparently, the anti-Senn campaign was only the tip of the iceberg. The US Chamber has secretly dedicated tens of millions of dollars to swaying local races nationwide. The money is strategically spent in normally low-profile, low-cost judicial and attorney general races, upsetting the balance with huge sums of out-of-state, “independent” expenditures.
If there was ever an argument for imposing campaign contribution limits on judicial campaigns, this is it.
Excellent. Now if only the BIAW would do something illegal and obvious, we’d be set.
Actually, Goldy, this case speaks more for full and transparent disclosure, rather than limits.
That aside, I don’t think these ads have much to do with Senn’s defeat, given all the baggage she brought along. Her poor tenure (in my opinion) as Insurance Commissioner had much more do with her defeat than some attack ads.
Ah, the anti free speech Nazi’s showing up again.
Campaign finance laws, campaign laws exist to restrict 1st amendment rights to say “ANYTHING”
Jon @ 2
I agree with you. Wasn’t the primary thrust of McCain-Feingold to get “soft money” out of politics? That sure backfired on both ends of the spectrum. I’d accept higher individual contribution limits, if it came along with faster disclosure. I also think there should be some moratorium on receiving contributions prior to the election, so that last minute contributions (as in this case) can be disclosed and the voting public can be aware of them prior to voting. Instead of instituting limits, a process that has failed several times in the past, perhaps the government should focus more on providing all candidates the means to swiftly report contributions.
As a side note, that is one issue I have with voting by mail, since there is much more lead time required prior to the election, and “election day” is really the day people first receive their ballots, not the day the vote tabulations are done.
I am all for getting rid of alot of the soft money. Look at MOVEON.ORG that was all soft money. THink about it. over 80% of the soft money spent on the last election was for democrats. I love it if they would close that loop hole. Also Democrats get large sum of UNION money is that not also soft money. Something to think about. Both sides use it and some abuse it. Remember it is the WA State Democratic party that got fined for non disclosure of spending for the election. The Democratic party did not want to admit where they were spending the money so Republicans could counter the spending. I wish the fine was 10 times the amount they had to pay. Honest elections are the only way to go. But then what politician is honest.
3
“Ah, the anti free speech Nazi’s showing up again”
I find your reference to Nazis both misplaced and, quite frankly, disgusting. Please explain yourself.
Nobody’s right to free expression has been challenged or limited. The question of political advocacy is separate from this right; that’s what’s at question here.
Jon @2,
This has nothing to do with whether the anti-Senn ads contributed to her defeat. We have evidence of a national campaign where the US Chamber is using local front groups to secretly target tens (possible hundreds) of millions of dollars at normally low profile, low cost, state and local races. The Chamber is using overwhelming sums of out-of-state money to change the character of Supreme Courts across the nation… and local voters have a right to know! The integrity of our judicial system is at stake!
CF @ 4 — As part of your continuing education project — the Attorney General is a state office, not federal, and the race is governed by WA state regs (under the PDC), not federal regs (under the FEC). McCain-Feingold has nothing to do with it.
Washington PDC disclosure requirements are extremely rapid — generally within a week of receipt, and even more stringent the last 21 days for most campaigns.
The issue here was the “independent” media campaign’s position — “we don’t gotta tell nobody nuttin — vs the PDC and now the court’s position — “bullshit, you gotta”.
Thought you’d want to know, so you can avoid holding forth with more of these embarrassing misinterpretations.
Interesting that other major PDC rulings don’t get “front page” play on this site (except when mentioned by Righties). Hmmmmm….
its always a sinister plot with you, isn’t it Mark?
This is a lefty blog, not a news source, dummy!
I agree with Jon @2 that Senn had baggage, and I agree with Goldy @7 that the real issue is powerful interests buying elections. Swamping a campaign with special interest spending effectively takes away the voters’ right to choose the best candidate.
dr e
Nazi thing was intentional for Goldy’s sake; every other day some post hinting the repubs are nazi like, fascists, etc.
I do maintain that election laws, laws on political content, lead to restrictions on legitimate free speech. I was about to say i’d be ok w/ forcing disclosure of who pays for the ads, but then realized will you force Blogs to disclose who supports them, or who pays the Air America bills, etc?
I’d also abolish the FEC funding of elections; its just gov’t spending (yeah, most of it from voluntary stuff on your 1099), for something that doesn’t need government money.
Goldy @ 7; Roger @ 11:
I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you; but having the voters know who is funding who for how much is more important than some artificial & arbitrary limit, which groups will find a way around anyway. As mentioned before, the biggest fallout of McCain-Feingold is the explosion of special interest groups whose financing is sometimes a mystery. If the unions, BIAW, EMILY’s list, whoever, wants to give money to a candidate, let ’em, but inform the voters of it, or as in this case, any front group has to be “up front” with their financing.
Myself @ 13: I know McCain-Feingold applys to federal elections; my point was that similar measures for state races will produce like results.
Who in hell is Deborah Senn??
OHHHHH yeah, I remember.
She’s the one responsible for chasing away Medical Insurance competition so we all got shafted even worse!!! That Deborah Senn!
righton @12,
With the possible exception of Adolf Hitler, I have never accused anybody of being a Nazi. Never.
Fascism is something else entirely, and when I use it descriptively, I try to use it accurately, not merely as an unsupported pejorative.
But of course, that’s a side topic that’s better left to the open threads. I find it rather ironic that the same people who passionately argue for more public disclosure in the way state and local government spend our money, don’t seem to be concerned with forcing disclosure of how large corporations and their surrogates spend their money to influence our elections.
Goldy; you gest; tons of posts you’ve made w/ the nazi/fascist slur.
Issue w/ campaign refrom stuff is 1st Amendment. But I know most lefties don’t care about the bill of rights, except to sue cities for some legacy religious item.
Goldy, what is the link to your quotes, please?
goldy — and his nazi allusions
People have always hated gays, but anti-gay sentiment is now being politicized, much in the same way the Nazis politicized long standing anti-Jewish sentiment to help secure Hitler’s ambitions in the early 1930’s. So if you think I’ve just been writing about sex or religion or hypocrisy, you’ve missed the point entirely. I’ve been writing about the politics of hate, and warning about the dire consequences to our republic should it be allowed to triumph.
(just search on is site for Nazi; you’ll see gobs by him)
RonK @ 8
I’m aware of the diffrence between state and federal rules, and never made the claim that McCain-Feingold applied to this race. Since Goldy is advocating contribution limits for judicial elections in Washington state, I used example of McCain-Feingold to demonstrate that campaign limits have been ineffective in the past.
I agree with Goldy’s position that the VEC should be forced to disclose the contribution from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, just not the approach to solve the problem.
Goldy & righton:
I normally dislike comments going wildly off topic, but Goldy’s repeated use of label ‘fascism’ does irritate me to no end (much like the label ‘communist’ for all things liberal/progressive), and so I’ll let an excerpt from the entry at Wikipedia speak for me:
“Modern colloquial usage of the word has extended the definition of the terms fascism and neofascism to refer to any totalitarian worldview regardless of its political ideology, although scholars frown on this. Sometimes the word “fascist” is used as a hyperbolic political epithet.” [emphasis mine]
Jon @ 22
You’re right, the word “fascist” is often used as a pejorative, particularly by those who have little understanding of what fascism is.
I would argue, however, that while Communism has essentially nothing to do with the progressive agenda, fascism would be a fairly accurate label for the neo-Conservative agenda. And yes, I am referring to the Bush administration.
But, this topic has been raised on other threads and could be better discussed there.
Dr. E: You are correct, it’s a topic better suited for another time. My apologies for feeding the fire.
Fascist is as fascist does – you don’t have to sport a swastika to be a fucking nazi in my book.
Crybabies.
Roger Rabbit–
When you so adeptly promoted NOV, I decided just for yucks to buy 10 Aug 2005 Put Options last Friday. The options expire this Friday 8/19/2005. I bought the 10 contracts at 1.05 Friday and sold them for 1.55 today (they got as high as 1.65). Anyway, a quick $500 (minus small commissions). I figured even if the PUT option went bust…I have plenty of ST Capital Gains to offset it with.
I rarely…almost never…take flyers like this.
However, when I saw you were so positive on it…I decided the contrarion approach was in order,,,,so I bet against it.
Any other sure fire UP stocks you have in mind??
PS–
I would not bet against NOV in the long-run…just a short-term flyer based on overexuberance! I think in the long-run, I’d hold that puppy if I were you.
I think Congress should pass a law where if anything negative is to be said about any candidate, it must come directly from the opposing candidates mouth and illegal out of any other medium. A lie or context error would be easily exposed (See factcheck.org and NARAL). Make these politicians stand on their own two feet (see Nixon/Kennedy debates).
Great victory, but its an illusion. This decision will not stand before the Whore Court of Appeals, Div. I, nor will it stand before teh Whore Washington Supreme Court. The Honorable Jones knows this and has undoubtedly preserved his camopaign contributions by writing an opinion that can be easily overturned. I hope that Debbie Senn hasn’t spent that money yet.
The Washington Education Association is making a big new stink about not allowing their special funds to go to Wal-mart. They were on Carlson’s show on Friday explaining their rationale.
Now I hear in the WSJ that the Democratic Party is making a similar pitch, very similar. Like the same thing. Is the timing just a coincidence?
The Democratic Party does all sorts of stuff under the radar. They “coordinate” their activities with the unions and the NEA, and then claim it is all independent. But I don’t buy it.
So, when I hear that the US Chamber of Commerce is running last minute hit ads, and hesitant to reveal funding source, I have to wonder where they learned their tactics from.
I’m for everyone saying whatever they want, whenever they want, as long as they have 100% disclosure of where the funding came from before they say it. I fail to see the distinction between freedom of speech and “advocacy”. Sounds like a trap to catch those who you are trying to silence.
JanetS – so that is what you are really worried about “where they learned their tactics from” ? Doesn’t it worry you that they are doing this? Period? Don’t you feel that maybe they are stealing votes by doing this? Whether someone else did it is a side issue we can discuss later. What we are talking about is whether we can control our own destiny in this country, or will it always remain “big money”
This isn’t about free speech; this is about political action commitees spending big bucks to lie to viewers — at the last minute before an election. This tried-and-true time-on-target tactic of well-timed-lies has been used more than once by the side whose followers think it is best to go ‘by the book.’ Too bad their leadership uses that to hoodwink the followers. Better to make a lot of little mistakes on your own than to make huge errors following like a sheep.
There is no freedom to lie – there are laws against slander, libel, defamation, espionage, sedition, and inciting unwarranted urgent panic (‘fire’ in a crowded theater).
Under the existing law, freedom of speech is both broad and also slightly limited.
This is a case of a political organization using political contributions to promulgate a message under the guise of being an independent organization.
Wrongo heatho
Hugely lower standard for “truth” in political advertising. How else could Dems ever claim spending is being cut when its just the rate of increase that is being cut.
200+ years of american history celebrates creative truth telling in political campaigns. not the time to stop it, since cure is worse than the disease
If people are so stupid to believe any crack pot that gets on the air at the eleventh hour, then they get who they deserve. Anyway, these negative ads tend to make people stay home, not vote for the other guy.
I am all for free speech, no matter how dirty it is. One person’s dirt is another person’s truth. (Witness the Swift Boat Vets.) It makes me very nervous to have one group of people deciding the permissible speech of another group.
One way to monitor it is to follow the money – make the media outlets who air slander, libel, defamation, espionage or sedition pay a huge penalty after the election. Do that once or twice, and they will start screening the last minute hit-pieces. It also will make the source of the hit prove that the piece was slander, libel, defamation, espionage or sedition.
JanetS – THAT is exactly the point. You hit it on the head. We need to follow the money. In order to do that, we need to know where the money is coming from. Then we can control how much each entity can contribute.
fire_one: why do you want to “control” political speech? I’m not talking regulation, I’m talking open information. I have no desire to limit anyone else’s speech.
I’m curious why media outlets who receive the money for these ads are not held accountable for knowing the source. Of course, if someone, like this blog, wants to print all sorts of scurrilous details about someone, they get to. No limits, no demands for sources of funding.
Campaign financing regulation has become a hallowed belief by the left. I am puzzled what happened to our rights.
righton @ 32
“How else could Dems ever claim spending is being cut when its just the rate of increase that is being cut.”
You mean, like the White House bragging about the $100 billion dollar reduction down to “only” a $300 billion budget deficit.
JanetS – I want a level playing field. As it is now, the Corporation with the deepest pockets gets all the legislation passed it wants. Same with elections. The Corporation with the deepest pockets can throw 100 million at it the last few days, thereby skewing the election results.
Fire_one: The answer is to limit the reach of government. The corporations throw lots of money at it, because there is far more money at stake in the laws and budgets written by state and federal govts.
Microsoft learned what happens when you don’t pay up – you get hit with lots of anti-trust suits, and no one to defend you.
That’s why tax cuts are a good idea, and why I912 should be approved. Limits to spending are a great way to focus in on what is important rather than what will gain power. I know, the republicans in DC aren’t limiting themselves very well. But they will, when the political pressure is great enough.
JanetS – There is only one person who wanted to do away with the lobbyists, John Edwards. Just so you know. I don’t feel the Republicans, with control of the Congress and the Presidency will move to limit campaign money or the influence of Corporations. They haven’t in 5 years, and won’t in the last three.
But I want to know where the money is coming from until we do limit how much can be contributed. That way I know (to quote Paul Harvey) the rest of the story…
38
Janet — here’s an idea. Why don’t you introduce spending limits in your household.
1. Each family member is limited to $20 a week for food. If that’s not enough, tough, they’ll have to starve.
2. Each child is limited to $75 a year for clothes. If that’s not enough, tough, they’ll have to go to school barefoot.
3. The winter heating bill is capped at $50 per month. If that’s not enough, tough, your family will have to freeze.
4. The budget for property taxes is hereby capped at $250 a year. If that’s not enough, tough, the government will have to seize the house.
5. Your SUV is limited to $25 a month of gas. If that’s not enough, tough, you’ll have to walk.
33
“If people are so stupid to believe any crack pot that gets on the air at the eleventh hour, then they get who they deserve.”
The problem with this reasoning is the rest of us get stuck with the crackpots elected by the stupid people. Exhibit A: George W. Bush
dj;
Nice job avoiding the issue ; that is, passing election laws means the spin/lies has to stop, or gets regulated in a partisan way. I guess i should have used right wing lies to help you see the point.
fire one
oh that is rich, john edwards, st. john the litigious wants to end lobbyists..?? close the barn door i guess?
I have no desire to get rid of lobbyists. Remember that right to petition your government? It may not be pretty, but they get to be there. Even if John Edwards launches a crusade against them.
Roger Rabbit – we do have spending limits in my household. We live within our means. It takes planning. Sorry we aren’t as fabulously weathly as you are, which you must be to make this stupid of a comment.
There will always be the ruling class. In our society, people get there through merit. In the old Soviet Union they got there by killing their rivals. (Kind of like Cuba, North Korea, Iran, etc.) I kind of like our system better.
Yeah, Janet S, like GWB got into Harvard on his own merits, became a successful businessman on his own merits, and became president because Karl Rove had a huge man-crush on him. Your own president belies your idiotic statement.
Old money and their retarded progeny own this country. Make no mistake about that.
Oh, that’s right. He was running against those up-from-the-ghetto guys, Al Gore and John Kerry. They were coached on how to leave the hard life by Ted Kennedy.
41
It could be worse, it not like 1992 when we were stuck with a crack pot who only 42% of the stupid people voted for. You have to give him credit though, he was strong on defense. Well at least in court he was strong on defense.
Janet S @ 43 “There will always be the ruling class. In our society, people get there through merit. ”
Janet S @ 45 “Oh, that’s right. He was running against those up-from-the-ghetto guys, Al Gore and John Kerry. They were coached on how to leave the hard life by Ted Kennedy.”
Can we just assume then that you post at 43 was Horseshit?
Hint: Yes, we can.
all references to 43 above, should be 44
reply to 47 it is like 2005 when we were stuck with a crack pot who only 37% of the stupid people think is doing a good job.
Janet, the Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement (and many other critical transportation projects) need to be done, and the gas tax is the only way to pay for it.
Sandals–@51-
You are wrong jackass.
If the AWV REPLACEMENT “NEEDS” to be done immediately, it should be closed because it is dangerous. It can also be further maintain to extend it’s life.
The fact is, you LEFTIST PINHEADS want it removed to beautify the Seattle Waterfront and make money for the Seattle Developer crowd. NO GO!!
Cynical @52
In fact, the Viaduct is not in imminent danger, nor is it particularly dangerous. The fearmongers who want to replace it with a gold-plated tunnel invoke this language, but the fact is WSDOT has said that a typical Seattle earthquake (say the low to mid 6’s on the Richter Scale) has a 1 in 20 chance of occurring in the next 10 years and “rendering the Viaduct unusable”. The PI finally hit this point in a recent story that finally acknowledged that even if it is damaged in an earthquake (ie – that individual sections shift some more) it is unlikely to have a catastrophic failure (ie – pancaking or toppling over).
I’ll be getting on the AWV in about an hour to drive to work, as I do everyday, and I’m willing to take my chances. If the big Cascadia subduction quake occurs (say a 7.5+ event) there will be a whole lot more brought down than just the AWV.
That said, I agree with your assessment of the tunnel.
When 912 passes and the gold-plated project is defunded, I believe we may finally get an honest analysis of the true feasibility and cost of a retrofit of the existing structure.
BTW – I’m to the left of the LEFTIST PINHEADS you so love to scream at in all caps.
Mr. X—
Something tells me you are NOT to the left of the LEFTIST PINHEADS when it comes to fiscal responsibility and holding Bureaucrats and Legislators accountable for their actions and promises. Something tells me you aren’t afraid to call BULLSHIT on BULLSHIT no matter which political party is spewing the BULLSHIT. You are a slightly left Mr. Cynical….and probably more of a true Democrat than the LEFTIST PINHEADS who hijacked your Party rather than start their own Marxist Party.
I’m no Republican dude. That’s a fact. I like Bill O’Reilly…he calls BULLSHIT on the LEFT and RIGHT!!!
OK Cynical, I’ll bite. When the fuck has O’Lielly EVER called B.S. on the right? And, on those rare occasions when he mildly disagreed (say, when he flatly stated that he’d never forgive Bush if no WMD’s were found) did he follow through on his so-called threats to hold the Rethugs accountable?
You’re gonna have to do better than that, C. Come on, surprise me!