PDC proposes limits on independent spending
The PDC is proposing new limits on independent expenditures.
It's dishonest, it's ridiculous and people are sick of it.
Conservatives are busy giving Democrats warnings about "not overreaching," but I have one friendly caution for Democrats, both in the Legislature and in Congress: put yourselves on the side of regular people. It is not in the public interest to have campaigns awash in independent expenditure money.
And for goodness sake, don't resist efforts at reforming the political system. Regular people know it's a cesspool and they don't care about the "rights" of groups to make stuff up and throw it at the wall.
As long as proposals are found to adhere to the First Amendment, we shouldn't have a problem trying to reign in the worst excesses.
That being said, people can debate the PDC proposals and see if they need to be tweaked, and almost everyone is in favor of greater transparency.
One thing that's not immediately clear to me is if anyone is working on the problem of out-of-state entities funding not only independent expenditures but campaigns themselves. There's no transparency at all when it comes to folks like Howie Rich.
It's an intriguing idea, but not necessarily something we will end up supporting. Whether it would pass legal muster, and whether it would even work is up for debate. And there will be a discussion. We believe it would be prudent to address the cause of this problem rather than merely attempt to treat a symptom. What the PDC has proposed may not be ideal.
Lawmakers, Governor Christine Gregoire and the Public Disclosure Commission should all give serious consideration to public financing of elections as a solution.
The state Public Disclosure Commission unanimously threw support Thursday behind limits on spending in political campaigns by corporations, unions and trade associations.Further down in the article, it becomes clear that interest groups on both sides are not happy about the proposal:
If the recommendation to the Legislature is adopted, it would ban spending from a union, corporate or trade group's general-treasury either in favor or against candidates for state Supreme Court, the Legislature, statewide offices and appellate courts.
"They've taken the bull by the horns, but I think it's going to be a bull ride," predicted state Rep. Kathy Haigh, D-Shelton. Haigh said she'll give the proposal a hearing in the House State Government Committee she chairs, but can make no promises about passing a measure that could have plenty of enemies from both parties.
"We actually would be anxious to hear the PDC's ideas for limiting the amount of money that seems to be proliferating in politics," added Sen. Jim Kastama, D-Puyallup, who chairs a committee that oversees elections matters. "I think the Senate will give it a hearing."
Jim Oswald, lawyer for the Service Employees International Union and Washington State Labor Council, said the PDC was out of line to take an advocacy position on this issue, and he faulted the agency for not leaving hearings on the subject to lawmakers.Oh, please. There's no "Right to Be a Complete Jerk" Amendment in the Bill of Rights. What always happens with large independent expenditures is that someone lies, or walks so close to the line that the ads are basically lies, and then the candidate they want to help disavows the ad.
Oswald compared it to a police agency that wants to say what the laws should be instead of enforcing the ones on the books.
On the other hand, he said the moves toward greater disclosure are good ideas.
The Building Industry Association of Washington, which had a prominent role in backing property-rights lawyer John Groen against Chief Justice Gerry Alexander in one Supreme Court race, said the money helped the public grasp what was at stake.
"People knew who they were voting for and understood the issues," BIAW lawyer Timothy Ford told the commissioners.
It's dishonest, it's ridiculous and people are sick of it.
Conservatives are busy giving Democrats warnings about "not overreaching," but I have one friendly caution for Democrats, both in the Legislature and in Congress: put yourselves on the side of regular people. It is not in the public interest to have campaigns awash in independent expenditure money.
And for goodness sake, don't resist efforts at reforming the political system. Regular people know it's a cesspool and they don't care about the "rights" of groups to make stuff up and throw it at the wall.
As long as proposals are found to adhere to the First Amendment, we shouldn't have a problem trying to reign in the worst excesses.
That being said, people can debate the PDC proposals and see if they need to be tweaked, and almost everyone is in favor of greater transparency.
One thing that's not immediately clear to me is if anyone is working on the problem of out-of-state entities funding not only independent expenditures but campaigns themselves. There's no transparency at all when it comes to folks like Howie Rich.
It's an intriguing idea, but not necessarily something we will end up supporting. Whether it would pass legal muster, and whether it would even work is up for debate. And there will be a discussion. We believe it would be prudent to address the cause of this problem rather than merely attempt to treat a symptom. What the PDC has proposed may not be ideal.
Lawmakers, Governor Christine Gregoire and the Public Disclosure Commission should all give serious consideration to public financing of elections as a solution.
