Respond­ing to a set of cit­i­zen’s action notices sent ear­li­er this year by Wash­ing­to­ni­ans For Eth­i­cal Gov­ern­ment and Keep Wash­ing­ton Rolling, Attor­ney Gen­er­al Bob Fer­gu­son’s office announced this morn­ing it has filed three new com­plaints in Thurston Coun­ty Supe­ri­or Court against Tim Eyman and his asso­ciates for seri­ous vio­la­tions of Wash­ing­ton’s pub­lic dis­clo­sure laws.

“Washington’s cam­paign finance laws require — and Wash­ing­to­ni­ans deserve — fair, accu­rate and time­ly dis­clo­sure,” Fer­gu­son said in a statement.

“When polit­i­cal com­mit­tees cre­ate con­fu­sion rather than trans­paren­cy, I will hold them and the peo­ple in charge accountable.”

Fer­gu­son’s action means that there are now offi­cial­ly four cas­es against Tim Eyman and his asso­ciates in the courts. Here’s a sum­ma­ry of each:

• The first active case con­cerns numer­ous vio­la­tions uncov­ered by a mul­ti­year Pub­lic Dis­clo­sure Com­mis­sion inves­ti­ga­tion into the financ­ing of Eyman’s self-serv­ing I‑517, Eyman’s failed attempt to make it eas­i­er and cheap­er for him to run future ini­tia­tive cam­paigns. The inves­ti­ga­tion was sparked by a com­plaint filed in August 2012 by Sher­ry Bock­winkel. The Attor­ney Gen­er­al took over the case last autumn after the PDC turned it over with a request to pros­e­cute, but progress has been very slow due to Eyman’s stonewalling.
• The sec­ond active case, one of the three just filed, con­cerns improp­er repay­ment of more than a mil­lion dol­lars in loans made by Eyman and his wealthy bene­fac­tors to one of Eyman’s com­mit­tees. This case stems from a cit­i­zen action notice sent by Keep Wash­ing­ton Rolling in June.
• The third active case, anoth­er of the three just filed, prin­ci­pal­ly con­cerns an ille­gal inde­pen­dent expen­di­ture Eyman launched back in April of this year against Demo­c­ra­t­ic leg­is­la­tors from sub­ur­ban and rur­al dis­tricts who refused to do his bid­ding dur­ing the 2016 leg­isla­tive ses­sion. This case stems from a cit­i­zen action notice sent by Wash­ing­to­ni­ans For Eth­i­cal Gov­ern­ment in May.
• The fourth active case, the last of the three just filed, con­cerns Eyman and his asso­ciates’ fail­ure to dis­close an inter­est pay­ment on a loan made to one of Eyman’s com­mit­tees as the law requires. This case also stems from a cit­i­zen action notice sent by Keep Wash­ing­ton Rolling in June.

Cit­i­zen action notices, for read­ers who don’t know, are a mech­a­nism for enforc­ing Wash­ing­ton’s pub­lic dis­clo­sure laws. RCW Chap­ter 42.17A pro­vides:

(4) A per­son who has noti­fied the attor­ney gen­er­al and the pros­e­cut­ing attor­ney in the coun­ty in which the vio­la­tion occurred in writ­ing that there is rea­son to believe that some pro­vi­sion of this chap­ter is being or has been vio­lat­ed may him­self or her­self bring in the name of the state any of the actions (here­inafter referred to as a cit­i­zen’s action) autho­rized under this chapter.

The law goes on to say that a cit­i­zen’s action can only be brought if the Attor­ney Gen­er­al and the req­ui­site Pros­e­cut­ing Attor­ney have failed to com­mence an action against the vio­la­tor with­in a cer­tain peri­od of time.

Because Fer­gu­son’s office has cho­sen to take over the cas­es, they will be pros­e­cut­ed by the State of Wash­ing­ton’s own attor­neys instead of by Wash­ing­to­ni­ans For Eth­i­cal Gov­ern­ment or Keep Wash­ing­ton Rolling on behalf of the state.

Fer­gu­son’s deci­sion to pros­e­cute these cas­es renews a promise he made to vig­or­ous­ly enforce Wash­ing­ton’s pub­lic dis­clo­sure laws dur­ing and after his 2012 cam­paign. He faces only token oppo­si­tion this year for reelection.

Tim Eyman has been oper­at­ing as though he were above the law for a very long time. He has been giv­en many chances — far more than he deserves — to clean up his oper­a­tion, and he has spurned those opportunities.

Now he and his asso­ciates must suf­fer the consequences.

We thank Attor­ney Gen­er­al Fer­gu­son and his team for bring­ing these cas­es. Jus­tice is bet­ter served when fla­grant vio­la­tions like these are prompt­ly prosecuted.

As men­tioned, Eyman has been stonewalling in the extreme in an attempt to post­pone his day of reck­on­ing in the first active case, con­cern­ing vio­la­tions that are sev­er­al years old. Over the sum­mer, Fer­gu­son was com­pelled to request that Eyman be held in con­tempt of court for fail­ing to turn over mate­ri­als in a time­ly and com­plete fash­ion. Eyman’s stonewalling so far has cost him and his asso­ciates more than $30,000 in attor­ney’s fees and court expenses.

Let’s hope those judg­ments are mere­ly the begin­ning of the penal­ties Eyman will have to pay for flout­ing our pub­lic dis­clo­sure laws for so long.