Dis­hon­est ini­tia­tive pro­mot­er and failed guber­na­to­r­i­al can­di­date Tim Eyman was final­ly held account­able today for his years of ille­gal and uneth­i­cal behav­ior, includ­ing egre­gious vio­la­tions of Wash­ing­ton State’s pub­lic dis­clo­sure laws.

Thurston Coun­ty Supe­ri­or Court Judge James Dixon ruled that the State of Wash­ing­ton had proven through clear and con­vinc­ing evi­dence that Eyman had repeat­ed­ly and fla­grant­ly run afoul of Wash­ing­ton’s Fair Cam­paign Prac­tices Act, cod­i­fied in the Revised Code of Wash­ing­ton as Chap­ter 42.17A.

Eyman must pay a $2.6 mil­lion fine and is now pro­hib­it­ed from fly­ing solo as a do-every­thing offi­cer of a polit­i­cal com­mit­tee, Judge Dixon decreed.

It’s the largest fine ever against an indi­vid­ual for pub­lic dis­clo­sure vio­la­tions in Wash­ing­ton State his­to­ry… and the cul­mi­na­tion of a case that began near­ly a decade ago in the sum­mer of 2012, when North­west Pro­gres­sive Insti­tute mem­ber Sher­ry Bock­winkel filed a com­plaint against Eyman for run­ning a stealth ini­tia­tive cam­paign in vio­la­tion of the Fair Cam­paign Prac­tices Act.

Bock­winkel’s com­plaint was inves­ti­gat­ed for over two years by the Pub­lic Dis­clo­sure Com­mis­sion, which ulti­mate­ly found that Eyman had com­mit­ted mul­ti­ple seri­ous vio­la­tions of the law. It was then turned over to Attor­ney Gen­er­al Bob Fer­gu­son. Fer­gu­son’s office con­tin­ued the inves­ti­ga­tion for a year and a half, then filed suit against Eyman near­ly four years ago.

Today, Fer­gu­son’s team won the relief it had been seek­ing, in what Fer­gu­son described as a total vic­to­ry for the peo­ple of the State of Washington.

Tim Eyman is no match for Attor­ney Gen­er­al Bob Fer­gu­son, a cham­pi­on chess play­er (Pho­to: Andrew Villeneuve/NPI)

“After years of Tim Eyman’s deceit, obstruc­tion, and con­tempt of court, we took him to tri­al and held him account­able for receiv­ing and con­ceal­ing ille­gal kick-backs,” said Fer­gu­son in a state­ment released fol­low­ing the ruling.

“After twen­ty years of vio­lat­ing cam­paign finance laws, includ­ing two pre­vi­ous judg­ments against him, Eyman’s day of reck­on­ing has arrived.”

“Today’s rul­ing is clear — Eyman’s con­duct was ille­gal and inten­tion­al. Today’s his­toric cam­paign finance penal­ty – the largest in our state ever levied against an indi­vid­ual — is nec­es­sary to hold him account­able for some of the most egre­gious cam­paign finance vio­la­tions ever uncov­ered by the Wash­ing­ton Pub­lic Dis­clo­sure Com­mis­sion and the Wash­ing­ton State Attor­ney General’s Office.”

“Eyman is a repeat vio­la­tor of our state’s vot­er-approved cam­paign finance laws,’ not­ed Fer­gu­son. “On mul­ti­ple occa­sions, the state caught him ille­gal­ly and inten­tion­al­ly con­ceal­ing hun­dreds of thou­sands of dol­lars in cam­paign con­tri­bu­tions that end­ed up in his per­son­al bank account.”

“The last time Eyman admit­ted inten­tion­al­ly vio­lat­ing the law, he signed a legal­ly enforce­able agree­ment to nev­er again act as a trea­sur­er on any polit­i­cal com­mit­tee. That extra­or­di­nary rem­e­dy proved unsuc­cess­ful at stop­ping Eyman’s ille­gal con­duct. Con­se­quent­ly, our office pur­sued the next log­i­cal step — a pro­hi­bi­tion on direct­ing the finances of any polit­i­cal committee.”

“Today the judge grant­ed that rem­e­dy. This will not pre­vent Eyman from con­ceiv­ing, draft­ing and pro­mot­ing ini­tia­tives. It will, how­ev­er, stop his prac­tice of direct­ing finan­cial kick­backs into his per­son­al bank account.”

Short­ly after Judge Dixon revealed his rul­ing, we released our own state­ment react­ing to the deci­sion, which is avail­able over on NPI’s Per­ma­nent Defense.

We are elat­ed that this day has final­ly come. It was a long time in com­ing, to be sure, but it has arrived at last, and we are so hap­py that it has.

Much need­ed jus­tice has been served upon Tim Eyman. The pun­ish­ment need­ed to fit the crime, and it does. The deci­sion hand­ed down by Judge Dixon is no mere slap on the wrist. It is real and mean­ing­ful account­abil­i­ty. Over­due, but real.

Judge Dixon made it clear as he announced his find­ings of fact and con­clu­sions of law that his ver­dict is based on rock sol­id evi­dence and that he bears “no ill will” towards Eyman, even though Eyman has been in con­tempt for much of the dura­tion of the case due to his fail­ure to com­ply with dis­cov­ery orders.

You can watch Judge Dixon announce his deci­sion, slow­ly and method­i­cal­ly, by press­ing Play on the video below. Eyman is the fig­ure in red behind the table on the left. Mem­bers of Fer­gu­son’s legal team are seat­ed behind the oth­er table.

You can also read Judge Fer­gu­son’s writ­ten rul­ing below.

In addi­tion to impos­ing a big fine, as men­tioned, Judge Dixon also entered an injunc­tion that bars Eyman from con­tin­u­ing to uneth­i­cal­ly and immoral­ly oper­ate his ini­tia­tive fac­to­ry the way he has for the last two decades.

The injunc­tion (from the final page of the deci­sion above) does not pro­hib­it Eyman from exer­cis­ing his First Amend­ment rights, but it does bar him from spend­ing and trans­fer­ring mon­ey of his own volition:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Defen­dant Eyman shall be, and here­by is per­ma­nent­ly enjoined from man­ag­ing, con­trol­ling, nego­ti­at­ing, or direct­ing finan­cial trans­ac­tions of any kind for any Com­mit­tee, as that term is defined by RCW 42.17A.005, in the future. With­out lim­it­ing the scope of this injunc­tion, Defen­dant Eyman shall at least com­ply with the following:

Clause #1

Defen­dant Eyman shall not be named in a state­ment of orga­ni­za­tion filed with the PDC as a trea­sur­er or deputy trea­sur­er for any polit­i­cal com­mit­tee and shall not act in such capac­i­ty even if not named.

Clause #2

Defen­dant Eyman shall not have any author­i­ty or respon­si­bil­i­ty for approv­ing dis­clo­sure state­ments for any polit­i­cal committee.

Clause #3

Defen­dant Eyman shall not be named in a state­ment of orga­ni­za­tion filed with the PDC as a per­son who may autho­rize expen­di­tures on behalf of any polit­i­cal com­mit­tee and shall not act in such capac­i­ty even if not named.

Clause #4

Defen­dant Eyman or any enti­ty he con­trols shall not be list­ed as an account hold­er on any bank­ing or oth­er account that holds polit­i­cal com­mit­tee funds; nor shall he or any enti­ty he con­trols oth­er­wise have access to such accounts, direct­ly or indirectly.

Clause #5

Defen­dant Eyman or any enti­ty he con­trols shall not accept or take pos­ses­sion in any man­ner any con­tri­bu­tions of any kind intend­ed to sup­port a polit­i­cal com­mit­tee (e.g., Defen­dant Eyman can­not per­son­al­ly take pos­ses­sion of a check from a donor to be deliv­ered to a polit­i­cal com­mit­tee or intend­ed to be an in-kind contribution).

Clause #6

Defen­dant Eyman shall not have the author­i­ty to bind any polit­i­cal com­mit­tee as a speak­ing agent or oth­er­wise, with respect to expen­di­tures to be made by the polit­i­cal com­mit­tee. Fur­ther, he shall not lead any per­son or enti­ty to believe that he has such authority.

Clause #7

Except­ing pay­ments from his per­son­al funds made as in-kind con­tri­bu­tions, Defen­dant Eyman shall not have any finan­cial deci­sion mak­ing author­i­ty for any polit­i­cal com­mit­tee. He shall not nego­ti­ate the amounts of any expen­di­tures with out­side ven­dors or oth­ers for any polit­i­cal committee.

Clause #8

Defen­dant Eyman shall not approve or par­tic­i­pate in the deci­sion mak­ing for the approval of a trans­fer of funds from one polit­i­cal com­mit­tee to anoth­er or from a polit­i­cal com­mit­tee to him­self or any oth­er per­son or organization.

Clause #9

Defen­dant Eyman shall not direct­ly solic­it con­tri­bu­tions for him­self or his fam­i­ly to sup­port his polit­i­cal work with­out estab­lish­ing a polit­i­cal com­mit­tee, which must prop­er­ly report the con­tri­bu­tions to the PDC in com­pli­ance with FCPA. Any con­tri­bu­tions must be made direct­ly to the polit­i­cal com­mit­tee, not direct­ly to Defen­dant Eyman. Any con­tri­bu­tions made to the polit­i­cal com­mit­tee, whether or not intend­ed to com­pen­sate Defen­dant Eyman, must be report­ed to the PDC as a polit­i­cal con­tri­bu­tion, and, if dis­bursed to Defen­dant Eyman, dis­bursed by the polit­i­cal com­mit­tee and report­ed as a polit­i­cal expen­di­ture. The deci­sion to make the expen­di­ture must be made inde­pen­dent of Defen­dant Eyman by the com­mit­tee and approved by the Com­mit­tee’s trea­sur­er, who must not be pure­ly min­is­te­r­i­al, and who must be some­one oth­er than Defen­dant Eyman.

Clause #10

If Defen­dant Eyman loans mon­ey to a polit­i­cal com­mit­tee, the terms of the loan must be in writ­ing signed by Defen­dant Eyman and an autho­rized mem­ber of the polit­i­cal com­mit­tee, who can­not be Defen­dant Eyman. Said writ­ing must be signed before any funds are trans­ferred. The terms of the loan must be nego­ti­at­ed with the polit­i­cal com­mit­tee, and Defen­dant Eyman can­not be involved on behalf of the polit­i­cal com­mit­tee in the approval of the loan, its tenns, or its repayment.

Clause #11

Defen­dant Eyman shall not direct or solic­it pay­ments from con­trib­u­tors direct­ly to cam­paign ven­dors. Any con­tri­bu­tions solicit­ed by Defen­dant Eyman must be made direct­ly to a polit­i­cal com­mit­tee, and the polit­i­cal com­mit­tee can then dis­trib­ute the mon­ey to cam­paign ven­dors as it choos­es so long as it is in accor­dance with this injunction.

Our hats are off to Judge Dixon for com­ing up with a thor­ough set of restric­tions to put a stop to Eyman’s finan­cial chi­canery. The pro­hi­bi­tions out­lined above will need to be enforced, as we don’t expect Eyman to abide by them, at least not ful­ly or indef­i­nite­ly. Eyman has appar­ent­ly real­ized he’ll just get into more trou­ble if he does­n’t start com­ply­ing, how­ev­er, and has indi­cat­ed to reporters that he intends to com­ply, even though he isn’t hap­py about doing so.

Eyman cir­cu­lat­ed fundrais­ing appeals ahead of Judge Dixon’s deci­sion that vio­late the terms set forth in the injunc­tion. He has­n’t post­ed a new pitch for mon­ey since leav­ing the court­room, most like­ly because he’s try­ing to fig­ure out how he can shake his elec­tron­ic tin cup with­out run­ning afoul of the injunction.

Eyman has stat­ed he plans to appeal Judge Dixon’s deci­sion. We expect­ed he would, and we hope Judge Dixon’s rul­ing is affirmed by the appel­late courts.

This day of reck­on­ing may have been over­due, but it’s nev­er­the­less wel­come. Attor­ney Gen­er­al Bob Fer­gu­son’s team has proved the val­ue of per­se­ver­ance, which Tim Eyman claims is his favorite val­ue. The peo­ple’s legal team are the last ones stand­ing. The con man sought by the state has been caught, and firm­ly dis­ci­plined. That is cause for cel­e­bra­tion across our great green land.