Just got this press release from the AG's office:
OLYMPIA – Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna today announced his office will ask the United State Supreme Court to review the Washington state Supreme Court’s decision in State ex rel. Public Disclosure Commission v. Washington Education Ass'n, et al.Good. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 23, 2006 05:58 PM | Email This
“This decision overturns the will of the voters passing Initiative 134– the state’s campaign finance law,” McKenna said. “Initiative 134 was
approved by nearly 73 percent of the voters and we will vigorously defend it.”
It would be nice for Rob McKenna to vigorously ENFORCE Initiative 134 against other elected officials and politicians who have violated it.
In fact, it would be nice for Rob McKenna to vigorously FOLLOW Initiative 134 in his own campaigns for public office.
Among other things, Initiative 134 limits contributions (whether money or in-kind) to candidates for statewide office and legislature. In 2004, McKenna was limited to receiving $1,350.00 from each contributor for the primary, and $1,350.00 from each contribution for the general, when he ran for Attorney General. (RCW 42.17.640)
Just one example of McKenna not following the law. In October 2003, Honda Auto Center of Bellevue made an in-kind contribution of a leased Honda automobile to the McKenna campaign. This was valued at $467.52 for the first payment, and $338.02 for each subsequent month.
As of July 1, 2004, the value of this in-kind contribution to the McKenna campaign was $3,509.70 -- well over twice the limit for the September 2004 primary election.
http://hera.pdc.wa.gov/wx/getpage.asp?batchnumber=100088587&formtype=B
McKenna stopped reporting the in-kind contribution from Honda Auto Center of Bellevue on his subsequent PDC filings. However, he didn't make any payment whatsoever to Honda Auto Center of Bellevue until after the November 2004 general election.
On November 16, 2004, McKenna made payments totalling $6,751.77 -- which included $3,839.99 for an excess mileage charge and $2,911.78 for missed monthly payments -- to settle his account with Honda Auto Center of Bellevue.
So basically, in addition to a grossly excessive in-kind contribution of $3,509.70 for the primary election, Honda Auto Center made a loan of $2,911.78 to McKenna's campaign by deferring the remaining payments on the Honda lease until after the general election.
No commercially reasonable auto dealer would allow someone to miss $2,911.78 in auto lease payments, without repossessing the vehicle. This was not a loan in the normal course of business, and is also considered to be a campaign contribution under RCW 42.17.020(15)(a)(ii).
This $2,911.78 loan of deferred lease payments from Honda Auto Center of Bellevue has to be added to the in-kind contribution of $3,509.70, to come up with total contributions of $6,421.48 to the McKenna campaign. This is far in excess of the total $2,750.00 contribution which would have been allowable for BOTH the primary and general election put together.
Under RCW 42.17.390(3), Rob McKenna should be liable to the State of Washington for a fine of up to $10,000.00, or three times the contribution which was illegally accepted, whichever is greater.
I think Rob McKenna should write a check to the Washington State Treasurer in the amount of $19,264.44 (3 x $6,421.48) based on his illegal contributions accepted from Honda Auto Center of Bellevue. After doing that, his office should start vigorously enforcing Initiative 134 and other PDC laws against other elected officials and politicians.
If this happens, McKenna can truly speak with moral authority.
Posted by: Richard Pope on March 23, 2006 07:04 PMWhoa....Really?
Cool!
Posted by: Deborah on March 23, 2006 09:07 PMLike you, I agree that politicians, especially R(s) should follow the law.
Unlike our "friends" on the other side of the asile, I don't excuse illegal behaviour.
If AG McKenna's campaign committee violated the law then it should make restitution.
I think you would agree that this is a very small issue in the bigger world of "campaign finance reform."
It's a very complicated issue, but I think the lesson of unexpected consequences is paramount. Ban one source of campaign contributions, and the money will appear elsewhere.
We will never have a congress that puts the country first. The US Congress is a collection of people with conflicting interests, and unfortunately the primary interest is for the congressperson to be elected. And the way to get elected is to dole out federal money to the local interest.
As a Liberterian I find the current situation abhorent. I would love to be represented by a Nathan Hale, or someone else that put the nation first, and acutally read the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
That's not possible today. It's all about "me." What can I get for "me" (aka my constituents).
Posted by: Joseph Cantu on March 23, 2006 09:31 PMThen why is he protecting racketeering in the state supreme court?
Posted by: Don on March 23, 2006 10:51 PMWhen Joe can give $1500, Joe's wife can give $1500, Joe's kids can give $1500 each, and each of Joe's businesses can give $1500, this 'red herring' seems pretty minor. And that ignores PAC contributions.
All politicians are bought today. I thought Cantwell in her pledge of no outside contributions was cool (but wasn't enough for me to vote for her), but I then later found out that H. Rodham bailed her out, as well as others, out of debt.
Posted by: swatter on March 24, 2006 07:09 AMMaybe you ought to run for Attorney General. Oh, wait. You did. And you got waxed. By Christine, no less.
Stop grinding your axe and focus on the larger issues.
Posted by: jimg on March 24, 2006 07:45 AMAnyway the motion was 2003-0402 passed on September 8th 2003 and McKenna did vote in the affirmative.
Check it out for yourself. Just search by motion number.
And the organization that the motion was speaking out in favor here you can find out about at the following web sites.
http://www.iwfr.org
And their local web page.
http://www.seattle-iwfr.org/index.php
http://mkcclegisearch.metrokc.gov/legistarweb
Posted by: Cindy on March 24, 2006 08:23 AMAnyway the motion was 2003-0402 passed on September 8th 2003 and McKenna did vote in the affirmative.
Check it out for yourself. Just search by motion number.
http://mkcclegisearch.metrokc.gov/legistarweb
And the organization that the motion was speaking out in favor here you can find out about at the following web sites.
http://www.iwfr.org
And their local web page.
http://www.seattle-iwfr.org/index.php
Posted by: Cindy on March 24, 2006 08:25 AM"If you have been voting for politicians who promise to give you goodies at someone else's expense, then you have no right to complain when they take your money and give it to someone else, including themselves." -- Thomas Sowell
Posted by: libertarianobserver on March 24, 2006 09:44 AMIt's long past time that the WEA and other unions were given notice that they can't use dues without the permission of those who pay them. If the union bosses want to support the Democrats, they should do so with their own money, not forced dues from teachers who wish to support other parties and candidates.
Way to go, Mr. McKenna!
Posted by: Clean House on March 24, 2006 06:27 PM