August 28, 2006
Suppression of Dissent in Mrs. Gregoire's Amerikkka

Rep. Toby Nixon (R-Kirkland), now running for state Senate, is the target of a bogus partisan ethics complaint for ... posting his past legislative press releases on his campaign website? Nixon poses the question:

should incumbent legislators be able to post press releases they issue during the legislative session on their campaign sites, or link to them on the legislature's web site? Apparently the policy now is that they cannot, and in fact all press releases are entirely removed from the legislature's web site after June 30 in an election year. I believe this deprives voters of valuable information they could use to evaluate the performance of their legislators, and is a violation of the people's right to know.
The "ethics complaint" was filed by one Kenneth Camp, who is the Operations Director for the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee. Camp works for SDCC Chair Sen. Karen Keiser. Ironically, Keiser serves on the board of the Washington Coalition for Open Government, along with Toby Nixon. Apparently Keiser's commitment to open government is somewhat narrower than Nixon's is, and doesn't extend to supporting the public's right to know what their state legislators do while in office.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at August 28, 2006 10:45 AM | Email This
Comments
1. It gets old doesn't it? The "Bush, Cheney, and Rove are taking away our rights" crowd in reality are the ones who will supress the free exchange of information in a heartbeat.

Don't expect to hear from the Mainstream Media about this, they're too busy helping the Democrats build anti-Bush hysteria prior to the November elections.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 28, 2006 11:09 AM
2. Just love it when the Demoncrats stand against Constitutionally protected freedoms such a Free Speech. It's the old, "Think like me and I'll let you be." double standard. Be ashamed Dems... Be VERY ashamed.

Toby Nixon is one of the hardest working legislators this state has ever seen, and I'm honored to call him a friend.

We need more Liberty loving and protecting people like him in Olympia.

Vote for Toby!

Posted by: Jamie Walker on August 28, 2006 11:15 AM
3. I'm sure if the press releases could have been used against Nixon, no complaint would have been filed, instead they would become public documents to voters as a "right to know" by the Democrats.

Posted by: joer on August 28, 2006 11:36 AM
4. Prohibiting a political campaign from using news releases written by public employees is in no way a violation of constitutionally protected free speech. Nor does the restriction of using them on a campaign amount to suppressing free exchange of information. Perspective, folks.

There is nothing stopping Rep. Nixon from paying somebody - out of campaign funds - to collect that information in the press releases - and any of his other legislative accomplishments - and having it put into a campaign piece. I wouldn't want D legislators using their taxpayer-funded news releases and end-of-session mailers in campaigns, either.

Posted by: jimg on August 28, 2006 11:37 AM
5. Seems like Republicans are being relegated to snail-mail. Pretty soon we'll be relegated to using the "Town Crier". Fascist Democrats led by a Party Chairman who's a Fidelista, and the state's Chief Executive is a Fraud-oire! Some governance!

Posted by: John425 on August 28, 2006 11:39 AM
6. 'Senate Democratic' and 'ethics' in the same sentence. And the magical lib word "coalition." yikes.

Have to go--another "emergency" bill to vote on--'emergency bill' Number 863 entitled: "The No money for WA forest fires + free benefits and cheap college rates for illegal aliens in WA Act."

Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on August 28, 2006 11:48 AM
7. jimg,

I can understand your argument in principle. Government funded "work" shouldn't be used for campaigns. However, this seems like a picayune little rule to deal with a nonexistant problem. Filing a campaign ethics violation over this is petty. After all, I assume (though maybe I shouldn't) that LINKING to the press releases is OK.

That said, I have to roll my eyes at using the spelling "Amerikkka." Are you borrowing terms from the far left for ironic effect? I have to admit pictuing Ms. Gregoire in a grand wizards get-up IS amusing, but still...

Posted by: Sstar on August 28, 2006 11:51 AM
8. jimg:

I respectfully disagree. Not entirely unlike records of session or records of the Supreme Court, a press release once produced and published is public domain, or should be. The information in question was being hosted on Toby's servers not by State resources. Who produced them is in my opinion irrelevant. But thanks for the thought. You just gave me a great idea for a business. Please publish your address so I can send you a commission check from my fist customer.

Posted by: Jamie Walker on August 28, 2006 12:37 PM
9. Once a press release is released, it is part of the public domain. Despite that, couldn't anyone (candidates as well) file a FOIA for them?

I don't see much gaming that could go on since the releases could be used by both sides in a race.

From the Ethics Board Mission Statement:

To be sensitive to the fact that allegations may be levied for purely political purposes and that, while such a motive does not necessarily render a complaint legally insufficient, it can cast serious doubts on the legitimacy of the allegations.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on August 28, 2006 12:46 PM
10. Clearly this is the democrat strategy in WA for '06. We saw it with Stephen Johnson, where they are blatantly trying to confuse the voters in his supreme court race, we see it with McGavick, where they file a bogus lawsuit to smear him because they are fearing Maria Cantwell could be vulnerable.
Now this with Toby. He is a good, strong candidate and they are looking for ways to smear HIM now. It won't work. And the WA democrats ought to be ashamed of themselves for their mean-spirited, low behavior.

Posted by: Michele on August 28, 2006 12:46 PM
11. After the ethics scandals here in the 90s, there were good reasons to crack down on the use of legislative staff during campaign seasons. But the fact of the matter is that news releases written by state employees for Rs and Ds when not prohibited from doing so are part of the officeholder's public record and ought to be freely available to friends and foes alike. Wiping them off of legislative websites is just petty.

Congrats to Toby for insisting his public record be out there for all to see. Would be that some Dems be so open to scrutiny.

Posted by: NWconservative on August 28, 2006 12:49 PM
12. I have to agree with Jamie here--making a rule to prohibit the re-publishing of public documents for elections makes it harder to disseminate information about how the legislature works (both for incumbants and challengers). Since elections are referenda on legislative performance by design you have to wonder if the purpose of such a rule isn't to make it easier to hide the shenanigans our elected officials pull.

Posted by: Marc on August 28, 2006 01:53 PM
13. Of course the Dems don't want legislative records to remain public and in the cross-hairs of Joe Average Voter.

Because that would be a constant reminder, from John Kerry to Christine Gregoire, that these jokers HAVE NO legislative record to speak of!

Posted by: Larry on August 28, 2006 01:58 PM
14. This is just getting to be nuts.

*No one* should ever be prohibited from republishing legislative press releases or other official documents, including candidates for office (who are citizens with the same rights as the rest of us).

God, how I despise John McCain, Russ Feingold, and the rest of those fascists in reformers' clothing.

Posted by: ScottM on August 28, 2006 02:06 PM
15. I'll second the motion of Jamie & Marc.

If the Ds want Joe Average to be an informed voter (don't they?) than past record means a lot and those press releases are past record. Publishing them on their web sites sure seems like direct & easy access to me and you know how touchy Ds are about access. Conversely, a candidate may not publish some of the more embarrassing releases or want to make them easily available.

This whole prohibition thing smacks of trying to hide a pi** poor legislative record as the Demorats are in power and control the horizontal and vertical around here.

Posted by: G Jiggy on August 28, 2006 02:11 PM
16. This issue is a classic case of what's wrong with SoundPolitics.

I agree that the rule against using legislative press releases in a campaign is unnecessary. But trying to read and think about it with an open mind, I understand a reason for this rule. It sounds like some people feared that, if press releases could be used in a campaign, legislators would have more incentive to issue political press releases. That's a plausible concern, although I don't know whether there's much evidence for it.

Toby Nixon (about whom I know nothing) seemed to understand this in his thoughtful letter requesting that the rule be reconsidered.

SoundPolitics readers, however, see nothing but idiocy and conspiracy. That's a shame. Attempting to understand those who disagree with you helps to make better decisions, reach better agreements, and win the support of others. However, this takes intelligence, curiosity, and humility. Too bad so few SP posters display those assets.

Posted by: Bruce on August 28, 2006 03:01 PM
17. Bruce-

Should there be a limited number of political press releases issued by legislators? If so, what's that number? Maybe you should reverse engineer your statements before you post.

Posted by: Jeffro on August 28, 2006 03:10 PM
18. Political gamesmenship by the majority party is myopic, for they will not be the majority party forever.

Posted by: Jeff B. on August 28, 2006 03:47 PM
19. Gregoire just signed her own death warrant for the '08 election.
Amen !

Posted by: KS on August 28, 2006 08:23 PM
20. Boy I sure hope so ks!! Remember how crooked Chrissy is!! While I would far rather a solid R Govern If not I think Mr. Owen who is the lient. Gov. is an alternative he is from what I hear a much more conservative democrat then Cg or any of her croanies!!

Posted by: Laurie on August 29, 2006 09:38 PM
21. The arguement seems to me to boil down to who 'owns' the press release, and whether posting same to a campaign web site constitutes fair use. Maybe the better practice would be to assume that the press release belongs to the government and ought to be cited as any other public source with appropriate attribution.
Preventing unfair advantage to incumbants is perhaps a laudable principle, but I don't think that fair use of any public document provides that, and obviously, the franking privelage is (over)used often in our fair evergreen state, which would, of course favor incumbants.
If the press releases are indeed pulled from the government sites, then I don't see that recycling them (with proper citation) is a particularly egegious sin.

Posted by: mark on August 30, 2006 09:33 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?