(The Center Square) – A recent decision from Washington’s regulatory body for campaign donations is drawing criticism from both sides of the political spectrum.
The chair of the Washington State Republican party says last weeks’ decision by the Washington State’s Public Disclosure Commission to suspend a cap on large campaign contributions in the final days before the Nov. 3 general election, is “a capitulation to cynicism, deceit and dark money.”
GOP Chair Jim Walsh, R-Aberdeen, tells The Center Square “dark money players in this state cheat by changing the rules in the middle of the game.”
The commission, which oversees campaign finance disclosure and enforcement in the state, adopted what they call an interpretive statement last Thursday, Oct. 22.
The change directed staff not to enforce the pre-election limits under RCW 29B.40.070, which had barred any person from giving more than $75,000 for a statewide race or $7,500 for other campaigns within 21 days before the general election.
“In recognition of significant concerns regarding enforceability of RCW 29B.40.070 as raised by US Supreme Court and other federal court authority, and in order to maintain fairness to all campaigns in the application of law, the Commission is suspending enforcement of that provision to the extent that it prohibits the making or receipt of a contribution exceeding $75,000 for a campaign for statewide office, or $7,500 for any other campaign. This interpretation does not declare or otherwise determine the constitutionality or legal status of this or any other law,” read the PDC statement.
The decision prompted questions from many involved in state politics.
“Who do you think seems more corrupt? 1) The public unions trying to buy Washington’s Supreme Court races? Or 2) The PDC, which suddenly changed the rules 12 days before the election so those unions can spend even more?” posted Let’s Go Washington founder Brian Heywood on X.
The Center Square reached out to the PDC Monday.
Washington State Public Disclosure Commission Communications Specialist Natalie Johnson said the agency’s decision to issue formal guidance on pre-election contribution limits has a “limited effect” and that all regular statutory limits remain in place.
The guidance clarifies that candidates and PAC contributors face no limits on contributions in the 21 days before an election, while individual contribution caps and reporting requirements remain unchanged, she said.
LGW is backing three initiatives on the Nov 3 ballot. I-645 asks voters to repeal the income tax. I-001 seeks to restore the parental bill of rights and I-638 asks voters to ban biological males from competing in girls’ sports.
“In this final stretch, when voters are filling out ballots, the PDC changed the donation rules so there’s no limit on what one donor can give a PAC. Checks of any size, right up to Election Day. Who benefits: The unions. SEIU, WEA and WFSE have already given $450K directly to the “Beware the Attack on Our Courts” PAC,” wrote Heywood.
Stephen Paolini, a consultant with Bottled Lightning Collective that is working on several Democratic congressional campaigns, was also sharply critical of the PDC move, questioning why the cap was lifted so close to the election.
“I think it’s horrible timing,” he told the Seattle Times. “It’s like we’ve all been playing an entire football season under one set of rules and then the night before the Super Bowl, a key rule is changed.”
In effect, this rule change allows large donations to independent groups supporting or working against a candidate or cause, right up until Election Day.
“Now, you could accept any amount of money, and the way the timing and reporting works out, we may not know until after the election, who gave what and how much,” said Paolini.
Supreme Court races
Dave Larson, candidate for Washington Supreme Court Position 5, told The Center Square Monday the PDC move is in violation of state law and they have no authority to do it.
“A regulatory body can only act based on the legislation it’s given. They’re not the legislature and they can not undue legislation,” said Larson.
“The injustice of this is, they’re not raising the limit of how much judicial candidates can raise. I don’t know what definition of fairness they’re using, because this takes the lid off how much money you can spend to basically mislead voters,” said Larson.
Larson was referring to the political action committee Heywood referenced called “Beware the Attack on Our Courts.”
As reported by The Center Square, the PAC is targeting five candidates for the state’s high court, including Larson.
Larson is challenging Justice Theo Angelis, who was recently appointed by Governor Bob Ferguson.
The Angelis campaign did not respond to a request for comment for this story.
“Until Oct 22, each of them could only give the court PAC up to $7,500 more before the election. Now they can give $500K. Or $5M. No Limits,” wrote Heywood.
“I’m sure the PDC didn’t decide this on their own. Somebody had to have asked them to do this,” said Larson. “Voters are entitled to know what’s going on.”
The Commission’s decision stemmed from a June enforcement case dismissed over constitutional concerns, according to Johnson.
She said the PDC issued the formal guidance before the election to ensure campaigns unaware of the legal challenges surrounding pre-election limits were not left at a disadvantage.