Fines remind us why we have a PDC
Published 1:00 pm Wednesday, August 17, 2005
We can hear it now:
“Aha!â€
Such exclamations are sure to follow any time a political action group gets dinged for a campaign violation. This week, foes of the failed school technology levy get their turn to guffaw, as state regulators have fined the group Bainbridge Island Public School Supporters $400 for campaign shortcomings this past spring. The actual offenses were rather pedestrian – essentially, failing to get started on time – but they’re worth thinking about nonetheless. We’re actually glad to see the penalty imposed, because it demonstrates that someone at the regulatory level is paying attention, and that all of us at the local level should as well.
Folks may have heard of the Public Disclosure Commission, but unless you’re a candidate for public office, you probably have only a passing familiarity with its charge and the requirements for candidates and campaigns. The PDC website reminds us of the agency’s populist heritage:
“The origin of Washington’s disclosure law can be traced to the efforts of concerned citizens who came together in 1970 believing that the public had the right to know about the financing of political activity in this state. Following an unsuccessful attempt in 1971 to generate legislative action and only minimal success in 1972, these concerned citizens – now calling themselves the Coalition for Open Government – turned to the people. [They] gathered nearly 163,000 signatures in record-breaking time to place Initiative 276 on the November, 1972 ballot. It was approved by 72 percent of the voters. Initiative 276 became law on Jan. 1, 1973. In 1992, reform-minded voters again passed a comprehensive campaign finance ballot measure – Initiative 134 – that imposed sweeping changes on the manner in which campaigns are conducted in Washington state. Over 72 percent of the voters again supported reform; this time around, however, it was contribution limits and other campaign restrictions.â€
Briefly, the statute casts needed “sunshine†on the activities and financial dealings of candidates, political campaigns, lobbyists, individuals and organizations attempting to influence elections through political advertising. It supplements other provisions in state law that keep most records and meetings of public agencies open to scrutiny.
Candidates for public office, for example, must reveal their campaign contributors; it is precisely these provisions that laid bare the financial chicanery that became Seattle’s “Strippergate,†a scandal that led to the ouster of two council members. And as the current season unfolds, many islanders no doubt will be scanning the PDC disclosure rolls to learn just who has kicked into the mayoral and council campaigns, to glean what they can about each candidate’s base of support.
This is as it should be. It’s your government, and you should know who’s writing checks to tilt it to their particular ends.
