Court allows for criminal charges

Published 9:00 pm Thursday, March 15, 2007

SEATTLE – The state Supreme Court on Thursday reinstated criminal charges against a Seattle strip-club owner and three others accused of illegal campaign contributions in a case known as “Strippergate.”

In a 6-3 decision Thursday, the court said a King County Superior Court judge mistakenly ruled that campaign finance laws only allowed civil penalties, not separate criminal charges.

King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng said he would quickly seek a new trial against strip-club magnate Frank Colacurcio Sr., his son Frank Jr., and longtime associates Marsha Furfaro and Gil Conte.

They are accused of conspiring to skirt campaign spending limits by reimbursing friends and family members for political contributions in 2003 to then-council members Judy Nicastro, Heidi Wills and Jim Compton.

Prosecutors say the defendants funneled illegal donations totaling at least $39,000 while the council was considering a parking lot expansion at a Colacurcio strip club.

“It is a serious case of political money laundering and we are eager to bring it to trial as soon as possible,” Maleng said in a statement.

Irwin Schwartz, who represents Frank Colacurcio Sr., was traveling Thursday and declined comment, saying he had not seen the ruling. Attorneys for the other defendants did not immediately return messages seeking comment.

Maleng charged the Colacurcios, Furfaro and Conte in 2005 with conspiring to file false campaign financial reports and causing the campaigns to file false reports.

The convictions were overturned last year by King County Superior Court Judge Michael Fox, who agreed with defense attorneys that the state Public Disclosure Act limited punishment to civil penalties.

But the Supreme Court said a civil statute generally shouldn’t trump a criminal law, because doing so “would infringe on the prosecuting attorney’s discretion to charge a crime.”

The court’s majority, led by Justice Barbara Madsen, also said the two statutes in question aren’t in direct conflict and said the Public Disclosure Act allows for “other remedies provided by law.”

Chief Justice Gerry Alexander and Justices Susan Owens, Mary Fairhurst, Jim Johnson and Bobbe Bridge concurred with Madsen.

The dissenters, led by Justice Richard Sanders, said the Public Disclosure Act applies directly to the alleged conduct in the case, and should be interpreted to only allow other civil penalties – not criminal prosecution.

Maleng has called for changes in the Public Disclosure Act to provide criminal sanctions for violations, saying the case had become a symbol of the need for tougher penalties.

The three council members involved returned the questioned donations and paid ethics fines for improper contacts with people lobbying for the strip club, including former Gov. Al Rosellini, a friend of the Colacurcios.

Maleng has said there was no evidence of wrongdoing by Rosellini. The council initially approved the rezoning for the strip-club parking lot but later voted to reject it.

Nicastro and Wills lost re-election bids in 2003 amid fallout from the scandal. Compton was re-elected, but resigned last year to write and teach abroad.