Group that ran ads against Senn in 2004 broke rules

Published 10:37 pm Thursday, September 13, 2007

SEATTLE — A political committee backed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce broke campaign finance laws when it refused to disclose the donors behind ads in the 2004 state attorney general’s race, Washington’s Supreme Court said Thursday.

Barring a possible appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the 7-2 decision sends the case back to King County Superior Court to determine penalties for campaign finance violations.

The U.S. Chamber, working with a state group called the “Voters Education Committee,” paid for advertisements criticizing Democratic attorney general hopeful Deborah Senn during the 2004 primary campaign.

Voters Education Committee initially refused to register as a political campaign group with the state or reveal the source of its money. The committee later reported a $1.5 million donation from the U.S. Chamber, which in turn declined to reveal any of its donors, saying it didn’t raise any money specifically for the Senn campaign.

According to PDC records, the two people listed on the Voters Education Committee were Bruce Boram and Valerie Huntsberry. Both were associated with United for Washington, a statewide political action committee that represents Washington businesses.

Washington state’s Public Disclosure Commission sued the Voters Education Committee to force financial disclosure. The committee countersued, arguing that Washington’s campaign disclosure law was an unconstitutional restraint of free speech.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state, rejecting the Voters Education Committee’s argument that state campaign law’s definition of a political committee was unconstitutionally vague.

“Contrary to VEC’s assertions, these disclosure requirements do not restrict political speech — they merely ensure that the public receives accurate information about who is doing the speaking,” Justice Mary Fairhurst wrote for the majority.

Senn, a former state insurance commissioner, defeated former Seattle City Attorney Mark Sidran in the 2004 attorney general’s primary. She lost the general election to Republican Rob McKenna, who defended the state in Thursday’s case.

“Democracy doesn’t flourish in the dark. It requires light, and that’s what public disclosure is about: shining the light on political activities,” said Senn, now an attorney in private practice in Seattle.

State legislators, citing the Senn ads, later amended campaign finance law to specify that third-party groups buying ads in a political campaign must disclose their donors.

Attorneys for the Voters Education Committee did not rule out a U.S. Supreme Court appeal, but said they had to spend more time studying the state court’s decision.

“We’re deeply disappointed with the court’s ruling,” said Charles Cooper, a Washington, D.C.-based attorney for the Voters Education Committee. “We obviously believe very strongly in the merits of our First Amendment claim.”

In its lawsuit, the Voters Education Committee argued that it was not required to register as a political group because it was sponsoring “issue advocacy” ads, rather than “express advocacy” pieces aimed directly at a candidate.

A King County Superior Court judge had rejected that argument, saying the ads in question specifically advocated against Senn as a candidate.

The state Supreme Court, however, stopped its inquiry after finding that the legal definition of “political committee” was not unconstitutionally vague.

Since that label applied to the Voters Education Committee, it was required to report its donors. There was no need to determine which type of ads the group paid for, the court held.

In a dissent, Justice James Johnson said the political committee statute was too vague to be upheld. He was joined by Justice Richard Sanders.

“The majority’s approach denies all speakers the constitutional right to craft a message that is educational … but not subject to disclosure requirements,” Johnson wrote for the minority.