Summary
The Washington Supreme Court considered whether the statutory definition of a political committee was unconstitutionally vague and whether disclosure requirements imposed by the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission violated federal or state free speech protections. The court held that the definition was sufficiently clear, that the Voters Education Committee met the definition, and that the disclosure requirements did not unconstitutionally infringe its speech rights. The court affirmed dismissal of the committee's constitutional claims.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the definition of "political committee" in former RCW 42.17.020(33) was unconstitutionally vague.
- Whether the PDC's enforcement of registration and disclosure requirements unconstitutionally burdened VEC's First Amendment rights.
- Whether the trial court properly determined that VEC's advertisement constituted express advocacy rather than issue advocacy.
- Whether article I, section 5 of the Washington Constitution provides greater protection against campaign-finance disclosure requirements than the First Amendment.
- Whether VEC was entitled to attorney fees and expenses under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
Holdings
- The statutory definition of political committee, including persons expecting to receive contributions or make expenditures "in support of, or in opposition to, any candidate," was not unconstitutionally vague.
- VEC met the definition of a political committee when it sponsored the "Better" advertisement.
- The PDC did not unconstitutionally infringe VEC's First Amendment rights by compelling VEC to register as a political committee and disclose its contributions and expenditures.
- The court declined to decide whether VEC's advertisement constituted express advocacy or issue advocacy because the governing political-committee definition was not vague.
- Article I, section 5 of the Washington Constitution does not provide greater protection against campaign-finance disclosure requirements than the First Amendment.
- VEC was not entitled to attorney fees and expenses because it was not the prevailing party.
Key quotations
“Thus, we conclude that a person of ordinary intelligence would have a reasonable opportunity to understand the meaning of "in support of, or opposition to, any candidate" in the definition of "[p]olitical committee" in former RCW 42.17.020(33).” (1184)
“We hold that the PDC did not infringe on VEC's First Amendment rights by compelling VEC to register with the PDC as a political committee and to disclose information about the committee's contributions and expenditures.” (1186)
“Considering all of the above, we hold that article I, section 5 of the Washington Constitution does not provide greater protection against disclosure requirements than the First Amendment.” (1189)
Factual background
During the 2004 Washington attorney general campaign, Voters Education Committee sponsored television advertisements criticizing candidate Deborah Senn's conduct while she was insurance commissioner. The advertisement, titled "Better," described Senn's handling of a $700,000 insurance-company fine, alleged an attempted cover-up, and concluded, "Deborah Senn Let Us Down." The PDC determined that the advertisements constituted express advocacy and directed VEC to register as a political committee and disclose its contributions and expenditures. VEC ultimately disclosed a $1.5 million contribution from the United States Chamber of Commerce and more than $1.4 million in expenditures.
Procedural history
The Public Disclosure Commission initiated an enforcement action in Thurston County Superior Court to compel VEC to register and file campaign-finance reports. VEC separately brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in King County Superior Court challenging the regulation of its political advertisements under the First Amendment and article I, section 5 of the Washington Constitution. The enforcement action was transferred to King County and assigned to the same judge. The superior court denied VEC's summary judgment motion, granted summary judgment to the PDC, and dismissed VEC's case. The Washington Supreme Court accepted direct review.