Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Campaign Finance Temporal Limits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
PDC dismisses enforcement case against newly elected judge without prejudice, asks staff for legal memo on 21‑day limits
Summary
Facing Buckley‑based constitutional concerns over a 21‑day pre‑election contribution limit, the PDC dismissed a case without prejudice and directed staff, with AGO input, to prepare a legal memorandum and options for guidance or rulemaking.
The Washington State Public Disclosure Commission on June 25 dismissed without prejudice an enforcement matter that raised constitutional questions about temporal contribution limits, and directed staff to prepare a memorandum with assistance from the Attorney General’s Office addressing enforcement options.
Staff advised the commission that an investigation of PDC case 181096 involving recent questions about compliance with RCW 29B.40.070 had produced reasonable cause but also raised potential First Amendment problems under Buckley v. Valeo and related Ninth Circuit decisions. Susie Giles Klein summarized those constitutional concerns and noted prior difficulty enforcing analogous provisions against ballot‑measure committees.
Mark Lamb, counsel for the respondent (Judge Buie), told the commission he concurred with staff’s assessment that the statute’s temporal limits raise significant constitutional issues and added a practical point about clarity for statewide judicial offices. Commissioners debated alternatives: continue enforcement, seek an AGO opinion (staff noted the AGO may decline to opine on statute validity), suspend enforcement, dismiss with or without prejudice, or pursue an APA declaratory/interpretive order. Several commissioners expressed a desire for staff analytic work and AG‑assisted drafting to identify appropriate next steps and to consider options such as an interpretive statement, declaratory order, or legislative referral.
The commission approved a motion to dismiss the case without prejudice (recorded as passing 3–0 with one abstention from the recused chair) and separately directed staff to prepare a memorandum with the AGO’s assistance outlining enforcement options and the legal issues implicated by temporal limits, including whether APA options such as interpretive statements or declaratory orders are available.
What happens next: Staff will prepare a memorandum exploring legal options, working with the Attorney General’s Office and the AGO representative present; commissioners said they will use that analysis to decide whether to pursue guidance, rulemaking, an interpretive/declaratory process under the APA, legislative clarification, or other steps.
