Cultures v. Clements

Decision Date08 November 2011
Docket NumberNo. 3:10–cv–05253–KLS.,3:10–cv–05253–KLS.
Citation830 F.Supp.2d 1111,86 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1437
PartiesMANY CULTURES, ONE MESSAGE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Jim CLEMENTS, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Washington

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Jeanette Motee Petersen, Michael Eugene Bindas, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiffs.

Linda Anne Dalton, Attorney General of Washington, Olympia, WA, for Defendants.

William Randolph Maurer, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiffs/Defendants.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANTS

KAREN L. STROMBOM, United States Magistrate Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (Fed. R. Civ. P.) 56. The parties have consented to have this matter heard by the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Fed.R.Civ.P. 73 and Local Rule MJR 13. After having reviewed plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, defendants' response to that motion, plaintiffs' reply thereto and the remaining record—including the parties' supplemental briefing regarding standing—the Court finds that plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment should be denied, and that summary judgment should be granted in favor of defendants.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs' have brought this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging RCW 42.17.200 (the section of Washington's campaign finance, lobbying and public disclosure laws, RCW Chapter 42.17, dealing with “grassroots lobbying”) and RCW 42.17.160 (the section of RCW Chapter 42.17 setting forth certain exemptions from Washington's lobbying registration and reporting requirements) and regulations issued by the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission (“PDC”) implementing and enforcing those provisions, are unconstitutional on their face and as applied to plaintiffs. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that the above statutory provisions and regulations: (1) violate the First Amendment right of anonymous political and free speech, the right of association, the right to petition the government, and the right against prior restraint; (2) that they are overbroad and void for vagueness; and (3) that they violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs seek relief in the form of a declaratory order, as well as both a preliminary and a permanent injunction.

I. Washington's Public Disclosure Laws

Initiative 276 was “overwhelmingly approved” by Washington voters in 1972, receiving 72% of the vote. ECF # 22, Exhibit 1, The History and Intent of Initiative 276, David Cuillier, David Dean and Dr. Susan Dente Ross (issued May 4, 2004, and updated August 24, 2004), pp. 1, 4. The Initiative also gathered “a far greater number of signatures than it needed to be placed on the ballot.” ECF # 25–2, Exhibit 1, Declaration of Jolene Unsold, p. 4. It “required disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures, lobbying expenditures, and the personal affairs of various officials.” ECF # 25–2, Exhibit 1, p. 2; see also ECF # 22, Exhibit 1, p. 1. Initiative 276 led to what eventually became RCW Chapter 42.17, Washington's campaign finance, lobbying and public disclosure laws. See ECF # 22, Exhibit 1, p. 1. It also created the PDC to enforce those laws. ECF # 25–2, Exhibit 1, p. 2; Voters Education Committee v. Washington State Public Disclosure Commission, 161 Wash.2d 470, 479, 166 P.3d 1174 (2007).

[T]he genesis of Initiative 276 occurred not just because of concerns about disclosure of money raised and spent on candidate campaigns and public records disclosure, but also a strong interest by the public in the disclosure of money raised and spent on legislative lobbying and ballot measure campaigns to enact legislation.” ECF # 25–2, Exhibit 1, p. 3. “The overall thrust” of Initiative 276 “was the people's right to know, and to enable citizens to ‘follow the money’ in all sorts of campaigns” in Washington. Id. The paragraph that began the statement for Initiative 276 read as follows:

Our whole concept of democracy is based on an informed and involved citizenry. Trust and confidence in governmental institutions is at an all time low. High on the list of causes of this citizen distrust are secrecy in government and the influence of private money on governmental decision making. Initiative 276 brings all this out into the open for citizens and voters to judge for themselves.

ECF # 22, Exhibit 1, p. 2.

The official declaration of policy contained in RCW Chapter 42.17 expressly states in relevant part as well that it is “the public policy of the State of Washington that “lobbying contributions and expenditures be fully disclosed to the public and that secrecy is to be avoided,” and that “the public's right to know of ... lobbying ... far outweighs any right that that these matters remain secret and private.” RCW 42.17.010(1), (10). The declaration of policy goes on to state again in relevant part that:

The provisions of [RCW Chapter 42.17] shall be liberally construed to promote complete disclosure of all information respecting ... lobbying ... and full access to public records as to assure continuing public confidence of fairness of elections and governmental processes, and so as to assure that the public interest will be fully protected....

RCW 42.17.010. However, [i]n promoting such complete disclosure,” the declaration of policy further provides that RCW Chapter 42.17:

... [S]hall be enforced so as to insure that the information disclosed will not be misused for arbitrary and capricious purposes and to insure that all persons reporting under [RCW Chapter 42.17] will be protected from harassment and unfounded allegations based on information they have freely disclosed.

Id.

Specifically with respect to “grass roots lobbying,” RCW 42.17.200 provides in relevant part that:

Any person who has made expenditures, not reported by a registered lobbyist ... or by a candidate or political committee ... exceeding *five hundred dollars in the aggregate within any three-month period or exceeding * two hundred dollars in the aggregate within any one-month period 1 in presenting a program addressed to the public, a substantial portion of which is intended, designed, or calculated primarily to influence legislation shall be required to register and report, as provided in subsection (2) of this section, as a sponsor of a grass roots lobbying campaign.

RCW 42.17.200(1). The term legislation is defined to mean:

... [B]ills, resolutions, motions, amendments, nominations, and other matters pending or proposed in either house of the state legislature, and includes any other matter that may be the subject of action by either house or any committee of the legislature and all bills and resolutions that, having passed both houses, are pending approval by the governor.

RCW 42.17.020(30). In regard to registration and reporting requirements, RCW 42.17.200(2) provides in relevant part:

... Within thirty days after becoming a sponsor of a grass roots lobbying campaign, the sponsor shall register by filing with the commission a registration statement, in such detail as the commission shall prescribe, showing:

(a) The sponsor's name, address, and business or occupation, and, if the sponsor is not an individual, the names, addresses, and titles of the controlling persons responsible for managing the sponsor's affairs;

(b) The names, addresses, and business or occupation of all persons organizing and managing the campaign, or hired to assist the campaign, including any public relations or advertising firms participating in the campaign, and the terms of compensation for all such persons;

(c) The names and addresses of each person contributing twenty-five dollars or more to the campaign, and the aggregate amount contributed;

(d) The purpose of the campaign, including the specific legislation, rules, rates, standards, or proposals that are the subject matter of the campaign;

(e) The totals of all expenditures made or incurred to date on behalf of the campaign, which totals shall be segregated according to financial category, including but not limited to the following: Advertising, segregated by media, and in the case of large expenditures (as provided by rule of the [PDC] ), by outlet; contributions; entertainment, including food and refreshments; office expenses including rent and the salaries and wages paid for staff and secretarial assistance, or the proportionate amount thereof paid or incurred for lobbying campaign activities; consultants; and printing and mailing expenses.

Other reporting requirements apply as well:

(3) Every sponsor who has registered under this section shall file monthly reports with the [PDC], which reports shall be filed by the tenth day of the month for the activity during the preceding month. The reports shall update the information contained in the sponsor's registration statement and in prior reports and shall show contributions received and totals of expenditures made during the month, in the same manner as provided for in the registration statement.

(4) When the campaign has been terminated, the sponsor shall file a notice of termination with the final monthly report, which notice shall state the totals of all contributions and expenditures made on behalf of the campaign, in the same manner as provided for in the registration statement.

RCW 42.17.200. On the other hand, certain persons are made exempt from the registration and reporting requirements of RCW 42.17.200. These persons include—with certain exceptions not relevant here—the following:

(1) Persons who limit their lobbying activities to appearing before public sessions of committees of the legislature, or public hearings of state agencies;

(2) Activities by lobbyists or other persons whose participation has been solicited by an agency ...;

(3) News or feature reporting activities and editorial comment by working members of the press, radio, or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Bailey v. Maine Comm'n on Governmental Ethics & Election Practices
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maine
    • 30 Septiembre 2012
    ...that McIntyre is inapposite to mass media activities and electioneering communications. In Many Cultures, One Message v. Clements, 830 F.Supp.2d 1111 (W.D.Wash.2011), the court pointed out that the Ohio law in McIntyre was found to be “a regulation of pure speech,” thus warranting strict sc......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT