Vec v. State Public Disclosure Com'n

Decision Date13 September 2007
Docket NumberNo. 77724-1.,77724-1.
Citation166 P.3d 1174
CourtWashington Supreme Court
PartiesVOTERS EDUCATION COMMITTEE, a Washington corporation; Bruce Boram, an individual; Valerie Huntsberry, an individual, Appellants, v. WASHINGTON STATE PUBLIC DISCLOSURE COMMISSION; Michael Connelly, Jeanette Wood, Francis Martin, Earl Tilly, and Jane Noland, Commissioners of the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission in their individual capacities; Vicki Rippie, Executive Director of the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission; and Christine Gregoire, Attorney General of the State of Washington in her individual capacity, Respondents, and Deborah Senn, Respondent/Intervenor.

FAIRHURST, J.

¶ 1 During the 2004 campaign for Washington State Attorney General, the Voters Education Committee (VEC)1 sponsored television advertisements without registering as a "political committee" or disclosing information about its contributions and expenditures. The Washington State Public Disclosure Commission (PDC)2 brought an enforcement action against VEC for failure to register and disclose. In response, VEC brought this constitutional claim against the PDC, alleging that the PDC was unconstitutionally regulating VEC's political speech. The trial court granted summary judgment to the PDC, holding that VEC's advertisement "Better" constituted "express advocacy" rather than "issue advocacy" and that, as a result, VEC was a political committee subject to regulation. On direct appeal, VEC argues that the definition of "political committee" is vague and that the trial court erred in applying the distinction between express advocacy and issue advocacy.

¶ 2 We hold that the definition of "`[p]olitical committee'" in former RCW 42.17.020(33) (2002) is not vague. We further hold that VEC met the definition of a political committee. As a result, we hold that the PDC did not unconstitutionally infringe on VEC's free speech rights by seeking to compel VEC to register as a political committee and to disclose its contributions and expenditures. Because the regulation at issue is not vague, we need not reach the issue of whether the trial court correctly applied the distinction between express advocacy and issue advocacy. We also hold that article I, section 5 of the Washington Constitution does not provide greater protection against disclosure requirements than does the first amendment to the United States Constitution. We affirm the trial court's dismissal of VEC's constitutional claims.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶ 3 Beginning on September 1, 2004, VEC sponsored two television advertisements criticizing Deborah Senn, Washington's former insurance commissioner. At the time, Senn was a candidate for attorney general of Washington. The advertisements aired on television stations throughout the state until approximately September 8, 2004. The primary election occurred on September 14, 2004.

¶ 4 The television advertisement at issue in this case was entitled "Better" and included a voice-over narration in combination with on-screen text and images. The script of the voice-over narration read:

Who is Deborah Senn looking out for?

As Insurance Commissioner, Senn suspended most of a $700,000 fine against an insurance company . . . in exchange for the company's agreement to pay for four new staff members in Senn's own office.

Senn even tried to cover up the deal from State Legislators.

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer said Senn's actions "easily could lead to conflict-of-interest abuses."

Deborah Senn let us down . . . log on to learn more.

Clerk's Papers (CP) at 51 (ellipsis in original).3

¶ 5 During the voice-over narration, the following combinations of text and images appeared on the screen:

Text on black background: "Who is Deborah Senn looking out for?"

Text with image of money: "Suspended Most of $700,000 Fine Source: Seattle Times 2/20/97"

Text with image of Insurance Commissioner's office: "In Exchange for New Staff in Her Office Source: Seattle Times 2/20/97"

Text with image of Washington State Capital: "Tried to Cover Up Deal from State Legislators Source: Seattle Times 2/20/97"

Text with image of newspaper, Seattle Post-Intelligencer banner head: "`. . . easily could lead to conflict-of-interest abuses.' 2/27/97"

Text on black background:

"Deborah Senn Let Us Down Learn More About the Insurance Crisis www.senninsurancecrisis.com

Paid for by Voters Education Committee."

Dec. of Vicki Rippie (Sept. 10, 2004), Attach. E (videotape of KIRO TV Sept. 3, 2004 advertisement) (Rippie Dec.).

¶ 6 On September 7, 2004, the PDC sent a letter to VEC stating its opinion that VEC's advertisements constituted express advocacy and directing VEC to register as a political committee and to "file all reports of contributions received and expenditures made by the committee to date."4 CP at 611. On September 9, 2004, VEC responded through its counsel that it did not believe that it was "subject to registration or reporting under Washington law." CP at 447. That same day, the PDC held a special commission meeting and "found apparent multiple violations" of Washington campaign financing laws by VEC. CP at 450. The PDC referred the matter to the Washington State Attorney General's office "for appropriate action . . . including seeking a court order compelling [VEC] . . . to file the disclosure reports required." Id.

¶ 7 On September 10, 2004, the PDC initiated an enforcement action in Thurston County Superior Court to compel VEC to comply with the registration and reporting requirements and seeking penalties for noncompliance. State ex rel. Wash. State Pub. Disclosure Comm'n v. Voters Educ. Comm., No. 04-2-01845-2, Thurston County Superior Court (PDC v. VEC). At the same time, VEC initiated this action in King County Superior Court against the PDC under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking a declaratory judgment that VEC's advertisements were protected speech under the first amendment to the United States Constitution and under article I, section 5 of the Washington Constitution. VEC also sought attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and other statutes. The PDC's enforcement proceeding was later transferred to King County Superior Court and assigned to the same judge as VEC's case. PDC v. VEC, No. 04-2-33247-8-SEA, King County Superior Court.

¶ 8 After these cases were filed, VEC agreed to register with the PDC and filed reports documenting contributions to VEC and VEC's expenditures. VEC's disclosures indicated that the committee had received a single contribution from the United States Chamber of Commerce in the amount of $1.5 million and that VEC had spent more than $1.4 million of that amount. On September 21, 2004, Deborah Senn moved to intervene in the case, and the trial court subsequently granted her motion.

¶ 9 Prior to trial, VEC moved for summary judgment. On August 12, 2005, following oral argument on the summary judgment motion, the trial court issued an oral ruling that VEC's advertisement was not protected speech that was beyond the reach of regulation by the PDC and that VEC had failed to prove its constitutional claims. The court denied VEC's summary judgment motion and dismissed the case. VEC sought direct review by this court, and we agreed to retain the case.5

II. ISSUES
A. Whether the PDC unconstitutionally infringed on VEC's First Amendment rights by enforcing disclosure requirements.
1. Whether the definition of "`[p]olitical committee'" in former RCW 42.17.020(33) is unconstitutionally vague.
2. Whether the trial court properly applied the distinction between express advocacy and issue advocacy.
B. Whether article I, section 5 of the Washington Constitution provides greater protection against disclosure requirements than the First Amendment.
C. Whether VEC is entitled to attorney fees and expenses.
III. ANALYSIS
A. The PDC did not unconstitutionally infringe on VEC's First Amendment rights by enforcing disclosure requirements

¶ 10 The first amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." This court has recognized time and again the particular importance of protecting political speech. "[T]he United States Supreme Court and this court have remained steadfast in protecting the right to full and vigorous discussion of political issues, free from government regulations." Wash. State Republican Party v. Pub. Disclosure Comm'n, 141 Wash.2d 245, 250, 4 P.3d 808 (2000) (WSRP).

¶ 11 At the same time, the citizens of Washington have repeatedly declared their strong commitment to disclosing the identity of and financing behind political speakers. In 1972, the citizens of Washington passed Initiative Measure No. 276, which formed the basis of Washington's campaign finance laws and established the PDC. See RCW 42.17.350. Part of Initiative 276 provides:

It is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
46 cases
  • State v. TVI, Inc.
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • 16 d1 Agosto d1 2021
    ... ... from selected partner charities 1 at low cost 2 and then sells 493 P.3d 767 them to the public at higher prices in its stores. TVI sells unsold items and those unfit for retail sale to recycling ... Comm. v. Pub. Disclosure Comm'n , 161 Wash.2d 470, 481, 166 P.3d 1174 (2007). But the State " usually bears the burden of ... ...
  • State v. Grocery Mfrs. Ass'n
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • 20 d4 Janeiro d4 2022
    ... ... 1 (codified in part at chapter 42.17A RCW); see also Voters Educ. Comm. v. Pub. Disclosure Comm'n , 161 Wash.2d 470, 479-80, 166 P.3d 1174 (2007). The FCPA establishes that it is "the ... ]hat political campaign and lobbying contributions and expenditures be fully disclosed to the public and that secrecy is to be avoided" and "[t]hat the public's right to know of the financing of ... ...
  • Certification From The United States Dist. For The Eastern Dist. Of Wash. Insarah Bradburn v. North Cent. Reg'l Library Dist., 82200-0.
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • 6 d4 Maio d4 2010
    ... ... District Court for the Eastern District of Washington: Whether a public library, consistent with Article I, § 5 of the Washington Constitution, ... adults, without violating article I, section 5 of the Washington State Constitution. FACTS         ¶ 2 The facts summarized here are ... Voters Educ. Comm. v. Wash. State Pub. Disclosure Comm'n, 161 Wash.2d 470, 493-94, 166 P.3d 1174 (2007). 231 P.3d 173 ... ...
  • Ctr. for Individual Freedom, Inc. v. Tennant
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia
    • 18 d1 Julho d1 2011
    ... ... The phrases intended as nonpartisan public education and appearance of are therefore SEVERED from the exemption ... Va.Code R. 14613, and reporting and disclosure requirements for expenses incurred for advocating or opposing the ... Virginia Employment Lawyers Association (WVELA) and West Virginia State Democratic Executive Committee (WVSDEC), (Docket 45), were permitted to ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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