It's no secret that I review PDC reports during campaigns. In fact, in past years I've received tremendous criticism from the media and a handful of candidates for doing so.
Showing posts with label Public Disclosure Commission Complaints. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Public Disclosure Commission Complaints. Show all posts
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Overstreet posts that he is innocent - thanks to Taylor's incomplete Fact Check
Jason Overstreet has posted Sam Taylor's "pre-mature" fact check as proof that my inquiry of a potential campaign violation on his website is in error.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Overstreet Ignores Questions about Who Paid for his Firefighter Gear in Campaign Photograph
I ask these questions, because RCW 42.17 states in part, "No elective official nor any employee of his [or her] office nor any person appointed to or employed by any public office or agency may use or authorize the use of any of the facilities of a public office or agency, directly or indirectly, for the purpose of assisting a campaign for election of any person to any office or for the promotion of or opposition to any ballot proposition..."
I understand that Jason and his wife recently had a baby, (Congratulations to you both)! But I've given Jason (and his campaign staff) a number of days to respond to my query - and still they ignore me. (I even posted the article on Facebook).
Call me old fashioned. But if a person wants to be elected to represent voters as a public official, that person (or at least a staff person) needs to be available when the public has questions about the candidate's position on an issue; or, in this case, a question regarding the legality of the candidate's political behavior.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Building Industry Association of Washington Issues Statement regarding PDC Investigation
Washington State BIA once again demonstrates it's ability to use loaded political language:
"The PDC is out of control, misusing and abusing the enormous power of government, and the AG’s office is giving them cover—this case is nothing more than harassment of a small private business by big government bullies."
"The PDC is out of control, misusing and abusing the enormous power of government, and the AG’s office is giving them cover—this case is nothing more than harassment of a small private business by big government bullies."
Thursday, December 18, 2008
PDC Violations and Fines
Governor Christine Gregoire:
The Public Disclosure Commission determined that Governor Christine Gregoire accepted campaign contributions from five out-of-state political action committees that were not eligible to donate because they had not secured sufficient donations from at least 10 residents within the required time period.
The Complaint was filed by the state Republican Party in October and Gregoire's campaign returned the $12,000 in question right away. The Governor was fined $500.00 with $250.00 suspended.
The Commission imposed a fine of $100 for each of the five PACS that had contributed illegally and then cut the fine in half, as long as the Governor does not have another campaign violation during the next four years.
I can not find a report of Investigation at the PDC site for this case.
Senator Karen Fraser:
Was fined $100.00 for not filing a PDC report on October 28, 2008. It was the Senator's first violation since she began filing reports in 1974. Her Treasurer was on vacation and the report did not get filed.
The Public Disclosure Commission determined that Governor Christine Gregoire accepted campaign contributions from five out-of-state political action committees that were not eligible to donate because they had not secured sufficient donations from at least 10 residents within the required time period.
The Complaint was filed by the state Republican Party in October and Gregoire's campaign returned the $12,000 in question right away. The Governor was fined $500.00 with $250.00 suspended.
The Commission imposed a fine of $100 for each of the five PACS that had contributed illegally and then cut the fine in half, as long as the Governor does not have another campaign violation during the next four years.
I can not find a report of Investigation at the PDC site for this case.
Senator Karen Fraser:
Was fined $100.00 for not filing a PDC report on October 28, 2008. It was the Senator's first violation since she began filing reports in 1974. Her Treasurer was on vacation and the report did not get filed.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Washington State Republican Party Public Disclosure Commission Stipulation
Enclosed, is the proposed stipulation of facts, violations and penalties for Case #09-001 for the Washington State Republican Party.
Phil Stutzman, PDC Director of Compliance, recommended that the Commission accept the proposed stipulation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
BEFORE THE PUBLIC DiSCLOSURE COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Stipulation as to facts violations and penalty
In the Matter of Enforcement Action Case No. 09-00 1
Against Washington State Republican Party
The parties hereto, the Public Disclosure Commission Staff, by and through its Executive Director, VICKI RIPPlE, and the Respondent, WASHINGTON STATE REPUBLICAN PARTY, represented by John J. White, Jr., Attorney for the Washington State Republican Party, submit this Stipulation as to Facts, Violation and Penalty in this matter.
JURISDICTION
1. The Public Disclosure Commission has jurisdiction over this proceeding pursuant to Chapter 42.17 RCW; the Public Disclosure Act; Chapter 34.05 RCW, the Administrative Procedure Act; and Title 390 WAC.
BACKGROUND
2. This matter resulted from a PDC staff generated complaint following a citizen inquiry concerning expenditures made by the Washington State Republican Party (WSRP) during 2006 from the party’s non-exempt account. The citizen noted that the WSRP had reported several expenditures as in-kind contributions to 13 legislative candidates, that the contributions were made within 21 days of the 2006 general election, and that the candidates had not reported receiving the contributions from the WSRP.
3. On June 16, 2008, PDC staff received a further inquiry noting that the WSRP had reported two in-kind contributions to the 2004 Dino Rossi for Governor Campaign, that the contributions were made within 21 days of the 2004 general election, and that the contributions were not reported by the Rossi Campaign.
4. RCW 42.17.105(3) requires committees, during the seven days before a primary election and the 21 days before a general election, to prepare and deliver to the commission a special report regarding any contribution or aggregate of contributions which is $1,000 or more, and is from a single person or entity. The special report must be delivered to the Commission and to the candidate or political committee to whom the contribution or contributions are made, within 24 hours of the time, or on the first working day after: The contribution is made; the aggregate of contributions made first equals $1,000 or more; or the subsequent contribution that must be reported is made.
FACTS
5. The Washington State Republican Party is a bona fide political party, and operates as the statewide Republican party in Washington State. Th WSRP is located in Bellevue, Washington and operates both a “non-exempt” account, subject to contribution limits, that is used for contributions to candidates, and an “Exempt” account, not subject to contribution limits, that is used for specific pwposes allowed by law, Luke Esser is the Chair of the WSR.P and Jeremy Deutsch is the Executive Director. Neither served in their respectivecapacities in 2004 or 2006.
2004 Activities
The 2004 general election was held November 2, 2004. The special reporting period for contributions of $1,000 or more in the aggregate made within 21 days of the general election began October 12, 2004.
7. On October 12, 2004, within 21 days of the 2004 general election, the WSRP provided in-kind contributions totaling $92,522.80 in support of Dino Rossi, the Republican candidate for Governor. On a C-4 and Schedule A report filed on October 25, 2004, the WSRP reported making. two expenditures of $46,261 .40, totaling $92,522.80, to James Foster and Associates, Inc. The purpose of the expenditures was to pay for a mailing in support of R.ossi, as an in- kind contribution to the Rossi Campaign.
8. On October 12, 2004, the WSRP timely filed two special Last Minute Contribution reports disclosing the two in-kind contributions. Each report listed an in-kind contribution to the 2004 Rossi Campaign in the amount of $46,261.40, for a total of $92,522.80.
9. The WSRP did not deliver a copy of the special reports to the Rossi campaign, notifying the campaign of the in-kind contributions. The special reports were required to be delivered to the Rossi campaign within 24 hours of making the in-kind contributions, or by October 13, 2004.
2006 Activities
10. The 2006 general election was held November 7, 2006. The special reporting period for contributions of $1,000 or more in the aggregate made within 21 days of the general election began October 17, 2006.
11. Within 21 days of the 2006 general election, the WSRP provided in-kind contributions totaling $211,574.74 in support of the following 13 legislative candidates:
a. Bob Lawrence - $27,937.48
b. Charles Ross - $4,428.87
c. Donna Watts - $1,420.00
d. Jan Shabro - $20,803.47
e. Jeffrey Possinger - $2,406.20
f. Jim Dunn-$24,992.68
g. KimHalvorson-$1,738.12
h Luke Esser - $20,829.36
i. Mike Riley - $38,202.10
j. Pam Roach-$28,209.60
k. Randy Neatherlin - $7,662.01
1. RonBoehme-$11,317.49
m. TobyNixon-$21,627.36
12. The expenditures for the in-kind contributions were timely reported on the 7-day pre-general election C-4 report filed October 31, 2006, and on the post-general election C-4 report filed December 7, 2006.
13. The WSRP timely filed special Last Minute Contribution reports disclosing the in-kind contributions to the 13 candidates.
14. The WSRP did not deliver a copy of the special reports to the 13 legislative candidates, notifying the campaigns of the in-kind contributions. The special reports were required to be delivered to the campaigns within 24 hours of making the in-kind contributions.
15. The WSRP has undertaken changes in procedures for processing in-kind contributions so that candidates receive written notice of in-kind contributions, including special notices for last minute contributions.
VIOLATIONS
The parties hereto stipulate that the Washington State Republican Party violated RCW 42.17 as follows:
2004 Activities
RCW42.17.1O5(3):
a. By not delivering to one statewide office candidate, within 24 hours of making two in-kind contributions totaling $92,522.80, two special reports notifying the candidate of the contributions, made within 21 days of the 2004 general election.
2006 Activities
RCW42.17.103(5):
a. By not delivering to 13 legislative candidates, within 24 hours of making in-kind contributions totaling $211,574.74, special reports notifying the candidates of the contributions, made within 21 days of the 2006 general election.
PENALTY
1. Based upon the stipulated facts and the agreement regarding violations set forth above, the Respondent agrees that a total civil penalty of $15,000 be assessed.
2. The Respondent agrees that the penalty shall be paid within 60 days from the date of entry of the Commission’s Final Order in this matter.
Signed by Vicki Rippie on 8/21/2008
Signed by Jeremy Deutsch, Executive Director, WSRP 8/20/2008
The stipulation is 37 pages long. You can find a complete copy here: http://www.pdc.wa.gov/archive/commissionmeetings/meetingshearings/pdfs/2008/08.28.08.09001.WSRP.pdf
Phil Stutzman, PDC Director of Compliance, recommended that the Commission accept the proposed stipulation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
BEFORE THE PUBLIC DiSCLOSURE COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Stipulation as to facts violations and penalty
In the Matter of Enforcement Action Case No. 09-00 1
Against Washington State Republican Party
The parties hereto, the Public Disclosure Commission Staff, by and through its Executive Director, VICKI RIPPlE, and the Respondent, WASHINGTON STATE REPUBLICAN PARTY, represented by John J. White, Jr., Attorney for the Washington State Republican Party, submit this Stipulation as to Facts, Violation and Penalty in this matter.
JURISDICTION
1. The Public Disclosure Commission has jurisdiction over this proceeding pursuant to Chapter 42.17 RCW; the Public Disclosure Act; Chapter 34.05 RCW, the Administrative Procedure Act; and Title 390 WAC.
BACKGROUND
2. This matter resulted from a PDC staff generated complaint following a citizen inquiry concerning expenditures made by the Washington State Republican Party (WSRP) during 2006 from the party’s non-exempt account. The citizen noted that the WSRP had reported several expenditures as in-kind contributions to 13 legislative candidates, that the contributions were made within 21 days of the 2006 general election, and that the candidates had not reported receiving the contributions from the WSRP.
3. On June 16, 2008, PDC staff received a further inquiry noting that the WSRP had reported two in-kind contributions to the 2004 Dino Rossi for Governor Campaign, that the contributions were made within 21 days of the 2004 general election, and that the contributions were not reported by the Rossi Campaign.
4. RCW 42.17.105(3) requires committees, during the seven days before a primary election and the 21 days before a general election, to prepare and deliver to the commission a special report regarding any contribution or aggregate of contributions which is $1,000 or more, and is from a single person or entity. The special report must be delivered to the Commission and to the candidate or political committee to whom the contribution or contributions are made, within 24 hours of the time, or on the first working day after: The contribution is made; the aggregate of contributions made first equals $1,000 or more; or the subsequent contribution that must be reported is made.
FACTS
5. The Washington State Republican Party is a bona fide political party, and operates as the statewide Republican party in Washington State. Th WSRP is located in Bellevue, Washington and operates both a “non-exempt” account, subject to contribution limits, that is used for contributions to candidates, and an “Exempt” account, not subject to contribution limits, that is used for specific pwposes allowed by law, Luke Esser is the Chair of the WSR.P and Jeremy Deutsch is the Executive Director. Neither served in their respectivecapacities in 2004 or 2006.
2004 Activities
The 2004 general election was held November 2, 2004. The special reporting period for contributions of $1,000 or more in the aggregate made within 21 days of the general election began October 12, 2004.
7. On October 12, 2004, within 21 days of the 2004 general election, the WSRP provided in-kind contributions totaling $92,522.80 in support of Dino Rossi, the Republican candidate for Governor. On a C-4 and Schedule A report filed on October 25, 2004, the WSRP reported making. two expenditures of $46,261 .40, totaling $92,522.80, to James Foster and Associates, Inc. The purpose of the expenditures was to pay for a mailing in support of R.ossi, as an in- kind contribution to the Rossi Campaign.
8. On October 12, 2004, the WSRP timely filed two special Last Minute Contribution reports disclosing the two in-kind contributions. Each report listed an in-kind contribution to the 2004 Rossi Campaign in the amount of $46,261.40, for a total of $92,522.80.
9. The WSRP did not deliver a copy of the special reports to the Rossi campaign, notifying the campaign of the in-kind contributions. The special reports were required to be delivered to the Rossi campaign within 24 hours of making the in-kind contributions, or by October 13, 2004.
2006 Activities
10. The 2006 general election was held November 7, 2006. The special reporting period for contributions of $1,000 or more in the aggregate made within 21 days of the general election began October 17, 2006.
11. Within 21 days of the 2006 general election, the WSRP provided in-kind contributions totaling $211,574.74 in support of the following 13 legislative candidates:
a. Bob Lawrence - $27,937.48
b. Charles Ross - $4,428.87
c. Donna Watts - $1,420.00
d. Jan Shabro - $20,803.47
e. Jeffrey Possinger - $2,406.20
f. Jim Dunn-$24,992.68
g. KimHalvorson-$1,738.12
h Luke Esser - $20,829.36
i. Mike Riley - $38,202.10
j. Pam Roach-$28,209.60
k. Randy Neatherlin - $7,662.01
1. RonBoehme-$11,317.49
m. TobyNixon-$21,627.36
12. The expenditures for the in-kind contributions were timely reported on the 7-day pre-general election C-4 report filed October 31, 2006, and on the post-general election C-4 report filed December 7, 2006.
13. The WSRP timely filed special Last Minute Contribution reports disclosing the in-kind contributions to the 13 candidates.
14. The WSRP did not deliver a copy of the special reports to the 13 legislative candidates, notifying the campaigns of the in-kind contributions. The special reports were required to be delivered to the campaigns within 24 hours of making the in-kind contributions.
15. The WSRP has undertaken changes in procedures for processing in-kind contributions so that candidates receive written notice of in-kind contributions, including special notices for last minute contributions.
VIOLATIONS
The parties hereto stipulate that the Washington State Republican Party violated RCW 42.17 as follows:
2004 Activities
RCW42.17.1O5(3):
a. By not delivering to one statewide office candidate, within 24 hours of making two in-kind contributions totaling $92,522.80, two special reports notifying the candidate of the contributions, made within 21 days of the 2004 general election.
2006 Activities
RCW42.17.103(5):
a. By not delivering to 13 legislative candidates, within 24 hours of making in-kind contributions totaling $211,574.74, special reports notifying the candidates of the contributions, made within 21 days of the 2006 general election.
PENALTY
1. Based upon the stipulated facts and the agreement regarding violations set forth above, the Respondent agrees that a total civil penalty of $15,000 be assessed.
2. The Respondent agrees that the penalty shall be paid within 60 days from the date of entry of the Commission’s Final Order in this matter.
Signed by Vicki Rippie on 8/21/2008
Signed by Jeremy Deutsch, Executive Director, WSRP 8/20/2008
The stipulation is 37 pages long. You can find a complete copy here: http://www.pdc.wa.gov/archive/commissionmeetings/meetingshearings/pdfs/2008/08.28.08.09001.WSRP.pdf
Saturday, May 24, 2008
PDC issues findings regarding local Campaign Violations
The purpose of Public Disclosure is to promote a climate in which candidates conduct honest and fair campaigns.
In regards to Mr. Bornemann's statement that "Some people were looking at specific campaigns, for whatever reasons." I agree wholeheartedly. I was looking for a pattern of violations, not one or two mistakes.
In the formal administrative charges against Mr. Bornemann, the PDC found that 57% of Mr. Bornemann's reports were filed late.
My goal as a public watch dog is to establish a public confidence that each voter has the ability to access campaign records so that they may understand the source of a candidate's financial support.
Federal and state campaign laws encourage candidates to conduct campaigns openly and fairly. If a candidate chooses not to abide by the law, a citizen (any citizen) has a legal right to file a complaint.
In the coming months, I hope that Mr. Bornemann and Mr. Pike come to understand that they have a responsibility to obey campaign laws and come to understand the real reason why citizens file campaign-related complaints.
Federal and State regulatory agencies do not open formal investigations without solid evidence to support the allegations listed in a complaint.
To state that my complaints were somehow "personally motivated" or just a "campaign stunt" is immature. And in my opinion, demonstrates a basic lack of regard for the laws that our elected officials take an oath to uphold.
I'm glad to have this behind me - the nastiness, the vandalism and personal attacks were unprecedented and uncalled for.
(And, Yes, I'm already reviewing 2008 election PDC reports as they are filed with the PDC).
My commitment to protect the pubic's right to know is not tied to any particular individual's campaign.
Why did I file a complaint against Dan Pike? Mr. Pike appears to believe that it is some sort of "personal vendetta." But Mr. Pike also had an established pattern of violations, as demonstrated by the e-mails between Mr. Pike's campaign and Randy Unruh, a Political Financial Specialist for the PDC.
Please note the dates of the correspondence. I gave Mr. Pike and his staff months to fix the errors before I filed a complaint. To claim otherwise is not only sour grapes, it’s divisive sour grapes, and unbecoming of the city’s chief executive office.
_____________________________________________
Randy Unruh
From: Randy Unruh
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 3:36 PM
To: dan©pikeformayor.com’
Subject: PDC Reports
Mr. Pike,
I have been assigned to monitor your campaign, and hopefully keep on top of any problems before they turn into complaints. I have been assigned to monitor the candidates running for Mayor of Bellingham.
I have reviewed your reports that have been submitted to the PDC. Below is a list of errors that need to be addressed immediately.
The C-4 for the period 2-1-07 through 2-28-07 - You have a C-3 filed 4-20-07 for a deposit on 2-20-07 of $300; however on your schedule A and C-4 $0.00 is shown as cash received.
The C-4 for the period 3-1-07 through 3-31-07 — The carry forward balances for receipts and expenditures. They should match the ending balance from February of $1,474.73 for your receipts and $1,250.00 for your expenditures.
The C-4 for the period 4-1-07 through 4-30-07 — The receipt carry forward is $3,445.65. The ending balance for March was $2,966.96, these should match.
Amended schedule B # 100211305— Employer/occupation is missing for Laura Boynton and All Heugh. These need to be recorded every time for contributions in excess of $100.
C-3 for deposit on 4-25-07 — Laura Boynton employer/occupation is missing.
Schedule B #100212945 — all of the employer/occupations are not listed for contributions more than $100
C-4 for the period of 6-1-07 through 6-30-07 — Previous balance for receipts should be $10,676.14 you show $14,533.36.
Previous balance for ‘expenditures should be $8,068.37, you show $11,868.37. You show no deposits on schedule A but have C-3 showing deposits on 6-11-07 of $369.60, 6-22-07 of $2000.00, and A..21 -07 of $1 O0, for a total of $2,469.60.
C-3 # 100215323— no employer occupation for Edith Pike
C-3 # 100215324— No employer occupation for Alfred and Winnie Adrian
C-3 # 100218403— No employer occupation for Edith Pike, Anonymous money must be reported on line 1a, not in section 2.
Please repair these mistakes immediately.
You are in a hotly contested race and I am sure your financing will be looked at. If someone were to complain prior to you correcting these errors it may lead to an investigation and possible enforcement, which we are trying to avoid.
If I can be of assistance or you have any questions please feel free to contact me at (360) 753-1981 or by e-mail at
Randall R, Unruh
Political Finance Specialist
Public Disclosure Commission
_______________________________________________
From: Randy Unruh
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 11:15AM
To: ‘dan@pikeformayor.com’
Cc: Jennifer Hansen
Subject: RE: PDC Reports
Dan,
I am asking Jennifer Hansen, our filing specialist to help you in making the corrections. I am forwarding this e-mail as well as talk to her. She will get hold of you soon. Until that time don’t worry.
Randall R. Unruh
Political Finance Specialist
Public Disclosure Commission
_______________________________________________
From: dan@pikeformayor.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 9:05 AM
To: Randy Unruh
Subject: RE: PDC Reports
Mr. Unruh,
I am trying to correct the errors you pointed out in my PDC filings, but am having some trouble with finding where/how I can put edits in place. For example, there are several contributors who did not have occupations listed.
These are all retired people, and I did not realize there was a category for that under ‘Occupation, and now cannot find a way to edit the transactions to reflect that information.
I see a category titled ‘Bookkeeping Adjustments’ which says to contact PDC staff before using. Is that the right place to enter the changes I need to make? If not, where is it? If so, do you have any cautionary notes, advice, etcetera, before I attempt these changes.
Thanks for your help with this, and for your work in keeping our elections process honest and transparent.
Dan Pike
_____________________________________________
Original Message
Subject: PDC Reports
From: “Randy Unruh”
Date: Thu, July 19, 2007 3:36 pm
To: dan@pikefonnayor.com
Mr. Pike,
I have been assigned to monitor your campaign, and hopefully keep on top of any problems before they turn into complaints. I have been assigned to monitor the candidates running for Mayor of Bellingham.
I have reviewed your reports that have been submitted to the PDC. Below is a list of errors that need to be addressed immediately.
The C-4 for the period 2-1 -07 through 2-28-07 - You have a C-3 filed 4-20-07 for a deposit on 2-20-07 of $300; however on your 11/15/2007
_______________________________________________
Randy Unruh
From: Randy Unruh
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 9:50 AM
To: Ken Bronstein’
Subject: RE: refund contributions
Ken,
I’ll let Sally answer this one. I think she is off today.
Randall R. Unruh
Political Finance Specialist
Public Disclosure Commission
______________________________________________
From: Ken Bronstein
Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 7:28 PM
To: Randy Unruh; Sally Parker
Subject: refund contributions
Randy and Sally:
After looking over the Manual, we have decided that we must return the donations we received from Canadian donors, and also from another political committee. I have done the “refund contribution” transaction in ORCA in the expenditures section, and now need to correct the C3 reports, and amend the C4s.
It says to correct the transaction. Does that mean to un-deposit the funds, and delete or zero-out the donation?
Thank for your advice. I’d like to take care of this on Monday, so I can have everything correct before I file the 10/16 C4.
Ken Bronstein
Committee to Elect Dan Pike
______________________________________________
Randy Unruh
From: Randy Unruh
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 9:56 AM
To: ‘Ken Bronstein’
Subject: RE: 2 questions
Ken,
I’ll look at your submissions. Next time you can correct $ errors using a schedule C, that way you don’t have to correct all the subsequent filings. If you find another error contact Sally Parker or Jennifer Hanson and they will help you through the schedule C process. I’ll take a look at the McShane reports.
Randall R. Unruh
Political Finance Specialist
Public Disclosure Commission
_______________________________________________
From: Ken Bronstein
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 12:58 PM
To: Randy Unruh
Subject: 2 questions
Randy, this is Ken Bronstein from the Dan Pike for Mayor Campaign. I do have a couple of questions.
First, we found an early in-kind donation entry that was not correct. The value was too high. We think it was just a key-stroke error. The transaction was from May, so I went to the original transaction, corrected the amount, and then amended the C4 report for that period, and each period since. Would you please take a look to make sure everything still looks correct? I think I did it right, but just want to make sure.
Secondly: our opponent’s (Dan McShane) C4s show a significant amount of expenditures to the candidate’s wife (Lisa McShane). There are descriptions of the types of expenditures (campaign signs, event, etc.) but no disclosure that I can see of the original vendor who provided the goods/services. Shouldn’t there be some more information available, or is there somewhere else to look for this information? I know the regulations state that there must be receipts to back up these charges. On the occasions where I’ve reimbursed our candidate for out-of-pocket expenses, I’ve listed the vendor whom he paid in the description on the C4 (and kept the receipts, of course).
Thanks for your help.
Ken Bronstein
______________________________________________
Randy Unruh
From: Randy Unruh
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 9:48 AM
To: Ken Bronstein
Subject: RE: 2 more questions
Ken,
NO. You cannot accept donations from out of country. NO. A candidate committee cannot make donations from one candidate committee to another. There are very specific instructions on what can and cannot be done with surplus campaign money.
Randall R. Unruh
Political Finance Specialist
Public Disclosure Commission
______________________________________________
From: Ken Bronstein
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 3:31 PM
To: Randy Unruh
Subject: 2 more questions
Randy, 2 more questions have come up.
1) Is it allowable for our campaign to accept a donation from a donor in Canada? One donor is a relative, and the other is a business.
2) We received a $500 donation from the campaign committee for another candidate. This is a current city council member, and the donation is from donations she had received during a previous campaign for her current seat.
Thanks again!
Ken Bronstein
Committee to Elect Dan Pike Mayor
________________________________________________
Randy Unruh
From: Randy Unruh
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 4:47 PM
To: ‘Ken Bronstein’
Subject: Filing Errors
Ken,
The following errors need to be corrected:
• C-3 # 100226328 — Wes Frysztacki — No occupation
• C-3 # 100226329 — Shirley Zuanich — No occupation
• C-3 # 100226933 — Kim Erickson — No occupation - Christopher Grannis — No employer
• C-3 # 100227597 — Kim Erickson — No occupation
• C-3 # 100228158 — Gerry Wilbour — No occupation
When you list ‘self” as employer you still must list the donors occupation (i.e. consultant)
If you have any questions please call me at (360) 753-1981 or e-mail
Please make and notify me of the above corrections prior to October 25, 2007.
Randall R. Unruh
Political Finance Specialist
Public Disclosure Commission
_______________________________________________
Randy Unruh
From: Randy Unruh
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 10:44 AM
To: Ken Bronstein
Subject: Complaint
Ken,
The PDC has received a formal complaint from Elisabeth Britt concerning the Dan Pike Campaign. This complaint is in a fact finding phase and may not be logged in. I have been able to dispel most of the complaint, but need some information on the remainder. Ms. Britt states that the Pike Campaign had three fundraising events recently:
September 18, 2007 — At the Bellwether Hotel
September 29, 2007 — At the American Museum of American Radio
October 3, 2007 —This was “Hosted by Developers”
I have found expenses for room rental for the musician and for Food and Beverages from Harborside Bistro, and in-kind contributions of food, catering, and Radio Museum room rental.
Where is the information on the Bellwether Hotel (Expenses or In-kind contributions) and the fundraiser hosted by the developers (room, food in-kind or expenses). Can you designate which of the recorded in-kind contributions and the expenses is for what fundraiser?
I need a written explanation now, and then we can decide how to record what is determined.
Thank you,
Randall R. Unruh
Political Finance Specialist
Public Disclosure Commission
______________________________________________
Randy Unruh
From: Randy Unruh
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 1:33 PM
To: ‘Ken Bronstein’
Subject: RE: Complaint
Ken,
Thanks. I am preparing a ‘will not investigate memo now”. No further action will be taken.
Randall R. Unruh
Political Finance Specialist
Public Disclosure Commission
______________________________________________
From: Ken Bronstein
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 12:13 PM
To: Randy Unruh
Cc: dan@pikeformayor.com
Subject: RE: Complaint
Randy, my comments are next to your questions below:
From: Randy Unruh
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 10:44 AM
To: Ken Bronstein
Subject: Complaint
Ken,
The PDC has received a formal complaint from Elisabeth Britt concerning the Dan Pike Campaign. This complaint is in a fact finding phase and may not be logged in. I have been able to dispel most of the complaint, but need some information on the remainder. Ms. Britt states that the Pike Campaign had three fundraising events recently:
September 18, 2007 — At the Bellwether Hotel
September 2 2007 — At the American Museum of American Radio
October 3, 2007 — This was “Hosted by Developers”
I have found expenses for room rental for the musician and for Food and Beverages from Harborside Bistro, and in-kind contributions of food, catering, and Radio Museum-room rental.
Where is the information on the Bellwether Hotel (Expenses or In-kind contributions)
The invoice for Harborside Bistro was dated 10/2, although it was for the 9/18 event. The event took place in the Bistro, and there was no additional cost for “renting” the space. The space was included with the food and beverages.
and the fundraiser hosted by the developers (room, food in-kind or expenses). Can you designate which of the recorded in-kind contributions and the expenses is for what fundraiser?
The bill for the event on 10/13 came to a total of $3,200. The bill was split between 8 people as an in-kind donation, only one of which was a developer. The amounts were: Mischaikov $300, Barron $500, J. Swift $500, Thon $400, Fairbanks $250, Bradburn $250, Franklin $500, and L. Swift $500. Again, the space was included as part of the package for the catering.
I hope this answers all of the questions. Please let me know if you have any further questions, or need any more information. I can be reached by e-mail, or by phone.
Ken Bronstein
Treasurer, Committee to Elect Dan Pike for Mayor
I need a written explanation now, and then we can decide how to record what is determined.
Thank you,
Randall R. Unruh
Political Finance Specialist
Public Disclosure Commission
In regards to Mr. Bornemann's statement that "Some people were looking at specific campaigns, for whatever reasons." I agree wholeheartedly. I was looking for a pattern of violations, not one or two mistakes.
In the formal administrative charges against Mr. Bornemann, the PDC found that 57% of Mr. Bornemann's reports were filed late.
My goal as a public watch dog is to establish a public confidence that each voter has the ability to access campaign records so that they may understand the source of a candidate's financial support.
Federal and state campaign laws encourage candidates to conduct campaigns openly and fairly. If a candidate chooses not to abide by the law, a citizen (any citizen) has a legal right to file a complaint.
In the coming months, I hope that Mr. Bornemann and Mr. Pike come to understand that they have a responsibility to obey campaign laws and come to understand the real reason why citizens file campaign-related complaints.
Federal and State regulatory agencies do not open formal investigations without solid evidence to support the allegations listed in a complaint.
To state that my complaints were somehow "personally motivated" or just a "campaign stunt" is immature. And in my opinion, demonstrates a basic lack of regard for the laws that our elected officials take an oath to uphold.
I'm glad to have this behind me - the nastiness, the vandalism and personal attacks were unprecedented and uncalled for.
(And, Yes, I'm already reviewing 2008 election PDC reports as they are filed with the PDC).
My commitment to protect the pubic's right to know is not tied to any particular individual's campaign.
Why did I file a complaint against Dan Pike? Mr. Pike appears to believe that it is some sort of "personal vendetta." But Mr. Pike also had an established pattern of violations, as demonstrated by the e-mails between Mr. Pike's campaign and Randy Unruh, a Political Financial Specialist for the PDC.
Please note the dates of the correspondence. I gave Mr. Pike and his staff months to fix the errors before I filed a complaint. To claim otherwise is not only sour grapes, it’s divisive sour grapes, and unbecoming of the city’s chief executive office.
_____________________________________________
Randy Unruh
From: Randy Unruh
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 3:36 PM
To: dan©pikeformayor.com’
Subject: PDC Reports
Mr. Pike,
I have been assigned to monitor your campaign, and hopefully keep on top of any problems before they turn into complaints. I have been assigned to monitor the candidates running for Mayor of Bellingham.
I have reviewed your reports that have been submitted to the PDC. Below is a list of errors that need to be addressed immediately.
The C-4 for the period 2-1-07 through 2-28-07 - You have a C-3 filed 4-20-07 for a deposit on 2-20-07 of $300; however on your schedule A and C-4 $0.00 is shown as cash received.
The C-4 for the period 3-1-07 through 3-31-07 — The carry forward balances for receipts and expenditures. They should match the ending balance from February of $1,474.73 for your receipts and $1,250.00 for your expenditures.
The C-4 for the period 4-1-07 through 4-30-07 — The receipt carry forward is $3,445.65. The ending balance for March was $2,966.96, these should match.
Amended schedule B # 100211305— Employer/occupation is missing for Laura Boynton and All Heugh. These need to be recorded every time for contributions in excess of $100.
C-3 for deposit on 4-25-07 — Laura Boynton employer/occupation is missing.
Schedule B #100212945 — all of the employer/occupations are not listed for contributions more than $100
C-4 for the period of 6-1-07 through 6-30-07 — Previous balance for receipts should be $10,676.14 you show $14,533.36.
Previous balance for ‘expenditures should be $8,068.37, you show $11,868.37. You show no deposits on schedule A but have C-3 showing deposits on 6-11-07 of $369.60, 6-22-07 of $2000.00, and A..21 -07 of $1 O0, for a total of $2,469.60.
C-3 # 100215323— no employer occupation for Edith Pike
C-3 # 100215324— No employer occupation for Alfred and Winnie Adrian
C-3 # 100218403— No employer occupation for Edith Pike, Anonymous money must be reported on line 1a, not in section 2.
Please repair these mistakes immediately.
You are in a hotly contested race and I am sure your financing will be looked at. If someone were to complain prior to you correcting these errors it may lead to an investigation and possible enforcement, which we are trying to avoid.
If I can be of assistance or you have any questions please feel free to contact me at (360) 753-1981 or by e-mail at
Randall R, Unruh
Political Finance Specialist
Public Disclosure Commission
_______________________________________________
From: Randy Unruh
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 11:15AM
To: ‘dan@pikeformayor.com’
Cc: Jennifer Hansen
Subject: RE: PDC Reports
Dan,
I am asking Jennifer Hansen, our filing specialist to help you in making the corrections. I am forwarding this e-mail as well as talk to her. She will get hold of you soon. Until that time don’t worry.
Randall R. Unruh
Political Finance Specialist
Public Disclosure Commission
_______________________________________________
From: dan@pikeformayor.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 9:05 AM
To: Randy Unruh
Subject: RE: PDC Reports
Mr. Unruh,
I am trying to correct the errors you pointed out in my PDC filings, but am having some trouble with finding where/how I can put edits in place. For example, there are several contributors who did not have occupations listed.
These are all retired people, and I did not realize there was a category for that under ‘Occupation, and now cannot find a way to edit the transactions to reflect that information.
I see a category titled ‘Bookkeeping Adjustments’ which says to contact PDC staff before using. Is that the right place to enter the changes I need to make? If not, where is it? If so, do you have any cautionary notes, advice, etcetera, before I attempt these changes.
Thanks for your help with this, and for your work in keeping our elections process honest and transparent.
Dan Pike
_____________________________________________
Original Message
Subject: PDC Reports
From: “Randy Unruh”
Date: Thu, July 19, 2007 3:36 pm
To: dan@pikefonnayor.com
Mr. Pike,
I have been assigned to monitor your campaign, and hopefully keep on top of any problems before they turn into complaints. I have been assigned to monitor the candidates running for Mayor of Bellingham.
I have reviewed your reports that have been submitted to the PDC. Below is a list of errors that need to be addressed immediately.
The C-4 for the period 2-1 -07 through 2-28-07 - You have a C-3 filed 4-20-07 for a deposit on 2-20-07 of $300; however on your 11/15/2007
_______________________________________________
Randy Unruh
From: Randy Unruh
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 9:50 AM
To: Ken Bronstein’
Subject: RE: refund contributions
Ken,
I’ll let Sally answer this one. I think she is off today.
Randall R. Unruh
Political Finance Specialist
Public Disclosure Commission
______________________________________________
From: Ken Bronstein
Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 7:28 PM
To: Randy Unruh; Sally Parker
Subject: refund contributions
Randy and Sally:
After looking over the Manual, we have decided that we must return the donations we received from Canadian donors, and also from another political committee. I have done the “refund contribution” transaction in ORCA in the expenditures section, and now need to correct the C3 reports, and amend the C4s.
It says to correct the transaction. Does that mean to un-deposit the funds, and delete or zero-out the donation?
Thank for your advice. I’d like to take care of this on Monday, so I can have everything correct before I file the 10/16 C4.
Ken Bronstein
Committee to Elect Dan Pike
______________________________________________
Randy Unruh
From: Randy Unruh
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 9:56 AM
To: ‘Ken Bronstein’
Subject: RE: 2 questions
Ken,
I’ll look at your submissions. Next time you can correct $ errors using a schedule C, that way you don’t have to correct all the subsequent filings. If you find another error contact Sally Parker or Jennifer Hanson and they will help you through the schedule C process. I’ll take a look at the McShane reports.
Randall R. Unruh
Political Finance Specialist
Public Disclosure Commission
_______________________________________________
From: Ken Bronstein
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 12:58 PM
To: Randy Unruh
Subject: 2 questions
Randy, this is Ken Bronstein from the Dan Pike for Mayor Campaign. I do have a couple of questions.
First, we found an early in-kind donation entry that was not correct. The value was too high. We think it was just a key-stroke error. The transaction was from May, so I went to the original transaction, corrected the amount, and then amended the C4 report for that period, and each period since. Would you please take a look to make sure everything still looks correct? I think I did it right, but just want to make sure.
Secondly: our opponent’s (Dan McShane) C4s show a significant amount of expenditures to the candidate’s wife (Lisa McShane). There are descriptions of the types of expenditures (campaign signs, event, etc.) but no disclosure that I can see of the original vendor who provided the goods/services. Shouldn’t there be some more information available, or is there somewhere else to look for this information? I know the regulations state that there must be receipts to back up these charges. On the occasions where I’ve reimbursed our candidate for out-of-pocket expenses, I’ve listed the vendor whom he paid in the description on the C4 (and kept the receipts, of course).
Thanks for your help.
Ken Bronstein
______________________________________________
Randy Unruh
From: Randy Unruh
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 9:48 AM
To: Ken Bronstein
Subject: RE: 2 more questions
Ken,
NO. You cannot accept donations from out of country. NO. A candidate committee cannot make donations from one candidate committee to another. There are very specific instructions on what can and cannot be done with surplus campaign money.
Randall R. Unruh
Political Finance Specialist
Public Disclosure Commission
______________________________________________
From: Ken Bronstein
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 3:31 PM
To: Randy Unruh
Subject: 2 more questions
Randy, 2 more questions have come up.
1) Is it allowable for our campaign to accept a donation from a donor in Canada? One donor is a relative, and the other is a business.
2) We received a $500 donation from the campaign committee for another candidate. This is a current city council member, and the donation is from donations she had received during a previous campaign for her current seat.
Thanks again!
Ken Bronstein
Committee to Elect Dan Pike Mayor
________________________________________________
Randy Unruh
From: Randy Unruh
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 4:47 PM
To: ‘Ken Bronstein’
Subject: Filing Errors
Ken,
The following errors need to be corrected:
• C-3 # 100226328 — Wes Frysztacki — No occupation
• C-3 # 100226329 — Shirley Zuanich — No occupation
• C-3 # 100226933 — Kim Erickson — No occupation - Christopher Grannis — No employer
• C-3 # 100227597 — Kim Erickson — No occupation
• C-3 # 100228158 — Gerry Wilbour — No occupation
When you list ‘self” as employer you still must list the donors occupation (i.e. consultant)
If you have any questions please call me at (360) 753-1981 or e-mail
Please make and notify me of the above corrections prior to October 25, 2007.
Randall R. Unruh
Political Finance Specialist
Public Disclosure Commission
_______________________________________________
Randy Unruh
From: Randy Unruh
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 10:44 AM
To: Ken Bronstein
Subject: Complaint
Ken,
The PDC has received a formal complaint from Elisabeth Britt concerning the Dan Pike Campaign. This complaint is in a fact finding phase and may not be logged in. I have been able to dispel most of the complaint, but need some information on the remainder. Ms. Britt states that the Pike Campaign had three fundraising events recently:
September 18, 2007 — At the Bellwether Hotel
September 29, 2007 — At the American Museum of American Radio
October 3, 2007 —This was “Hosted by Developers”
I have found expenses for room rental for the musician and for Food and Beverages from Harborside Bistro, and in-kind contributions of food, catering, and Radio Museum room rental.
Where is the information on the Bellwether Hotel (Expenses or In-kind contributions) and the fundraiser hosted by the developers (room, food in-kind or expenses). Can you designate which of the recorded in-kind contributions and the expenses is for what fundraiser?
I need a written explanation now, and then we can decide how to record what is determined.
Thank you,
Randall R. Unruh
Political Finance Specialist
Public Disclosure Commission
______________________________________________
Randy Unruh
From: Randy Unruh
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 1:33 PM
To: ‘Ken Bronstein’
Subject: RE: Complaint
Ken,
Thanks. I am preparing a ‘will not investigate memo now”. No further action will be taken.
Randall R. Unruh
Political Finance Specialist
Public Disclosure Commission
______________________________________________
From: Ken Bronstein
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 12:13 PM
To: Randy Unruh
Cc: dan@pikeformayor.com
Subject: RE: Complaint
Randy, my comments are next to your questions below:
From: Randy Unruh
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 10:44 AM
To: Ken Bronstein
Subject: Complaint
Ken,
The PDC has received a formal complaint from Elisabeth Britt concerning the Dan Pike Campaign. This complaint is in a fact finding phase and may not be logged in. I have been able to dispel most of the complaint, but need some information on the remainder. Ms. Britt states that the Pike Campaign had three fundraising events recently:
September 18, 2007 — At the Bellwether Hotel
September 2 2007 — At the American Museum of American Radio
October 3, 2007 — This was “Hosted by Developers”
I have found expenses for room rental for the musician and for Food and Beverages from Harborside Bistro, and in-kind contributions of food, catering, and Radio Museum-room rental.
Where is the information on the Bellwether Hotel (Expenses or In-kind contributions)
The invoice for Harborside Bistro was dated 10/2, although it was for the 9/18 event. The event took place in the Bistro, and there was no additional cost for “renting” the space. The space was included with the food and beverages.
and the fundraiser hosted by the developers (room, food in-kind or expenses). Can you designate which of the recorded in-kind contributions and the expenses is for what fundraiser?
The bill for the event on 10/13 came to a total of $3,200. The bill was split between 8 people as an in-kind donation, only one of which was a developer. The amounts were: Mischaikov $300, Barron $500, J. Swift $500, Thon $400, Fairbanks $250, Bradburn $250, Franklin $500, and L. Swift $500. Again, the space was included as part of the package for the catering.
I hope this answers all of the questions. Please let me know if you have any further questions, or need any more information. I can be reached by e-mail, or by phone.
Ken Bronstein
Treasurer, Committee to Elect Dan Pike for Mayor
I need a written explanation now, and then we can decide how to record what is determined.
Thank you,
Randall R. Unruh
Political Finance Specialist
Public Disclosure Commission
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Pike's Testimony During PDC Investigation
Excerpted from first PDC Report of Investigation of PDC Case NO: 08-102 and PDC Case NO: 08-103,beginning on page 11 -(the report was recently removed from the PDC site and Todd Donovan, the complaint filer was notified that the PDC is continuing the investigation). The hearing will be rescheduled for June or July.
3.73 Ms. Whiting and Mr. Wahl (Realtors) both stated, during their interviews, that there was no internal discussion regarding reducing the number of mailers to qualify the expenditures as in-kind contributions within the limits imposed during the 21 day limitation period (i.e. send out $5,000 worth of the mailers instead of the entire amount).
3.74 In response to PDC staff's request for a written explanation, Ms. Whiting provided a series of e-mails between herself and Mr. Eskridge (Whatcom Association of Realtors) in an attempt to explain their internal confusion about the projects. In an October 25, 2007 e-mail to Perry Eskridge, Ms. Whiting appears to have had some level of understanding that the candidates did not receive notification in time for the expenditures to qualify as an in-kind contribution not subject to limit.
(See Exhibit 15).
3.75 During the investigative interviews, PDC staff asked Ms. Whiting and Mr. Wahl to sum up the situation concerning Realtors Quality of Life PAC expenditures.
3.76 In her summary, Ms. Whiting stated that the mailers were in-kind contributions but, she stated, "Apparently that was not the understanding of Perry (Eskridge) or the campaigns. And so they didn't communicate the fact that they were uncomfortable to me, at least, because that would have been a red flag that maybe they don't know what's going on here."
3.77 Ms. Whiting further concluded by stating, "I think the glitch is miscommunication between myself and Perry...it wasn't anything anyone did on purpose. We really wanted to keep everything out in the open... we just sort of dropped the ball in communicating this properly to the candidates."
On May 15, 2008, the Washington Public Disclosure Commission issued a Staff Report to the PDC Commission with a recommendation that the Commissioners report the following apparent violations of the Realtors Quality of Life PAC to the Attorney General's Office.
Despite testimony from Chad Minnick, a campaign consultant for the Realtors, advising Ms. Whiting of the Realtors that there was too much coordination between himself and the campaigns to change the mailers to Independent Expenditures, the Realtors went ahead and mailed the pieces, violating Washington's 21 day $5,000 contribution limit before the General Election. The Realtors donated $19, 038 for Mr. Pike and $12,874 for Sam Crawford. These were local races and the Realtors in-kind dontations represent a significant percentage of each candidate's total campaign donations.
PDC staff recommended that the Commission dismiss the allegations against Dan Pike. "Dismissal is appropriate because the Pike Campaign attempted to avoid coordinating its activities with the Realtors and RQL PAC and believed the expenditures to be independent expenditures. In addition, the Pike campaign did not report receipt of an in-kind contribution for the mailings based on advice it received from PDC staff." But the three mailers were almost mirror images of the mailers sent out by the Pike campaign, which indicates that there was significant coordination between the Realtors and the Pike campaign.
On October 19th, the PDC contacted Ms. Whiting from the Realtors Association and were told that the in-kind contributions were reported to the candidates on October 16th, one day after the 21 day $5,000 contribution limit went in to effect. But the PDC did not attempt to stop the Realtors from mailing the campaign mailers, nor were the Realtors willing to voluntarily reduce the size of the mailings to conform with Washington Campaign laws. The mailers were mailed, despite the Realtors acknowledgement that they were way over the $5,000 limit, and two candidates, Dan Pike and Sam Crawford recieved thousands of dollars of illegal support during the last two weeks of the campaign. Neither man was charged.
Here is the testimony from Mr. Pike and his campaign manager, Sati Mookherjee, who later admits in her testimony that a campaign staff person had been working closely with Chad Minnick on the mailers, unbeknownst to Mr. Pike or herself.
3.54 Mr. Pike stated that he had no contact with anyone from the Realtors (local or state) or either of the vendors regarding any mailings they were sponsoring regarding his campaign. He stated that his campaign manager informed him that the Realtors requested photos, and stated, "Which wasn't unusual for people to ask for that. There were different groups that endorsed me that wanted images. If anybody wanted images to promote me that was fine. So we didn't even ask about why people would ask for those, we just assumed, obviously, they were aligning with us and wanted to have some images to help my candidacy." Mr. Pike stated that he did not personally provide or have any contact with the Realtors in providing images.
3.55 Mr. Pike stated that he first learned that the Realtors were doing a mailing on the day the mailer arrived in his home mailbox.
3.56 Mr. Pike had no contact with PDC staff regarding the Realtors expenditures on behalf of his campaign.
3.57 Dan Pike's campaign manager, Shati Mookherjee, stated during her interview with PDC staff that Mr. Eskridge (Whatcom Association of Realtors) contacted her and requested photos. She stated that at that point, the campaign didn't have many pictures, so she sent him what she had. Mr. Eskridge contacted her again because he needed better images (higher resolution), so she directed him to a campaign volunteer who better understood computer images. She stated they had no further discussion at that point and she was not aware of what Mr. Eskridge would use the photos for.
3.58 Ms. Mookherjee stated that her next contact with the Realtors was when Mr. Eskridge called her to inform her that he had some "papers you guys need to file." She stated that she had a campaign volunteer retrieve them from Mr. Eskridge. She stated that a few days later, the treasurer, Ken Bronstein, contacted her seeking direction on reporting the content of the invoices. She stated that neither she nor Mr. Bronstein understood what the invoices were for and decided to contact PDC staff for help.
3.59 PDC staff records show that staff spoke with Ms. Mookherjee on October 18th regarding the invoices. Ms. Mookherjee stated that she told PDC staff, "I don't understand what these are or how to file them... Perry asked me for pictures several weeks ago, which I sent him but I never asked what they were for, he never used the word mailer."
3.60 After further discussion with PDC staff, Ms. Mookherjee stated that she believed that she had been advised, by PDC staff, that this was an independent expenditure and the Pike campaign did not have an obligation to report the expenditures.
3.61 Ms. Mookherjee stated that once she completed her contact with PDC staff, she believed the matter involving the Realtor expenditures (invoices) had been resolved because the invoices were referencing to an independent expenditure sponsored by the Realtors. She stated that she believed the mailer had already been delivered and that she had never seen it.
3.62 Ms. Mookherjee stated that several days after her contact with PDC staff, as she was reading old e-mails (e-mails she had received during the campaign but had not been able to read right away), she found an e-mail string between a campaign staffer and Chad Minnick (Realtor Campaign Consultant). She stated that she had been copied on the e-mail and not previously reviewed it. She stated that in the e-mail Mr. Minnick was requesting photos from the staff person and he referenced a plan to spend $12,000 on a mailer. Ms. Mookherjee stated that, at that point, she thought the e-mail string was regarding a new or additional project that the Realtors were also sponsoring. She did not understand that the project described in the e-mail string was the project referenced on the invoices received from Realtors Quality of Life PAC. She stated, "I thought there was some internal confusion. I thought, whatever had happened, had already happened two weeks ago and I was glad that I had never seen or heard of those mailers. I thought it was over, I thought it was moot."
3.63 Mr. Pike and Ms. Mookherjee both stated in their interviews with PDC staff that the Realtor sponsored mailers had no impact on the Pike campaign's mail plan. Ms. Mookherjee stated that their advertising plan had already been created by the time they realized what the Realtors were doing. Mr. Pike stated that he was closely involved in his own campaign's mailing plan, stating, "I was involved to the extent that the pieces all got vetted through me before they would be sent out. I was pretty involved all the way through."
3.64 Mr Pike and Ms. Mookherjee both stated, during their interviews, that the first time they saw the mailers was when they arrived at their respective residences.
Realtors Quality of Life Over-limit In-Kind Contribution
3.71 PDC staff contacted Ms. Whiting (Realtors) on October 19 and November 2, 2007 regarding the nature of the expenditures, attempting to determine whether it was an in-kind contribution or an independent expenditure. Ms. Whiting advised PDC staff that the mailers were in-kind contributions and stated that the candidates received the notification one day late, on October 16th.
3.72 During her interview, Ms. Whiting stated that after she was contacted by the PDC staff regarding whether the mailers were in-kind or independent expenditure, she asked Mr. Minnick if the mailers could be changed to independent expenditures.
She (Ms. Whiting) stated that Mr. Minnick advised her that there had been too much coordination between himself and the campaigns, so the mailers had to remain as in-kind contributions.She also stated that the mailers had already been printed and did not contain the proper independent expenditure sponsor identification language (top five contributors, etc).
3.73 Ms. Whiting and Mr. Wahl (Realtors) both stated, during their interviews, that there was no internal discussion regarding reducing the number of mailers to qualify the expenditures as in-kind contributions within the limits imposed during the 21 day limitation period (i.e. send out $5,000 worth of the mailers instead of the entire amount).
3.74 In response to PDC staff's request for a written explanation, Ms. Whiting provided a series of e-mails between herself and Mr. Eskridge (Whatcom Association of Realtors) in an attempt to explain their internal confusion about the projects. In an October 25, 2007 e-mail to Perry Eskridge, Ms. Whiting appears to have had some level of understanding that the candidates did not receive notification in time for the expenditures to qualify as an in-kind contribution not subject to limit.
(See Exhibit 15).
3.75 During the investigative interviews, PDC staff asked Ms. Whiting and Mr. Wahl to sum up the situation concerning Realtors Quality of Life PAC expenditures.
3.76 In her summary, Ms. Whiting stated that the mailers were in-kind contributions but, she stated, "Apparently that was not the understanding of Perry (Eskridge) or the campaigns. And so they didn't communicate the fact that they were uncomfortable to me, at least, because that would have been a red flag that maybe they don't know what's going on here."
3.77 Ms. Whiting further concluded by stating, "I think the glitch is miscommunication between myself and Perry...it wasn't anything anyone did on purpose. We really wanted to keep everything out in the open... we just sort of dropped the ball in communicating this properly to the candidates."
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Realtors PAC fails to report $56,650 in contributions to Crawford, Pike and Farr
This Report was pulled from the PDC website on May 21, 2008. It is my understanding that the hearing will be rescheduled later in the summer.
The two in-kind contributions to Crawford and Pike totaled $31,913, and exceeded the maximum contributions allowed by RCW 42.17.105(8) within 21 days of the 2007 general election by $21,913.
Here's where it gets interesting --- On October 16, 2007, the Realtors Quality of Life PAC notified the Crawford campaign that they had made an in-kind contribution totaling $12,875. On or after October 16, 2007, RQL PAC notified the Pike campaign that they had made an in-kind contribution totaling $19,038. Farr reported the in-kind contribution, as required by law, Pike alleges that his campaign contacted the PDC and was told he did not have to report the in-kind contribution ---
PDC Report to Commission with Recommendation to report the following apparent violations of the Realtor's Quality of Life PAC to the Attorney General
STATE OF WASHINGTON
PUBLIC DISCLOSURE COMMISSION
711 Capitol Way Rm. 206, PO Box 40908 • Olympia, Washington 98504-0908 • (360) 753-1111 • FAX (360) 753-1112 Toll Free 1-877-601-2828 • E-mail: pdc@pdc.wa.gov • Website: www.pdc.wa.gov
TO: Members, Public Disclosure Commission
FROM: Philip E. Stutzman, Director of Compliance
DATE: May 15, 2008
SUBJECT: Report to Commission with Recommendation
Complaint filed against Realtors Quality of Life PAC (PDC Case No. 08-103)
Complaint filed against Dan Pike (PDC Case No. 08-102)
On November 16, 2007, Commission staff received a complaint from Todd Donovan alleging that during the week before the 2007 General election, the Realtors Quality of Life PAC (RQL PAC) distributed three direct mail pieces supporting Dan Pike, a candidate for Mayor of Bellingham, and that the expenditures had not been reported by RQL PAC or by Mr. Pike’s campaign. Mr. Donovan alleged that the RQL PAC mailings appeared to have been coordinated with the Pike campaign, and were unreported in-kind contributions. Although not addressed in Mr. Donovan’s complaint, PDC staff also reviewed whether the Realtors Quality of Life PAC properly reported expenditures it made that supported Sam Crawford, an incumbent candidate for Whatcom County Council, and Larry Farr, a candidate for Bellingham City Council.
The investigation showed that the Realtors Quality of Life PAC (a political committee of the Washington Association of Realtors) violated RCW 42.17 on multiple occasions. The investigation also showed that Dan Pike did not violate RCW 42.17 in a manner that would warrant enforcement action. Following is a summary of staff’s investigation and the justification for the staff recommendations.
Background
1. The 2007 General Election was held on November 6, 2007. Within 21 days of a general election, persons (including associations, entities, and political committees) are prohibited from making contributions in the aggregate exceeding $5,000 to any candidate or political committee (RCW 42.17.105[8]). Beginning October 16, 2007, contributions to local office candidates, unless made by a state party committee, were limited to $5,000 in the aggregate.
2. Within 21 days of an election, the sponsor of political advertising who publishes, mails, or otherwise presents to the public political advertising supporting or opposing a candidate or Report to Commission With Recommendation Realtors Quality of Life
ballot proposition that qualifies as an independent expenditure with a fair market value of $1,000 or more is required to file a special report with the Commission (PDC form C-6) within 24 hours of the date the advertising is first published, mailed, or otherwise presented to the public (RCW 42.17.103).
3. The Washington Association of Realtors (Washington Realtors or Realtors) is located in Olympia, Washington and controls the Realtors Quality of Life PAC. Bryan Wahl is Government Affairs Director and Kate Whiting is Political Affairs Director for the Washington Realtors. Together, they managed the campaign expenditure projects sponsored by RQL PAC during the 2007 election. Perry Eskridge is the Government Affairs Director for the local Whatcom County Association of Realtors. He worked with Ms. Whiting to coordinate the production and distribution of the mailers that supported candidates Crawford, Pike and Farr.
4. During the 2007 General Election, the Realtors Quality of Life PAC spent $56,650 supporting candidates Crawford, Pike and Farr. The Realtors and RQL PAC provided support in the form of public endorsements, monetary contributions, and political advertising (mailers and a TV ad).
Investigation
Realtors Quality of Life PAC fails to itemize in-kind contribution expenditures totaling $46,650, benefitting three candidates, on the Schedule A to the C-4 Report (RCW 42.17.090 and WAC 390-16-037)
5. RQL PAC spent $46,650 on seven direct mail political advertising pieces supporting Crawford, Pike, and Farr. The support was an in-kind contribution to each candidate - $12,874 for Crawford, $19,038 for Pike, and $14,738 for Farr. The mailers were delivered to voters during the week of October 29 to November 2, 2007. Mr. Wahl and Ms. Whiting of the Realtors and the Realtors Quality of Life PAC, and Chad Minnick of Minnick & Minnick Consulting, all agreed that the expenditures were in-kind contributions to the candidates supported.
6. RQL PAC timely filed its 7-day pre-general election C-4 report on October 30, 2007, but did not identify, on the Schedule A to the C-4 report, the candidates supported by the political advertising. In addition, the filing did not provide the required itemization of costs attributable to each mailer as required by RCW 42.17.090 and WAC 390-16-037. RQL PAC amended its C-4 and Schedule A to provide the required itemization of expenditures 156 days late on April 3, 2008, well after the 2007 general election.
Realtors Quality of Life PAC makes contributions in excess of $5,000 to two candidates within 21 Days of 2007 General Election (RCW 42.17.105[8])
7. The last day for making unlimited contributions to local candidates for the 2007 General election was October 15, 2007. Beginning on October 16, monetary and in-kind contributions were limited to $5,000 in the aggregate for each candidate.
Report to Commission With Recommendation Realtors Quality of Life PAC, Case No. 08-103 & Dan Pike, Case No. 08-102
8. On October 15, 2007, the Realtors Quality of Life PAC began the process of notifying candidates Crawford, Pike and Farr of in-kind contributions totaling $46,650. On October 15, 2007, RQL PAC notified the Larry Farr campaign that they had made an in-kind contribution totaling $14,737 to the Farr campaign.
9. On October 16, 2007, the Realtors Quality of Life PAC notified the Crawford campaign that they had made an in-kind contribution totaling $12,875. On or after October 16, 2007, RQL PAC notified the Pike campaign that they had made an in-kind contribution totaling $19,038. Because RQL PAC did not notify candidates Crawford and Pike of the in-kind contributions until after October 15, 2007, the maximum allowable contribution to each candidate was $5,000. The two in-kind contributions to Crawford and Pike totaled $31,913, and exceeded the maximum contributions allowed by RCW 42.17.105(8) within 21 days of the 2007 general election by $21,913.
10. Shortly after October 16, 2007, the Washington Realtors and RQL PAC became aware that they had not timely notified candidates Crawford and Pike. Distribution of the mailers did not start until October 29 and was completed by November 2, 2007. However, the Realtors Quality of Life PAC did not cancel or reduce the size of the mailings to ensure that the value of the in-kind contributions to Crawford and Pike would be limited to $5,000 to each candidate.
Realtors Quality of Life PAC fails to file a C-6 Report of Independent Expenditures that supported a candidate for Whatcom County Council (RCW 42.17.103)
11. The Realtors Quality of Life PAC spent $10,000 for an independent expenditure television advertisement supporting Sam Crawford. RQL PAC first presented the TV ad to the public on October 31, 2007. RQL PAC timely reported the ad on its 7-day pre-general election C-4 report. However, the Schedule A to the C-4 report did not adequately describe the purpose of the committee’s expenditure. RQL PAC did not file the required special report (PDC form C-6) within 24 hours of presenting the advertising to the public as required by RCW 42.17.103. RQL PAC filed the C-6 report 154 days late on April 3, 2008, well after the 2007 general election.
Alleged failure of Dan Pike to report receipt of in-kind contribution from Realtors Quality of Life PAC (RCW 42.17.080 and .090)
12. Dan Pike did not report receiving an in-kind contribution from the Realtors Quality of Life PAC in the amount of $19,038. The Pike campaign said they believed the mailing to be an independent expenditure made by RQL PAC, and not an in-kind contribution.
13. During the campaign, Mr. Eskridge contacted Mr. Pike’s campaign manager and requested digital images. The campaign manager provided the images, and when additional, high resolution images were requested, the campaign manager delegated the duty to a campaign volunteer who provided the images to Mr. Eskridge. On or shortly after October 16, 2007, at the request of Ms. Whiting, Mr. Eskridge gave the Pike campaign copies of invoices from the consultant used by RQL PAC for the mailers, to enable the Pike campaign to report the cost of the mailings as an in-kind contribution.
14. The Pike campaign was unsure of the purpose of the invoices or how to report the
information, so Mr. Pike’s campaign manager contacted PDC staff. Based on the campaign manager’s description of the campaign’s contact with the Realtors and the consultant, PDC staff told the Pike campaign that the expenditure appeared to be an independent expenditure and might not be reportable by the Pike campaign. Based on this discussion with PDC staff, the Pike campaign did not report the expenditures as an in-kind contribution.
15. Mr. Pike stated that he did not personally provide information or have contact with anyone from the Realtors (at the local or state level) or with either of the vendors regarding the mailings sponsored by RQL PAC in support of his campaign. He stated that his campaign manager informed him that the Realtors had requested photos, as had many of his other supporters. He said that by itself, the Realtors’ request did not give him any information about the Realtors’ plan to support his campaign.
16. Mr. Pike and his campaign manager stated that the Realtor-sponsored mailers had no impact on the campaign’s mail plan. The campaign manager stated that the campaign’s advertising plan was already being executed when they learned that the Realtors were conducting mailings in support of the campaign.
Staff Recommendation
Realtors Quality of Life PAC (PDC Case No. 08-103) - Staff recommends that in accordance with RCW 42.17.360(5) and 42.17.395, the Commission report the following apparent violations of the Realtors Quality of Life PAC to the Attorney General’s Office:
ô€‚ƒ RCW 42.17.090 and WAC 390-16-037 – By failing to itemize in-kind contribution
expenditures totaling $46,650, benefitting Sam Crawford, Dan Pike, and Larry Farr, on the Schedule A to the 7-day pre-general election C-4 report.
􀂃 RCW 42.17.105(8) - By making in-kind contributions in excess of $5,000 to Sam
Crawford and Dan Pike within 21 days of the 2007 general election. The in-kind
contributions were $21,913 over the allowable limit.
ô€‚ƒ RCW 42.17.103 – By failing to timely file a C-6 report of independent expenditures for $10,000 that supported Sam Crawford, a candidate for Whatcom County Council.
Referral is appropriate because the remedies the Commission could impose statutorily are insufficient given the significance of the apparent violations.
Dan Pike (PDC Case No. 08-102) – Staff recommends that the Commission dismiss the allegations against Dan Pike. Dismissal is appropriate because the Pike campaign attempted to avoid coordinating its activities with the Realtors and RQL PAC and believed the expenditures to be independent expenditures. In addition, the Pike campaign did not report receipt of an in-kind contribution for the mailings based on advice it received from PDC staff.
Report of Investigation: http://www.pdc.wa.gov/archive/commissionmeetings/meetingshearings/pdfs/2008/08102.ROI.pdf
Report to Commission: http://www.pdc.wa.gov/archive/commissionmeetings/meetingshearings/pdfs/2008/08102.ROI.pdf
The two in-kind contributions to Crawford and Pike totaled $31,913, and exceeded the maximum contributions allowed by RCW 42.17.105(8) within 21 days of the 2007 general election by $21,913.
Here's where it gets interesting --- On October 16, 2007, the Realtors Quality of Life PAC notified the Crawford campaign that they had made an in-kind contribution totaling $12,875. On or after October 16, 2007, RQL PAC notified the Pike campaign that they had made an in-kind contribution totaling $19,038. Farr reported the in-kind contribution, as required by law, Pike alleges that his campaign contacted the PDC and was told he did not have to report the in-kind contribution ---
PDC Report to Commission with Recommendation to report the following apparent violations of the Realtor's Quality of Life PAC to the Attorney General
STATE OF WASHINGTON
PUBLIC DISCLOSURE COMMISSION
711 Capitol Way Rm. 206, PO Box 40908 • Olympia, Washington 98504-0908 • (360) 753-1111 • FAX (360) 753-1112 Toll Free 1-877-601-2828 • E-mail: pdc@pdc.wa.gov • Website: www.pdc.wa.gov
TO: Members, Public Disclosure Commission
FROM: Philip E. Stutzman, Director of Compliance
DATE: May 15, 2008
SUBJECT: Report to Commission with Recommendation
Complaint filed against Realtors Quality of Life PAC (PDC Case No. 08-103)
Complaint filed against Dan Pike (PDC Case No. 08-102)
On November 16, 2007, Commission staff received a complaint from Todd Donovan alleging that during the week before the 2007 General election, the Realtors Quality of Life PAC (RQL PAC) distributed three direct mail pieces supporting Dan Pike, a candidate for Mayor of Bellingham, and that the expenditures had not been reported by RQL PAC or by Mr. Pike’s campaign. Mr. Donovan alleged that the RQL PAC mailings appeared to have been coordinated with the Pike campaign, and were unreported in-kind contributions. Although not addressed in Mr. Donovan’s complaint, PDC staff also reviewed whether the Realtors Quality of Life PAC properly reported expenditures it made that supported Sam Crawford, an incumbent candidate for Whatcom County Council, and Larry Farr, a candidate for Bellingham City Council.
The investigation showed that the Realtors Quality of Life PAC (a political committee of the Washington Association of Realtors) violated RCW 42.17 on multiple occasions. The investigation also showed that Dan Pike did not violate RCW 42.17 in a manner that would warrant enforcement action. Following is a summary of staff’s investigation and the justification for the staff recommendations.
Background
1. The 2007 General Election was held on November 6, 2007. Within 21 days of a general election, persons (including associations, entities, and political committees) are prohibited from making contributions in the aggregate exceeding $5,000 to any candidate or political committee (RCW 42.17.105[8]). Beginning October 16, 2007, contributions to local office candidates, unless made by a state party committee, were limited to $5,000 in the aggregate.
2. Within 21 days of an election, the sponsor of political advertising who publishes, mails, or otherwise presents to the public political advertising supporting or opposing a candidate or Report to Commission With Recommendation Realtors Quality of Life
ballot proposition that qualifies as an independent expenditure with a fair market value of $1,000 or more is required to file a special report with the Commission (PDC form C-6) within 24 hours of the date the advertising is first published, mailed, or otherwise presented to the public (RCW 42.17.103).
3. The Washington Association of Realtors (Washington Realtors or Realtors) is located in Olympia, Washington and controls the Realtors Quality of Life PAC. Bryan Wahl is Government Affairs Director and Kate Whiting is Political Affairs Director for the Washington Realtors. Together, they managed the campaign expenditure projects sponsored by RQL PAC during the 2007 election. Perry Eskridge is the Government Affairs Director for the local Whatcom County Association of Realtors. He worked with Ms. Whiting to coordinate the production and distribution of the mailers that supported candidates Crawford, Pike and Farr.
4. During the 2007 General Election, the Realtors Quality of Life PAC spent $56,650 supporting candidates Crawford, Pike and Farr. The Realtors and RQL PAC provided support in the form of public endorsements, monetary contributions, and political advertising (mailers and a TV ad).
Investigation
Realtors Quality of Life PAC fails to itemize in-kind contribution expenditures totaling $46,650, benefitting three candidates, on the Schedule A to the C-4 Report (RCW 42.17.090 and WAC 390-16-037)
5. RQL PAC spent $46,650 on seven direct mail political advertising pieces supporting Crawford, Pike, and Farr. The support was an in-kind contribution to each candidate - $12,874 for Crawford, $19,038 for Pike, and $14,738 for Farr. The mailers were delivered to voters during the week of October 29 to November 2, 2007. Mr. Wahl and Ms. Whiting of the Realtors and the Realtors Quality of Life PAC, and Chad Minnick of Minnick & Minnick Consulting, all agreed that the expenditures were in-kind contributions to the candidates supported.
6. RQL PAC timely filed its 7-day pre-general election C-4 report on October 30, 2007, but did not identify, on the Schedule A to the C-4 report, the candidates supported by the political advertising. In addition, the filing did not provide the required itemization of costs attributable to each mailer as required by RCW 42.17.090 and WAC 390-16-037. RQL PAC amended its C-4 and Schedule A to provide the required itemization of expenditures 156 days late on April 3, 2008, well after the 2007 general election.
Realtors Quality of Life PAC makes contributions in excess of $5,000 to two candidates within 21 Days of 2007 General Election (RCW 42.17.105[8])
7. The last day for making unlimited contributions to local candidates for the 2007 General election was October 15, 2007. Beginning on October 16, monetary and in-kind contributions were limited to $5,000 in the aggregate for each candidate.
Report to Commission With Recommendation Realtors Quality of Life PAC, Case No. 08-103 & Dan Pike, Case No. 08-102
8. On October 15, 2007, the Realtors Quality of Life PAC began the process of notifying candidates Crawford, Pike and Farr of in-kind contributions totaling $46,650. On October 15, 2007, RQL PAC notified the Larry Farr campaign that they had made an in-kind contribution totaling $14,737 to the Farr campaign.
9. On October 16, 2007, the Realtors Quality of Life PAC notified the Crawford campaign that they had made an in-kind contribution totaling $12,875. On or after October 16, 2007, RQL PAC notified the Pike campaign that they had made an in-kind contribution totaling $19,038. Because RQL PAC did not notify candidates Crawford and Pike of the in-kind contributions until after October 15, 2007, the maximum allowable contribution to each candidate was $5,000. The two in-kind contributions to Crawford and Pike totaled $31,913, and exceeded the maximum contributions allowed by RCW 42.17.105(8) within 21 days of the 2007 general election by $21,913.
10. Shortly after October 16, 2007, the Washington Realtors and RQL PAC became aware that they had not timely notified candidates Crawford and Pike. Distribution of the mailers did not start until October 29 and was completed by November 2, 2007. However, the Realtors Quality of Life PAC did not cancel or reduce the size of the mailings to ensure that the value of the in-kind contributions to Crawford and Pike would be limited to $5,000 to each candidate.
Realtors Quality of Life PAC fails to file a C-6 Report of Independent Expenditures that supported a candidate for Whatcom County Council (RCW 42.17.103)
11. The Realtors Quality of Life PAC spent $10,000 for an independent expenditure television advertisement supporting Sam Crawford. RQL PAC first presented the TV ad to the public on October 31, 2007. RQL PAC timely reported the ad on its 7-day pre-general election C-4 report. However, the Schedule A to the C-4 report did not adequately describe the purpose of the committee’s expenditure. RQL PAC did not file the required special report (PDC form C-6) within 24 hours of presenting the advertising to the public as required by RCW 42.17.103. RQL PAC filed the C-6 report 154 days late on April 3, 2008, well after the 2007 general election.
Alleged failure of Dan Pike to report receipt of in-kind contribution from Realtors Quality of Life PAC (RCW 42.17.080 and .090)
12. Dan Pike did not report receiving an in-kind contribution from the Realtors Quality of Life PAC in the amount of $19,038. The Pike campaign said they believed the mailing to be an independent expenditure made by RQL PAC, and not an in-kind contribution.
13. During the campaign, Mr. Eskridge contacted Mr. Pike’s campaign manager and requested digital images. The campaign manager provided the images, and when additional, high resolution images were requested, the campaign manager delegated the duty to a campaign volunteer who provided the images to Mr. Eskridge. On or shortly after October 16, 2007, at the request of Ms. Whiting, Mr. Eskridge gave the Pike campaign copies of invoices from the consultant used by RQL PAC for the mailers, to enable the Pike campaign to report the cost of the mailings as an in-kind contribution.
14. The Pike campaign was unsure of the purpose of the invoices or how to report the
information, so Mr. Pike’s campaign manager contacted PDC staff. Based on the campaign manager’s description of the campaign’s contact with the Realtors and the consultant, PDC staff told the Pike campaign that the expenditure appeared to be an independent expenditure and might not be reportable by the Pike campaign. Based on this discussion with PDC staff, the Pike campaign did not report the expenditures as an in-kind contribution.
15. Mr. Pike stated that he did not personally provide information or have contact with anyone from the Realtors (at the local or state level) or with either of the vendors regarding the mailings sponsored by RQL PAC in support of his campaign. He stated that his campaign manager informed him that the Realtors had requested photos, as had many of his other supporters. He said that by itself, the Realtors’ request did not give him any information about the Realtors’ plan to support his campaign.
16. Mr. Pike and his campaign manager stated that the Realtor-sponsored mailers had no impact on the campaign’s mail plan. The campaign manager stated that the campaign’s advertising plan was already being executed when they learned that the Realtors were conducting mailings in support of the campaign.
Staff Recommendation
Realtors Quality of Life PAC (PDC Case No. 08-103) - Staff recommends that in accordance with RCW 42.17.360(5) and 42.17.395, the Commission report the following apparent violations of the Realtors Quality of Life PAC to the Attorney General’s Office:
ô€‚ƒ RCW 42.17.090 and WAC 390-16-037 – By failing to itemize in-kind contribution
expenditures totaling $46,650, benefitting Sam Crawford, Dan Pike, and Larry Farr, on the Schedule A to the 7-day pre-general election C-4 report.
􀂃 RCW 42.17.105(8) - By making in-kind contributions in excess of $5,000 to Sam
Crawford and Dan Pike within 21 days of the 2007 general election. The in-kind
contributions were $21,913 over the allowable limit.
ô€‚ƒ RCW 42.17.103 – By failing to timely file a C-6 report of independent expenditures for $10,000 that supported Sam Crawford, a candidate for Whatcom County Council.
Referral is appropriate because the remedies the Commission could impose statutorily are insufficient given the significance of the apparent violations.
Dan Pike (PDC Case No. 08-102) – Staff recommends that the Commission dismiss the allegations against Dan Pike. Dismissal is appropriate because the Pike campaign attempted to avoid coordinating its activities with the Realtors and RQL PAC and believed the expenditures to be independent expenditures. In addition, the Pike campaign did not report receipt of an in-kind contribution for the mailings based on advice it received from PDC staff.
Report of Investigation: http://www.pdc.wa.gov/archive/commissionmeetings/meetingshearings/pdfs/2008/08102.ROI.pdf
Report to Commission: http://www.pdc.wa.gov/archive/commissionmeetings/meetingshearings/pdfs/2008/08102.ROI.pdf
Friday, May 16, 2008
Washington State Public Disclosure Commission Status Report on Terry Bornemann and Dan Pike Complaints
Scheduled for Brief Enforcement Hearing:
Bornemann, Terrill - Case #08-086; Investigator Randy Unruh
Date Received: October 19, 2007
Date Started: October 26, 2007
Section of Law: RCW 42.17.080 and & .090
Status: Investigation Complete
Summary: A Complaint was received on October 19, 2007 from Elisabeth Britt. The complaint alleged that the Terrill Bornemann campaign failed to file timely and accurate reports of contribution and expenditure activities. Brief Hearing scheduled for May 23, 2008. Disposition: Pending.
Pike, Dan - Case #08-089; Investigator Randy Unruh
Date Received: October 25, 2007
Date Started: November 1, 2007
Section of Law: RCW 42.17.040; .080, .090 & .051
Status: Investigation Completed
Summary: A complaint was received on October 22, 2007 and supplemented on October 25, 2007 from Elisabeth Britt. The complaint alleges that Mr. Pike failed to make timely and accurate reports of contributions and expenditures. It also alleges that he registered as a candidate one month late, and that he failed to include sponsor identification on a postcard distributed at a Democratic Party function on December 8, 2006. Brief Hearing scheduled for May 23, 2008. Disposition: Pending.
Pike, Dan - Case#08-110; Investigator Tony Perkins
Date Received: March 5, 2008
Date Started: March 20, 2008
Section of Law: RCW 42.17.130
Status: Investigation Complete
Summary: A 45 day Citizen Action Letter was received by the Attorney General's Office on March 5, 2008 from Tim Paxton. The complaint alleges that the 2007 Dan Pike campaign misused public facilities by using Skagit Council of Government email account for sending and receiving campaign related emails and sending Skagit Council of Governments materials to the campaign email account, including payroll and budget materials; and the campaign failed to disclose campaign contributions from devleopers. Brief Hearing Scheduled for May 23, 2008.
Disposition: Pending
Realtor's Quality of Life PAC - Case # 08-103;
Investigator Kristen Murphy
Date Received: November 26, 2007
Date Started: December 14, 2007
Section of Law: RCW 42.17.080 & .090
Status: Investigation Complete
Summary: A complaint was initially received on November 16, 2007 and received with the required certification on November 26, 2007 by Todd Donovan. The complaint alleges the Realtors Quality of Life PAC failed to report in-kind contributions to the Dan Pike campaign after making in kind contributions in excess of $5,000 within 21 days of the general election to the Dan Pike campaign, or failed to timely file a special report of Independent Expenditures with a fair market value of $1,000 or more made within 21 days of the general election, and failed to include proper sponsor identification on Independent Expenditure political advertising. A report to the Commission scheduled for May 22, 2008.
Monday, May 12, 2008
The PDC also files complaints
Occasionally, members of the Public Disclosure Commission staff file complaints against candidates.
Here's one example from the PDC archives -
Memorandum
To: Philip E. Stutzman, Director of Compliance
From: Vicki Rippie, Executive Director
Date: October 27, 2006
Subject: Complaint Against Cherri Rose-Konschu Campaign
RCW 42.17.120 prohibits any contribution to be made, and any expenditure to be incurred, directly or indirectly, in a fictitious name, anonymously, or by one person through an agent, relative, or other person in such a manner as to conceal the identity of the source of the contribution or in any other manner so as to effect concealment.
Summary:
The Public Disclosure Commission is in receipt of information concerning possible campaign finance violations with regard to contributions received and reported by the 2006 Cheri-Rose Konschu campaign for Grays Harbor County Assessor. The information was received September 26, 2006, from H. Steward Menefee, Prosecuting Attorney for Grays Harbor County. The information indicates that the true source of two $1,000 contributions made to the Cheri Rose-Konschu campaign may have been concealed.
The Grays Harbor County Prosecuting Attorney became aware of the possible campaign finance violations while reviewing the results of an investigation by the Grays Harbor County Sheriff's office on a whistleblower complaint on a separate matter.
The information supplied by Mr. Menefee indicates that Claudie Kalles, Chief Deputy Assessor for Grays Harbor County and campaign manager for the Cherri-Rose Konschu campaign, and Ted May, an appraiser for the Grays Harbor County Assessor's office, may have been involved in concealing that Ted May made two $1,000 contributions to the Cherri Rose -Konschu campaign. The information indicates that Claudia Kalles and Ted May agreed to have the Cherri Rose -Konschu campaign list Ms. Kalles and Ken Kalles as contributing $1,000 each when the money was actually from Ted May.
A review of C-3 reports filed by Cherri Rose-Konschu campaign disclosed the following:
The Cherri Rose-Konschu campaign filed PDC form C-3 on July 17, 2006 disclosing that a $1,000 contribution has been received from Claudia Kalles on July 11, 2006.
The Cherri Rose-Konschu campaign filed a C-3 report on August 8, 2006 disclosing that a $1,000 contribution had been received from Ken Kalles on July 31, 2006.
Alleged Violations:
These facts indicate that the Cherri Rose-Konschu Campaign, including but not limited to its campaign manager, Claudia Kalles, and Ted May, a contributor to the campaign, may have violated RCW 42.17.120 by making and reporting campaign contributions in such a manner as to conceal the identity of the source of the contributions.
Based on this information, I am filing this complaint and directing staff to investigate whether individuals associated with the Cherri Rose-Konschu Campaign, including but not limited to its campaign manager, Claudia Kalles, and Ted May, a contributor to the campaign, violated chapter 42.17. RCW.
Here's one example from the PDC archives -
Memorandum
To: Philip E. Stutzman, Director of Compliance
From: Vicki Rippie, Executive Director
Date: October 27, 2006
Subject: Complaint Against Cherri Rose-Konschu Campaign
RCW 42.17.120 prohibits any contribution to be made, and any expenditure to be incurred, directly or indirectly, in a fictitious name, anonymously, or by one person through an agent, relative, or other person in such a manner as to conceal the identity of the source of the contribution or in any other manner so as to effect concealment.
Summary:
The Public Disclosure Commission is in receipt of information concerning possible campaign finance violations with regard to contributions received and reported by the 2006 Cheri-Rose Konschu campaign for Grays Harbor County Assessor. The information was received September 26, 2006, from H. Steward Menefee, Prosecuting Attorney for Grays Harbor County. The information indicates that the true source of two $1,000 contributions made to the Cheri Rose-Konschu campaign may have been concealed.
The Grays Harbor County Prosecuting Attorney became aware of the possible campaign finance violations while reviewing the results of an investigation by the Grays Harbor County Sheriff's office on a whistleblower complaint on a separate matter.
The information supplied by Mr. Menefee indicates that Claudie Kalles, Chief Deputy Assessor for Grays Harbor County and campaign manager for the Cherri-Rose Konschu campaign, and Ted May, an appraiser for the Grays Harbor County Assessor's office, may have been involved in concealing that Ted May made two $1,000 contributions to the Cherri Rose -Konschu campaign. The information indicates that Claudia Kalles and Ted May agreed to have the Cherri Rose -Konschu campaign list Ms. Kalles and Ken Kalles as contributing $1,000 each when the money was actually from Ted May.
A review of C-3 reports filed by Cherri Rose-Konschu campaign disclosed the following:
The Cherri Rose-Konschu campaign filed PDC form C-3 on July 17, 2006 disclosing that a $1,000 contribution has been received from Claudia Kalles on July 11, 2006.
The Cherri Rose-Konschu campaign filed a C-3 report on August 8, 2006 disclosing that a $1,000 contribution had been received from Ken Kalles on July 31, 2006.
Alleged Violations:
These facts indicate that the Cherri Rose-Konschu Campaign, including but not limited to its campaign manager, Claudia Kalles, and Ted May, a contributor to the campaign, may have violated RCW 42.17.120 by making and reporting campaign contributions in such a manner as to conceal the identity of the source of the contributions.
Based on this information, I am filing this complaint and directing staff to investigate whether individuals associated with the Cherri Rose-Konschu Campaign, including but not limited to its campaign manager, Claudia Kalles, and Ted May, a contributor to the campaign, violated chapter 42.17. RCW.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
PDC Complaints filed against Bellevue Community College and the University of Washington
From time to time, members of our community and the local media label individuals who file Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) Complaints as supporters of one candidate or another. But the practice of "applying labels" tends to distract the public's attention away from the purpose of a PDC complaint - which is - to enforce the campaign laws of this state.
The PDC reviews many different kinds of complaints from legislators, citizens and students each year. Some complaints are compaign-related, others are not.
For example, the law offices of Carney, Badley and Spellman in Seattle recently filed a complaint on behalf of five Bellevue Community College (BCC) students who were denied entry to a Maria Cantwell Campaign event held at BCC. And, State Representative Glenn Anderson recently filed a complaint against the University of Washington pursuant to RCW 42.17.190, which prohibits expenditure of public funds for lobbying, unless such lobbying is to provide information pertaining to official agency business or is advocating the official position of the agency.
Bellevue Community College
The complaint was filed pursuant to RCW 42.17.130, which prohibits "any employee" of any public office and "any person appointed to or employed by any public office" from authorizing the use of the facilities of a public office or agency directly or indirectly, for the purpose of assisting a campaign for election of any person to any office..." The PDC opened a formal investigation of the Complaint in January of 2008.
Background: On October 26, 2007, officials for Bellevue Community College allowed the Maria Cantwell for Senator Campaign to rent and use the College gymnasium for a rally in support of Senator Cantwell's campaign. Senator Obama appeared at the rally and spoke in support of Senator Cantwell's re-election.
Although the Cantwell campaign informed the college that all students would be welcome to attend the rally, five students were refused permission to enter because they were wearing T-shirts bearing the name of the Republican candidate for Senator.
Although college officials urged the Cantwell Campaign to allow the five students to attend, the Campaign staff people refused. College officials told the students they were powerless to do anything because the Cantwell Campaign had rented the facility. Thus, the administration contended that the Cantwell Campaign could exclude anyone they wanted to exclude.
Legal counsel for the five BBC students contends that it is illegal for the college to rent the gym to the Cantwell Campaign for the purpose of political activities, but the College disagrees.
The five students who were excluded from the event are seeking an enforcement action against the college and the officials responsible for renting the gym to the Cantwell Campaign.
This case raises some interesting questions about the use of publicly owned facilities for campaign related events. I'm sure the Port of Bellingham, the City of Bellingham and Whatcom Coummunity College will be watching this complaint with interest. If the PDC finds that Bellevue Community College violated 47.17.130, future rentals of publicly owned facilities could be limited to non-campaign related events.
Alleged Violation/Bellevue Community College: http://www.pdc.wa.gov/archive/compliance/complaints/pdf/2008/08-105.pdf
The University of Washington
Background: Washington State Representative Glenn Anderson recently filed a complaint against the University of Washington for an alleged violation of RCW 42.17.190, which prohbits the expenditure of public funds for lobbying unless such lobbying is to provide information pertaining to official agency business or is advocating the official position of the agency. The PDC opened a formal investigation in January of 2008.
Rep. Anderson alleges that the creation of a brochure called "Taking Measure: Does Modern Math Education Add Up?" by the College of Education of the University of Washingtion constitutes expenditure of public funds for lobbying and is neither official business of the University of Washington nor is it advocating an official position of the agency on a matter that affects it directly.
Rep. Anderson states that examples of bias and advocacy are present throughout the document and that it is a violation for the University to lobby the legislature to endorse one position. Second, he alleges that the document is not objective, unbiased research. In his opinion, the brochure advocates one position and suports a particular perspective in the teaching of mathematics, and, hence is lobbying legislators to support one set of mathmatics standards over another.
The PDC reviews many different kinds of complaints from legislators, citizens and students each year. Some complaints are compaign-related, others are not.
For example, the law offices of Carney, Badley and Spellman in Seattle recently filed a complaint on behalf of five Bellevue Community College (BCC) students who were denied entry to a Maria Cantwell Campaign event held at BCC. And, State Representative Glenn Anderson recently filed a complaint against the University of Washington pursuant to RCW 42.17.190, which prohibits expenditure of public funds for lobbying, unless such lobbying is to provide information pertaining to official agency business or is advocating the official position of the agency.
Bellevue Community College
The complaint was filed pursuant to RCW 42.17.130, which prohibits "any employee" of any public office and "any person appointed to or employed by any public office" from authorizing the use of the facilities of a public office or agency directly or indirectly, for the purpose of assisting a campaign for election of any person to any office..." The PDC opened a formal investigation of the Complaint in January of 2008.
Background: On October 26, 2007, officials for Bellevue Community College allowed the Maria Cantwell for Senator Campaign to rent and use the College gymnasium for a rally in support of Senator Cantwell's campaign. Senator Obama appeared at the rally and spoke in support of Senator Cantwell's re-election.
Although the Cantwell campaign informed the college that all students would be welcome to attend the rally, five students were refused permission to enter because they were wearing T-shirts bearing the name of the Republican candidate for Senator.
Although college officials urged the Cantwell Campaign to allow the five students to attend, the Campaign staff people refused. College officials told the students they were powerless to do anything because the Cantwell Campaign had rented the facility. Thus, the administration contended that the Cantwell Campaign could exclude anyone they wanted to exclude.
Legal counsel for the five BBC students contends that it is illegal for the college to rent the gym to the Cantwell Campaign for the purpose of political activities, but the College disagrees.
The five students who were excluded from the event are seeking an enforcement action against the college and the officials responsible for renting the gym to the Cantwell Campaign.
This case raises some interesting questions about the use of publicly owned facilities for campaign related events. I'm sure the Port of Bellingham, the City of Bellingham and Whatcom Coummunity College will be watching this complaint with interest. If the PDC finds that Bellevue Community College violated 47.17.130, future rentals of publicly owned facilities could be limited to non-campaign related events.
Alleged Violation/Bellevue Community College: http://www.pdc.wa.gov/archive/compliance/complaints/pdf/2008/08-105.pdf
The University of Washington
Background: Washington State Representative Glenn Anderson recently filed a complaint against the University of Washington for an alleged violation of RCW 42.17.190, which prohbits the expenditure of public funds for lobbying unless such lobbying is to provide information pertaining to official agency business or is advocating the official position of the agency. The PDC opened a formal investigation in January of 2008.
Rep. Anderson alleges that the creation of a brochure called "Taking Measure: Does Modern Math Education Add Up?" by the College of Education of the University of Washingtion constitutes expenditure of public funds for lobbying and is neither official business of the University of Washington nor is it advocating an official position of the agency on a matter that affects it directly.
Rep. Anderson states that examples of bias and advocacy are present throughout the document and that it is a violation for the University to lobby the legislature to endorse one position. Second, he alleges that the document is not objective, unbiased research. In his opinion, the brochure advocates one position and suports a particular perspective in the teaching of mathematics, and, hence is lobbying legislators to support one set of mathmatics standards over another.
"Are these trivial matters?" asks, Rep. Anderson. No, "These are pivotal education and public policy and political issues. They are also political issues being debated right now before the legislature."
Representative Anderson is the Ranking Minority Member of the House Higher Education Committee. He also sits on the K-12 Education Committee and the Appropriations Committee.
Alleged Violation/University of Washington: http://www.pdc.wa.gov/archive/compliance/complaints/pdf/2008/08-108.pdf
I hope you enjoyed taking a closer look at the diverse roles the PDC plays in regulating the activities of public agencies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)