Decision means groups can't hide behind ads

• Published September 20, 2007

In a recent decision, the state Supreme Court put an end to secretly funded political advertisements. The 7-2 decision is a victory for open and transparent campaigns in this state.

With their decision, the justices have said Washington residents have a right to know who is providing the funds to support or oppose individual candidates or ballot propositions.

Groups cannot claim that they are merely trying to "educate" voters when they cross the line into advocacy.

It's the right decision, and we especially like the strong statement offered by Justice Mary Fairhurst, who wrote the 35-page majority opinion. She said, "The people have declared that it is the policy of the state of Washington that groups who sponsor political advertising must disclose their identities, contributions and expenditures."

This case hinged on television advertisements that attacked Deborah Senn, candidate for attorney general, in 2004.

When the ads started airing, people wanted to know who had paid for them. The state Public Disclosure Commission weighed in, saying that the sponsor of the ads, Voters Education Committee, should be registered as a political education committee and disclose its donors. It turns out that the U.S. Chamber was one of the major donors.

The Voters Education Committee argued in court that it had free speech rights. Lawyers for the VEC said that the definition of a political education committee was unconstitutionally vague.

The Supreme Court rejected both arguments and sent the case back to King County, where Attorney General Rob McKenna can seek damages from VEC and the chamber if he so chooses.

Writing for her Supreme Court colleagues, Fairhurst said, "Contrary to VEC's assertions, these disclosure requirements do not restrict free speech — they merely ensure that the public receives accurate information about who is doing the speaking."

That's a great victory for citizens of this state. The public's right-to-know has been upheld by a strong majority of the state's highest court.

Senn, who ended up losing the general election to McKenna, said, "I think it's a very important victory for the people of this state, because democracy does not flourish in the dark or secret. It needs light. ... So this is a blow against secret, secretive, illegal campaigns."

In rejecting the VEC's claim that it wasn't a political committee, the Supreme Court cited the Fair Campaign Practices Act of 1992. It describes a political committee as "any person ... having the expectation of receiving contributions or making expenditures in support of, or opposition to, any candidate or ballot proposition."

King County Superior Court Judge Richard Jones earlier had ruled that the Voters Education Committee had moved beyond education and had crossed a legal line into the realm of campaigning for or against a candidate, which requires full disclosure.

It was pressure from the public that forced officials with the Voters Education Committee to disclose the fact that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was paying for the advertisements against Senn. Judge Jones handed the public a second victory saying campaign finance laws are going to be applied broadly. Now the state Supreme Court has upheld that ruling.

With the rulings, it's clear the public has a right to know who is paying to influence political campaigns.