.png)
Let’s Go Washington fended off allegations last week that it violated state campaign finance laws by failing to disclose details on how it financed gathering of signatures for six statewide initiatives, including three in front of Washington voters next month.
The state Public Disclosure Commission conducted a three-hour hearing into charges that the political committee did not “timely and accurately” report expenditures for each ballot measure and failed to obtain and disclose information from signature-gathering firms on subcontractors they paid.
And the committee is also accused of “failing to timely produce campaign records” requested by commission staff. A subpoena issued in July led to Let’s Go Washington producing 9,000 pages of materials for the compliance officer of the watchdog agency.
Commissioners, after meeting briefly in closed session on Thursday, exited without ruling.
“In less than one week we will be issuing a written opinion,” commission Allen Hayward announced before adjourning the special meeting.
Let’s Go Washington could be fined up to $10,000 per violation.
Callie Castillo, attorney for the political committee founded by hedge fund millionaire Brian Heywood, argued charges should be dismissed. “Every single dollar spent on initiatives by every single firm,” was timely disclosed, she told the commission in her closing statement.
Though the political committee complied with myriad requests, including amending reports, commission staff, Castillo said, “is trying to punish Let’s Go Washington for doing exactly what they were told to do. That is not fair. That is not what the law requires.”
Assistant Attorney General Chad Standifer, who represents agency staff, said because details on spending did not emerge until after the initiatives were certified it deprived the public of critical information. “A voter reviewing the committee’s reports would have no way of knowing what initiative a particular expenditure supported,” he said in his closing argument.
This dispute is rooted in Let’s Go Washington’s success last year in gathering hundreds of thousands of signatures of registered voters for six initiatives to the Legislature. Lawmakers adopted three – dealing with guidelines for police pursuits, parental rights and taxes.
Voters on Nov. 5 will decide the fate of three others that seek to repeal the capital gains tax and the cap-and-trade system and make the state’s new long-term care program voluntary.
A coalition of progressive groups opposed to the ballot measures known as Defend Washington filed a complaint in July 2023 alleging Let’s Go Washington failed to disclose details about the flow of money in and out of the committee coffers for each of the six initiatives.
Among their allegations is that by using Heywood’s “deep pockets” as its near exclusive source of cash, the committee circumvented the need for filing regular reports of contributions.
Lawyers representing SEIU 775, Washington Conservation Action, Planned Parenthood and Civic Ventures have been arguing for action by the commission before the election. In July, they pressed commissioners to refer the case to Washington’s attorney general but were rebuffed in part because the staff had not finished its investigation.
Public Disclosure Commission on Sept. 9. That set the stage for Thursday’s hearing on how Let’s Go Washington tracked spending on the six measures in 2023.
Reports originally filed by the political committee treated signature-gathering for all six measures as a single undertaking, lumping together what was raised and spent. Earlier this year, at the commission staff’s behest, the committee amended nearly two dozen reports with specifics on amounts raised and spent for each individual initiative. Most 2023 expenses were simply divided six ways.
The charge that drew the most attention Thursday involved Let’s Go Washington’s dealings with four signature-gathering firms that collectively earned nearly $10 million: Your Choice Petitions, Allstate Petition Management, Collective Voice Solutions and TDM Strategies.
Standifer, in painstaking fashion, went through the political committee’s efforts to collect information from each one concerning payments to subcontractors as required by state law.
Phil Stutzman, veteran compliance officer for the commission, said those firms did not cooperate with the investigation. But, in testimony, he said the executive of Your Choice Petitions acknowledged in a phone conversation to using subvendors. And Stutzman said an email from another firm’s leader seemed to imply they did too.
