Washington Federation of State Employees fined $20,000
Permitted to continue $1.65 per month political assessment of all members
The Washington State Public Disclosure Commission levied $20,000 in fines against the Washington Federation of State Employees on Thursday for inaccurate reporting of political contributions.
The fine stems from grossly inaccurate reporting of the political committee, including $128,809 worth of PAC expenditures which were not reported to the PDC in 1997. In issuing its fine, the Commission declined to require the union to correct the erroneous reports, except for those of the past ten months.
The Commission also declined to find that the union violated state paycheck-protection law by assessing each member a $1.65 per month deduction paid to the political action committee.
Although a PDC staff investigation found that WFSE takes a mandatory $1.65 a month deduction for the union’s political action committee from each of its 19,000 members, the commissioners refused to halt the practice. Commissioners dismissed a formal complaint that WFSE members had not consented to the mandatory deduction as required by RCW 42.17.680 (3), stating that the law does not apply to unions.
The union had fought the paycheck protection statute at the polls where it passed in 1992, and in court in 1995. The Supreme Court ruled that the new law would not allow a deduction to political action committees. (Washington Federation of State Employees vs. State of Washington).
"The state’s largest PAC is funded by this hidden, mandatory assessment and the PDC has just given its blessing," said Jami Lund, director of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation’s Paycheck Protection Project. "If this PAC does not need to get permission, who does?"
RCW 42.17.680 Limitations on employers or labor organizations.
(paycheck protection statute)
(3) No employer or other person or entity responsible for the disbursement of funds in payment of wages or salaries may withhold or divert a portion of an employee's wages or salaries for contributions to political committees or for use as political contributions except upon the written request of the employee.
At a March 23, 2005, House Appropriations hearing on a bill to gut the voter-approved I-601 spending limit, Rep. Jim McIntire (D) asked a supporter of I-601’s two-third supermajority requirement for the legislature to raise taxes the following question:
"Can you name a time when we [legislators] have actually not just set it [supermajority requirement] aside by majority vote? I mean, this is in many respects a procedural motion that has no bearing. It’s a statutory constraint that cannot constrain any legislature that chooses as a majority to set it aside . . . have we ever used a supermajority [to raise taxes]?"