Court of Appeals ruling means loophole for Big Labor, Big Business
The Washington State Court of Appeals ruled Friday that the Washington Education Association does not have to report its general fund political expenditures under requirements that govern political action committees (PAC).
The Appeals Court unanimously upheld a lower court ruling issued by Thurston County Superior Court Judge W. T. McPhee in 1999. In his decision, McPhee stated that “the amount spent [by an organization on politics] is meaningful only in relation to the total expenditures of the organization.”
WEA officials admitted in a 1999 trial that they had spent at least $700,000 from the union’s mandatory general fund to influence the outcome of the 1996 elections. McPhee ruled that the amount spent was not “meaningful” in relation to the WEA’s $20 million annual expenditures. The Appellate Court agreed.
The WEA’s unreported political spending amounted to more than the contributions of the state’s largest registered political action committee.
“This disappointing ruling is a green light for big special interests,” said Lynn Harsh, EFF’s executive director. “The court’s decision creates a huge loophole for big labor and big business to avoid public disclosure of political activities.”
Harsh went on to say that the court’s reasoning would allow a business the size of Boeing to pour $52 million into an election without reporting because that amount has the same significance to the company’s overall budget as WEA’s 1996 expenditures had to the union’s budget. Smaller organizations would be subject to reporting requirements for spending much less.
If ordered to report political expenditures as a PAC, WEA officials would also be bound by the law that requires them to get permission from members before using their money for political purposes.
“Allowing teachers to choose whether or not they support the union’s politics is the last thing WEA officials want to do since fewer than 13 percent will voluntarily contribute even one dollar a month to the union’s PAC,” said Harsh. “When given a choice, teachers say ‘No’ to supporting the political activity of the union.”
The foundation also points out that the Appeals Court ruling began by mistakenly stating that EFF had filed the two 1996 school choice initiatives defeated by the WEA. As a non-profit foundation, EFF does not file initiatives nor work for their passage or defeat.
“The real irony is that EFF is on the record for criticizing the language of both of those initiatives,” said Harsh.
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]?"