EFF's Election Report ·
Gonzales Letter ·
Welfare Reform ·
Boeing Contract ·
Budget & Taxes ·
Business Climate ·
K-12 Fact Sheet ·
EFF Health Study ·
Paycheck Protection ·
Transportation ·
Unemployment Ins. ·
Receive Updates ·
Bookmark EFF ·
Contribute ·
EFF in the News ·
How Can I Help? ·
Join EFF ·
Media Center ·
|
NEWS ADVISORY March 15, 2005 Campaign finance striker amendment removes disclosure requirements OLYMPIA—Sen. Jim Kastama (D-Puyallup) has introduced a new campaign finance bill (SB 5034) that would eliminate disclosure requirements for employers and unions that divert employee contributions to political committees. Under current law, employees may authorize their employer to withhold or divert a portion of the employee’s salary to the union’s political action committee. Employers are required to keep the authorization form on file and available to the public for three years. Section 12 of Sen. Kastama’s “striker” amendment eliminates RCW 42.17.680(4), which requires employers to maintain record of the employee’s authorization. Senator Pam Roach (R-Auburn) introduced a separate amendment that would reinstate the requirement to keep records of these contributions. “Employee authorization forms are an accountability mechanism to ensure that unions do not use member dues for political purposes without the member’s permission,” said Michael Reitz, project director and legal analyst for the Evergreen Freedom Foundation. “Additionally, Washington’s Public Disclosure Act calls for full and open disclosure of the source of political contributions. The senate's action on these two amendments will demonstrate its commitment to, or disregard for, transparency in our election system.” Additional Information Contact: Michael Reitz | Project Director & Legal Analyst | 360.956.3482
|
1 Part Honesty; 2 Parts Arrogance 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]?" - Rep. Jim McIntire (D - 46) Despite the arrogance of some state officials, Washington's constitution is clear: "All political power is inherent in the people..." |
