Subscribe in a reader

ISSAQUAH LAW GROUP

Issaquah Law Group: Experienced Counsel; Client Focus

PHILOSOPHY: Formed in 2014, Issaquah Law Group is a law firm with one focus: providing businesses and insurers with high quality legal representation with the responsiveness of a smaller firm. ILG was founded on the principle that strong client relationships are the key to successful legal representation and strong relationships are built upon clear and consistent communication. 

LITIGATION: We work closely with our clients to fully and accurately understand their goals, work collaboratively to formulate specific legal strategies, and execute the agreed plan of action utilizing methods most likely to result in the efficient and effective resolution of the matter. ILG attorneys have a broad base of litigation experience to draw on in all Federal and State courts from on-the-ground investigations to Supreme Court appeals in the areas of personal injury and wrongful death, product liability, commercial general liability, labor & employment, construction litigation, and catastrophic losses due to fire and explosion.

BUSINESS LAW: Rarely is the path from point A to point B a straight line, so our role in a business law practice is to find alternatives, devise workable strategies, and keep your business ideas, goals and objectives moving toward realization. ILG’s business attorneys help clients achieve their goals with respect to business formation, intellectual property, labor and employment, CAN-SPAM, copyright and trademark

COMMUNITY: In addition, the Lawyers at Issaquah Law Group remain active in the legal and civic community. A core commitment of our Issaquah Attorneys is community service. Our attorneys' civic involvement includes the King County Civil Rights Commission; the City of Issaquah Planning Policy Commission; the Northwest Screenwriters Guild, service as a pro tem judge. We live and work in the Pacific Northwest, and we aim to make it a better place.

In addition, through The Amateur Law Professor Blog and LinkedIn postings, we share pertinent opinions and decisions of the Washington State Supreme Court, as well as the pertinent opinions and decisions of the Washington State Courts of Appeal so that our clients can be as update to date on cutting legal issues as we are.

WA Supreme Court: Second Wind for BIAW Campaign Finance Suit

Utter v. Building Industry Association of Washington

You know things are bad when you have two former Washington Supreme Court Justices suing you. Justices Utter and Ireland, both retired, sued the BIAW for violations of the fair campaign practices act. The trial court granted summary judgment on the matter.

I will point out that Justice Utter, unfortunately, did not live to see the fruits of this lawsuit, as he passed away in October of 2014. Justice Utter resigned from the Court in protest of the handling of a death penalty case. He was a man of conviction and an advocate for justice.

Here, the retired justices alleged BIAW failed to register as a political committee during the ’07-’08 campaign season. The case was tossed initially by the trial court. The court of appeals said that, while there may be an issue as to the violation (that BIAW was actually a political committee), that the retired justices was procedurally barred by the citizen suit provision. 

So, first a little background on BIAW. They first came to my attention during the campaign of Chief Justice Gerry Alexander in 2006. BIAW spent roughly a $1,000,000 trying to unseat Chief Justice Alexander (ret.) in the primary, and pitted a BIAW crony (John Groen) against the Justice. They paid for ads claiming he was old. They paid for ads stating that an opinion reversing a conviction for a child molester, claiming that the opinion meant Alexander supported child molesters. They paid for ads claiming that because he said he supported Justice Bobbi Bridge personally as she went through a tough time with a drunk driving charge and her retirement from the Court that it meant he supported drunk driving.

It was the campaign that started the long-hard look as to whether Washington should have election of judges or an appointment-retention system. One need only look to how money influences judicial rulings in other states to know where I stand on this issue.

But back to BIAW and the 07-08 campaign. They contributed more than $7,000,000 in ads supporting Dino Rossi for governor against Christine Gregoire. The Justices found evidence of $3,500,000 in illegal funding and concealing donations, largely through funneling pooled refunds from the workers’ compensation system into the campaign.

Here, the citizen suit provision can only be had if the Attorney General is notified and declines the case. Here, the AG was notified, and then turned it over to the PDC. The question then becomes whether this turning it over is an action, or a nonfiction. Here, action means more than just doing something. The AG has to commence an action within 45 days of being notified. The Court of Appeals determined action meant any action. The Supreme Court instead held that action meant filing a lawsuit. The court of appeals strained interpretation would have meant that if the AG investigated a claim, the party could never sue, and would lead to absurd results, as the AG always investigates claims before it decides whether to sue or not.

That part satisfied, the Court agreed there was enough evidence to go forward on the claim, which hinges on whether they are a political committee. Here, a political committee is someone (or an entity) “having the expectation of receiving contributions or making expenditures in support of, or opposition to, any candidate or any ballot provision.” Here, BIAW expected to receive or give contributions. Their own resolution in support of Dino Rossi stated they were committing 100% of excess pooled dollars to the gubernatorial election, and the members of the organization pledged their monies to BIAW of that effort. BIAW made disclosures to the PDC that it was in fact giving funds, and it also gave funds to BIAW-MSC, which were to be expended on the campaign.

The plaintiffs' evidence that BIAW, not BIAW-MSC, solicited pledges from its local associations, and that those local associations pledged “to BIAW," not BIAW-MSC or ChangePAC, raises a question of fact as to whether BIAW had an expectation of making political expenditures, regardless of who actually ended up expending the funds.

For those who deal with this stuff regularly, I will note that Washington adopted the Primary Purpose test for expenditures, and of course here held the test was an issue of fact for trial.

The litigation attorneys at Issaquah Legal Services are well-versed in all aspects of litigation and appeals. If you are in need of a lawyer in Issaquah or on the Greater Eastside, please call us.

Subscribe in a reader

Copyright 2014-2018 by Issaquah Law Group, PLLC. Powered by Squarespace. Background image by jakeliefer.