The Pierce County Superior Court invalidated a Washington campaign finance law requiring free legal advice given to a recall campaign to be treated as a reportable campaign contribution. Judge Katherine Stolz reasoned pro bono representation in civil rights cases would be threatened if such representation must be reported as a campaign contribution and therefore subject to applicable state political contribution limits.

As a result of the ruling, the Public Disclosure Commission cannot cap legal services to political committees in a federal civil rights case, nor can it compel political committees to report free legal services as campaign contributions.

A new ethics bill scheduled to be proposed in the Washington Legislature would impose a revolving door ban on state legislators, statewide elected officials, and directors of cabinet-level agencies.

The proposal was developed by Attorney General Bob Ferguson and Rep. Reuven Carlyle, D-Seattle.

The bill would impose a “cooling off” period, where said officials could not lobby state government for one year after leaving office.

Photo of the Washington State Capitol by Nicopoley on Wikimedia Commons.

A special election has been scheduled for April 28, 2015, to fill vacant council seats in Wards 4 and 8. Several prospective candidates for the Ward 8 seat have already obtained nominating petitions, and several other candidates are expected to enter the race before the petition filing deadline on January 28, 2015.

The Ward 8 seat was held by long-time District politician Marion Barry, who recently passed away. The Ward 4 seat was held by Muriel Bowser, who is the mayor-elect.

The Washington Legislative Ethics Board held a board meeting on October 14, 2014 to finalize rules defining “infrequent occasions” in the context of free meals accepted by state legislators. Section 42.52.150(5) of the Revised Code of Washington allows public officials to accept gifts in the form of food and beverage on infrequent occasions so long as attendance at such a meal is related to the performance of official duties. The Board voted unanimously to define infrequent occasions as up to 12 meals total per calendar year.

The scope of the rule is limited to food and beverage paid for by a registered lobbyist or lobbyist employer. A qualifying meal under the rule is breakfast, lunch, or dinner, regardless of cost, when the guest would normally be expected to sit down and eat, such as in a restaurant or private residence.

The Board was careful to maintain the exceptions in the Ethics Act permitting public officials to accept complimentary food and beverages at hosted receptions and in other limited circumstances.

This rule takes effect January 1, 2015.

The Washington Legislative Ethics Board has come to a preliminary conclusion as to how to define “infrequent occasions” as it relates to free meals accepted by the state’s legislators. Section 42.52.420 of the Revised Code of Washington allows public officials to accept gifts in the form of food and beverage on infrequent occasions so long as attendance at such a meal is related to the performance of official duties.

When the Legislature failed to pass any pertinent legislation defining infrequent occasions before its adjournment on March 13, 2014, the Legislative Ethics Board took up the issue. During its August 19, 2014, meeting, the board decided in a 5-3 vote to define infrequent occasions as 12 free meals per year. Under the proposed rule, a qualifying meal occurs when the guest would normally be expected to sit down and eat, such as in a restaurant or a private residence, as opposed to a legislative reception.

Other provisions of the rule, including a reporting requirement for legislators accepting free meals, are still under discussion. A final vote on the rule is scheduled for October 21, 2014.

Section 42.52.420 of the Revised Code of Washington allows public officials to accept gifts in the form of food and beverage on infrequent occasions. In recent months, “infrequent occasions” has come under scrutiny after a widely-read report showed the state’s 50 most active lobbyists treated legislators to meals totaling more than $65,000 over a four-month period.

After the Legislature failed to pass any pertinent legislation before its adjournment on March 13, 2014, the Legislative Ethics Board took up the issue. The board held a meeting on June 17, 2014, to review proposals received from the public related to how to define infrequent occasions.

All of the proposals considered by the board would require legislators to file a report upon receiving a free meal. Stricter proposals set the dollar amount threshold for reporting the meal at $5 and the amount of free meals per year at three to five. Others set the threshold at $25 and allow 52 free meals per year. One especially ambitious proposal would require a reduction in a legislator’s per diem allowance for every free meal he or she accepts.

The board will continue to take public comment on the issue and will reconvene on August 19, 2014, to further consider public proposals.

Despite highly publicized criticism of a Washington law allowing legislators to accept meals from lobbyists on “infrequent occasions”, the Washington State Legislature failed to pass any bills addressing the ambiguity before its adjournment in March. Senate Bill 6414 contained a provision requiring the Legislative Ethics Board to define “infrequent occasions” and further required the development of an electronic reporting system enabling lobbyist reports to be searched electronically by the public.

This bill and others did not make it out of committee before the legislature adjourned and will not carryover to the next session. As a result of the legislature’s failure to pass any pertinent legislation, the Legislative Ethics Board has independently taken on the task of defining “infrequent occasions”.

The Board will hold a public meeting Tuesday, April 15 at 12 p.m. in Hearing Room 3 of the John A. Cherberg Building, 298 15th Avenue SW, Olympia, Washington. Board Chair Kristine Hoover set the meeting to listen and gather information from the public and to get public feedback on what the word “infrequent” should mean.

Whether Washington, D.C. voters will have the chance to elect an attorney general this year remains a hot topic on the D.C. Council floor. Currently, the attorney general is appointed by the mayor. In 2010, voters approved a charter amendment authorizing the first election of the city’s attorney general and setting a primary election for April of this year.

In late 2013, the council passed a law delaying the election from 2014 to 2018, fearing the city lacked the necessary preparation. Paul Zukerberg, the only candidate for the city’s first attorney general race, challenged the 2013 law in the District of Columbia Superior Court. Judge Laura Cordero denied Zukerberg’s motion for a preliminary injunction, stating that he would not suffer irreparable harm from the delay and therefore did not meet the standard to grant the injunction.

Upon the judge’s ruling, the council acted quickly to introduce a bill scheduling an election for attorney general in November 2014. The bill has sparked heated debate, both on the floor of the council and with current Attorney General Irvin Nathan. Nathan criticized the bill, stating it does not comport with the city charter. The bill would put the attorney general office on the November ballot without allowing for a primary election, thus circumventing the requirement of an election on a partisan basis as required by the 2010 charter amendment.

If the new bill passes the council, the possibility of a mayoral veto is likely, based on Nathan’s opposition to the measure. However, Council Chairman Phil Mendelson still plans to move the bill to passage, likely bringing it to a final vote in the next month.

Senate Bill 6414, introduced this week by a group of Washington senators led by Senator Joe Fain, requires all reports to be filed electronically. The bill contains several other strictures, including requiring the Public Disclosure Commission to make all filings available on its website, mandating each lobbyist or lobbyist’s employer sharing in an expenditure greater than $25 to report the specific dollar amount of his or her share, and requiring all lobbyist filings to include an itemized list of all payments made to a state official, regardless of dollar amount.

Another section of the bill implores the Ethics Board to define the limits of “infrequent occasions” in the context of the acceptance of gifts of food and beverages by public officials from lobbyists. This section of the bill comes after a widely-read report showing the state’s 50 most active lobbyists pampered legislators with meals totaling more than $65,000 over a four-month period.

A final section of the bill allows lobbyists to avoid reporting expenses for a legislator’s food at a meeting with the lobbyist if such expenses were paid by the legislator.

Photo of the interior of the Washington State Capitol courtesy of Eric Hunt on Wikimedia Commons.

Senate Bill 5988, introduced January 13, 2014, would prohibit state officials from soliciting or accepting political contributions in odd-numbered years when the legislature is out of session but has not adopted or submitted to the governor a biennial operating appropriations act.

The bill would further prohibit the governor or any person employed by the governor from soliciting or accepting contributions during the period provided for the consideration of bills under the Washington constitution.

Photo of the Washington State Senate Chamber courtesy of Lincolnite on Wikimedia Commons.

Phil Mendelson, the chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, introduced a bill that would bar people who made political contributions from obtaining contracts or doing other business with the city.

Mendelson said the motivation behind his bill was to end the perception of pay-to-play in Washington, D.C.

The Legislative Ethics Board in Washington dismissed a complaint related to Washington state lawmakers accepting free meals from lobbyists. Washington law prohibits public officials from accepting free meals on more than “infrequent occasions.” However, there is no enforceable standard for “infrequent occasions.”

The complaint was prompted by a reported $65,000 being spent on free meals by the state’s most active lobbyists in the first four months of 2013.

The Ethics Board is turning to the Legislature for an enforceable standard for the ethics law. If the Legislature fails to do so in the upcoming session beginning in January, the board plans to establish its own rules.

The board also noted in its decision the lack of an enforceable standard affects the consistency of lobbyist reports in terms of what is being reported.

Photo of the Washington State Capitol by Nikopoley on Wikimedia Commons.

Although Initiative 522 was ultimately defeated in an election several weeks ago, State Attorney General Bob Ferguson is moving forward with a lawsuit against the Grocery Manufacturers Association, alleging the group broke state campaign finance laws in its effort to defeat Initiative 522.

Under Washington campaign finance law, an outside group like the GMA must form a political committee, register it in the state of Washington, and file disclosure forms listing the sources of its funding.

Ferguson alleges GMA failed to timely do so and as a result, robbed Washington voters of “transparency and openness in elections”.

The case will not go to trial until early next year.

The topic of a living wage in Washington, D.C. has been revived in the City Council.

A new proposal would increase the DC minimum wage to $11.50 per hour by 2016, making the wage one of the highest in the country.

The Council could vote on the measure as early as December.