Judge tosses limit on late campaign contributions

OLYMPIA – State officials are mulling their next steps after a federal judge overturned a state law limiting campaign contributions in the final weeks of ballot measure campaigns.

If the ruling stands, money could flow even more freely to this year’s crop of voter initiatives. Six such measures are on the ballot – the second-most in state history – and state records show the campaigns have raised a combined $32.5 million, with about $10.1 million spent so far.

The law bans contributions larger than $5,000 in the final three weeks of an initiative or referendum campaign. Family PAC, a …

OLYMPIA – State officials are mulling their next steps after a federal judge overturned a state law limiting campaign contributions in the final weeks of ballot measure campaigns.

If the ruling stands, money could flow even more freely to this year’s crop of voter initiatives. Six such measures are on the ballot – the second-most in state history – and state records show the campaigns have raised a combined $32.5 million, with about $10.1 million spent so far.

The law bans contributions larger than $5,000 in the final three weeks of an initiative or referendum campaign. Family PAC, a political group involved in the 2009 referendum on expanded domestic partnerships, sued the state last year challenging the contribution limit.

In a ruling last week, U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton agreed with Family PAC that the limit was an unconstitutional infringement on political speech. But Leighton kept in place a requirement to identify donors who contribute more than $25, turning aside Family PAC’s argument that such publicity might improperly dissuade people from giving to campaigns.

James Bopp Jr., who represented Family PAC, said the spending limit violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech and political association.

“That includes the freedom to make contributions in support of political causes they want to advance,” Bopp said Tuesday. “Now the people of Washington will be able to do what the First Amendment allows and protects.”