Ruling limits union contributions

SEATTLE — The state Supreme Court struck down a 10-year-old campaign finance rule on Thursday in a decision that will sharply limit unions’ ability to contribute money to political candidates.

“It is a dramatic change,” said Doug Ellis, spokesman for the state’s Public Disclosure Commission, which oversees campaign finance.

The ruling won’t influence the Nov. 2 election, because it doesn’t take effect immediately. The losing side, in this case the state, has 20 days to ask the Supreme Court to reconsider.

But the ruling will affect future campaigns. Under the old rules, local units of national and state groups — such as unions and trade associations — could each give the maximum amount to a political candidate, as long as their parent organizations didn’t get involved.

For example, three locals of the International Union of Operating Engineers — in Richland, Bothell and Tacoma — each contributed the maximum amount, $1,350, to Democrat Christine Gregoire’s general election campaign for governor this year.

Those donations were legal under the PDC’s old rule, but in the future, contributions from locals of the same union will be counted together toward the maximum amount.

The ruling also applies to business groups such as the Building Industry Association and the Realtors association, which have local units that often donate separately to campaigns. But unions will feel the biggest impact by far.

“This ruling is going to make it even harder for organizations supporting working families to have a political voice,” said David Groves, spokesman for the Washington State Labor Council.

“Already unions are outspent by business,” he said. “They already have the money advantage, and this decision will give them a bigger advantage.”

Bob Edelman, a retired Boeing engineer who filed the lawsuit against the PDC, said he just didn’t think the agency’s rule was right.

“The large organizations have been getting around it with this loophole,” Edelman said. The court’s ruling, he said, “will bring us back to a more level playing field.”

If union locals cannot contribute independently to candidates, Groves predicted more union money may funnel to independent expenditure campaigns.

“I’ll leave it up to people to decide if they think that is a good thing,” Groves said.

The Supreme Court’s ruling comes from campaign finance rules established when voters approved Initiative 134 in 1992, with the goal of limiting the influence of big-money campaign donors.

The PDC determined that the law was ambiguous on the question of contributions from local units, and wrote the rule to clarify it. The high court ruled the law is clear: If one local unit contributes the maximum amount to a candidate, other local units of the same group can’t contribute more.

“We will not strain to find ambiguity where the language of the statute is clear,” Justice Charles Johnson wrote for the 6-3 majority.

State Republican Party Chairman Chris Vance called on the PDC to enforce the Supreme Court’s ruling immediately and retroactively.

He said candidates who accepted the maximum donation from multiple locals of one union should be forced to return those contributions.

However, Vance conceded that turn of events would be highly unlikely.

The case is Robert Edelman v. State of Washington, No. 74152-2.