Skepticseye.com

Kings County, Washington, Superior Court has concluded in this decision (transcript in pdf) that express advocacy does not control whether placing an advertisement critical of an officeholder (who was also a candidate) makes the advertiser a political committee subject to reporting requirements.

The Campaign Legal Center is pleased, see here. They note that the trial court concluded that under the Supreme Court’s McConnell v. FEC decision, the express advocacy standard no longer controlled what messages could constitutionally be regulated as a political expenditure.

To be fair, if you read the linked transcription, the trial court also concluded that, even were that wrong (and I think it is), the advertisements amounted to “express advocacy” under controlling state precedent.

What was the substance of the advertisement? That the candidate, involved in a matter the group didn’t like, “tried to cover up the deal from the legislature.” Says the court (on p. 6): “It is clear to this court that an assertion that a public official was involved in a cover-up is not a discussion of issues; it is a clear attack on the character of the candidate.” So, listen up, boys and girls, potential investigative reporters, and people of Washington State - impinge the character of an officeholder and be subject to the restrictions and reporting requirements of campaign finance law.

Does it seem like Washington State is a bad place to talk politics these days?