Oosterman, Linda: Alleged violations of RCW 42.17A.330, .240 & .555 for failure use a recent photo in political advertising, report in-kind contribution; and by using public facilities to assist an election campaign. (Mar 2019)
Oosterman, Linda: Alleged violations of RCW 42.17A.330, .240 & .555 for failure use a recent photo in political advertising, report in-kind contribution; and by using public facilities to assist an election campaign. (Mar 2019)
Case
#48963
Respondent
Linda Oosterman
Complainant
Andrew Saturn
Description
This case alleged violations of RCW 42.17A.330, .240 & .555 1) for failure to use at least one photo, taken within the last 5 years, in all political advertising (e.g. 2012 photo used for profile image on campaign Facebook page), 2) failure to report use of the photograph as an in-kind contribution to the current campaign; and 3) by using public facilities (e.g. an agency photo) to assist an election campaign. PDC staff reviewed the allegations, applicable statutes, rules, and reporting requirements, the response provided by the Respondent, and the applicable PDC reports filed by the Respondent to determine if they support a finding of one or more violations. Staff’s review found the following:
The Respondent is an elected Commissioner for the Thurston County Public Utility District (PUD) and was a candidate for this office & jurisdiction during election year 2018. As a result, the Respondent is subject to RCW 42.17A.330 and .240, which require 1) at least one photograph used in any political advertising to have been taken within the last five years; and 2) the monetary value of any contributions to be reported. The Respondent is also subject to .555, which prohibits elected officials from using a public office or agency facilities to assist an election campaign.
The evidence provided by the Complainant included four photos that appeared on the Respondent's campaign Facebook account and a 2012 photo that appears on the PUD's official website, the website of the non-profit organization Pro Truth Pledge, and was published in a county voter's pamphlet. Of the photographic evidence provided, only the Facebook photo(s) appear to constitute political advertising.
The photos used on the Respondent's campaign Facebook page were taken in 2017 & 2018 by volunteer supporters, who are not professional photographers, using cell phones; the photos were provided to the Respondent at no cost. Subsequently, the photos comply with the age requirements of .330. Per WAC 390-17-405, photos taken by unpaid persons who do not normally charge a fee are "volunteer services" that do not need to be reported as contributions. The value of the photos themselves appear to be de minimis in nature.
The 2012 photo was taken by Vento Photography and the expenditure was reported by the Respondent to the PDC in April, 2012; this professional photo was gifted by the Respondent to the PUD in 2013, was not used for campaign purposes, and need not be reported as an in-kind contribution to the Respondent under .240. Pro Truth Pledge obtained the 2012 photo from another source & re-posted it without the Respondent's knowledge. The evidence provided by the Complainant was insufficient to demonstrate the 2012 photo was used for political advertising during the Respondent's 2018 election campaign. Furthermore, the professional photo paid for by the Respondent in 2012 was not produced by a public office or agency and therefore does not constitute use of public facilities under .555.
To subscribe to this case, enter your email address in the form below and click "Send confirmation link" button.
You will be sent a secure link via email that will confirm your subscription.
An email containing a link to confirm your subscription to this case has been sent to {{
email }}.
If you do not receive an email within a few minutes, please check your junk mail or mail
filters.