Description
The Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) has completed its review of the complaint filed by Andrew Saturn on April 23, 2019. The complaint alleged that Linda Oosterman, a 2018 candidate for Public Utility Commissioner for Thurston County, may have violated RCW 42.17A.205 for failure to report Paul Berendt as a committee officer; RCW 42.17A.235, .240, .310, and WAC 390-05-210 for failure to accurately and timely report in-kind contributions from expenditures coordinated with Up for Thurston County (Sponsored by Puget Sound Energy); RCW 42.17A.265 for failure to timely report last minute in-kind contributions from coordinated expenditures with Up for Thurston County (Sponsored by Puget Sound Energy) within 48 hours of receipt; and RCW 42.17A.270 for failure to timely and accurately report contributions made by Puget Sound Energy to Up for Thurston County (Sponsored by Puget Sound Energy), allegedly earmarked for coordinated expenditures with Linda Oosterman; and RCW 42.17A.420 for accepting contributions from coordinated expenditures made by Up for Thurston County exceeding $5,000 within 21 days of the general election.
PDC staff reviewed the allegations; the applicable statutes, rules, and reporting requirements; the responses provided by the Re-Elect Linda Oosterman Campaign (Campaign); the minutes from the Thurston County Democratic Party Endorsement Meeting; the applicable PDC reports filed by the Campaign and Up for Thurston County (Sponsored by Puget Sound Energy); and queried the Campaign and Up for Thurston County (Sponsored by Puget Sound Energy)’s data in the PDC contribution and expenditure database, to determine whether the record supports a finding of one or more violations.
The complaint alleged the Committee failed to disclose Paul Berendt as a Committee officer based on: (1) a letter Paul Berendt allegedly distributed at a meeting of the Thurston County Democratic Party in coordination with the Oosterman Campaign; and (2) a $16.39 in-kind contribution made from Paul Berendt to the Committee for a high-resolution copy of a photograph of Linda Oosterman was taken from a photo-sharing website and used to facilitate the electioneering communication mailer.
The evidence provided, which staff reviewed, does not support a finding that Paul Berendt served as an officer for the Oosterman Campaign in the capacity to “make, direct, or authorize contributions, expenditure, strategic or policy decisions on behalf of the committee.”
The complaint alleged that the electioneering communication sponsored and mailed by the Committee totaling $9,952 in support of Linda Oosterman, was made in cooperation and coordination with the Campaign, and should have been reported as an in-kind contribution in accordance with RCW 42.17A.240 and WAC 390-05-210, based on the same facts concerning officer status as noted in the letters dismissing this case. In addition, the complaint alleged that the factors listed in WAC 390-05-210 of presumptive coordination were met by the ‘Dear Friends’ letter, and the quality of a photograph used on a mailer printed by Capitol City Press, stating “[g]eneral members of the public would have no way to know about this letter or receive a copy unless they were working in close coordination with the Linda Oosterman campaign as a member of the executive committee” citing an email from the Campaign’s consultant Joe Hyer, which states “I don’t remember any significant quantity of that letter being produced- I was given a copy to review, but the candidate didn’t have much of a mailing list that would work with this letter.”
No evidence was provided that the Committee expenditures were made in “cooperation, concert or collaboration with, or at the request or suggestion” of a Linda Oosterman, authorized campaign, or an agent of the campaign.
The remaining alleged violations of failure to timely report last minute in-kind contributions, failure to timely and accurately report earmarked in-kind contributions, and accepting contributions exceeding $5,000 within 21 days of the general election rely upon a finding that the expenditures undertaken by Up for Thurston County (Sponsored by Puget Sound Energy) constituted in-kind contributions to the Campaign, which the evidence does not support.
Based on our findings staff has determined that, in this instance, the evidence does not support a finding of a violation warranting further investigation.
Based on this information, the PDC finds that no further action is warranted and has dismissed this matter in accordance with RCW 42.17A.755(1).
