Court tosses PDC fine - Appeals court rules state campaign law unconstitutional

BY BRAD SHANNON

THE OLYMPIAN

9/8/05 -

Olympia, WA - A Washington state appeals court Wednesday threw out a $1,000 fine against former Green Party legislative candidate Marilou Rickert of Shelton, saying the law used to punish her for making false campaign statements is unconstitutional.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which defended Rickert, praised the appeals court's decision for its protection of free speech and its rejection of the Washington state Public Disclosure Commission's attempt to regulate campaign speech.

But state Sen. Tim Sheldon, D-Potlatch, the subject of the inaccurate campaign fliers in 2002, said that the decision opens the door to more political mischief by Rickert and others.

“What she (Rickert) can do with this court decision is misrepresent my voting record with impunity. That’s what she did in her campaign literature. She said I voted to close a (youth detention facility) facility when I was the only legislator … in either house who voted to keep it open,” Sheldon said. “I guess the courts are saying that’s all right — she can say it.”

In ruling against the law that targeted political lies, Division II (Tacoma) Court of Appeals Judge C.C. Bridgewater wrote that it was “not narrowly tailored to the PDC’s interest in promoting integrity and honesty in the elections process and chills protected political speech.”

The law against false political statements also violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because the law doesn’t limit itself to defamatory speech causing actual damage to its victims, Bridgewater said.

Sheldon never showed damage from Rickert’s claims about his voting record, and he ultimately won his election with nearly 79 percent of the vote, the court noted.

“We have defamation laws,” said Doug Honig, spokesman for the ACLU of Washington. “If somebody believes they are defamed, they can sue under that law. We don’t need a separate broader law to protect candidates.”

Seattle lawyer Venkat Balasubramani had volunteered to defend Rickert on behalf of the ACLU. Balasubramani referred questions to Honig.

Rickert, who never admitted to lying in the brochure, stood by that position Wednesday. Sheldon and the PDC have free-speech rights to say what they want, she said.

“I did not want anything I said to be misleading to the public,” Rickert said. “My goal is to demystify politics rather than make it more confusing.”

It was not immediately clear whether the Public Disclosure Commission would appeal to the state Supreme Court, which threw out a similar law in 1998 as it pertained to initiatives. The law ruled upon Wednesday had been written in 1999 to replace the previous one.

The commission’s five citizen members meet Sept. 15, and its staff declined to comment until then. “We certainly don’t want to be commenting on the decision before that discussion happens,” PDC spokeswoman Lori Anderson said.

In the meantime, the new appeals court ruling puts at least three other pending PDC cases at risk, including complaints against Senate candidate Yvonne Ward in a race against Republican Sen. Pam Roach last year.

Those cases should not move forward, the ACLU’s Honig said.
“It shouldn’t be the role of the government to decide what is true or false in candidates’ statements,” Honig said. “The unfortunate reality is that the government itself has not always been truthful in its own statements about policies and actions, and government officials shouldn’t be the ones judging the truth and falsity of what candidates are saying.”