Unlawful use of public funds

greenspun.com : LUSENET : I-695 Thirty Dollar License Tab Initiative : One Thread

Is it not unlawful for gary lock and other public officials to speak out against 695 or use public funds to oppose it? If it is unlawful can we not file a complaint or law suit against them?

-- James Coats (deovin@whidbey.net), August 13, 1999

Answers

It is unlawful for any government official to use state funds to either actively support or oppose any issue on the ballot. They can, however, tell someone how they personally feel (just as long as they don't use state funds). But if a reporter or a constituent asks that public official how he or she feels on the issue, then that public official can use state funds (like stationary and postage) to tell that one person how he or she feels.

There is that troubling thing called the 1st Amendment that does allow any person (including politicians) to speak his or her ow

-- Patrick (patrick1143@yahoo.com), August 13, 1999.


Further clarification: If, at a news conference, a reporter asks a public official like Gary Locke how he feels about an initiative, he can respond to that question. If you write a letter to your elected representative asking them how they feel about an initiative, they can in fact write back to you and use state postage to inform you of their position. The fact that other people may overhear this opinion or if the person chooses to share the official's opinion with others does not constitute an illegal use of public funds.

If a public official sends you an unsolicited letter speaking in favor or in opposition of an initiative, or if you ask him about a completely unrelated topic and he takes the opportunity to tell you how he feels about the initiative, THEN it is illegal.

It still doesn't stop a public official from, on his or her own time, speaking out against or for an initiative at a rally, or on a television ad, or by adding their name to a list of suuporters or opponents. Again, they still are Americans, and they still do have the freedom of speech.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@aol.com), August 13, 1999.


I'll shrug the "comrade" comment off as a lame attempt at an insult from a person who is rather quite clueless on my ideological beliefs and is instead resorting to 6th grade debating tactics (note to webmaster: did you not say that personal attacks will be removed?)

Here's the RCW on the subject, I'll note that you already believe that public officials have violated at least the spirit of the law, but your original question does provide evidence that you in fact don't actually know what the law says.

RCW 42.52.180 Use of public resources for political campaigns. (1) No state officer or state employee may use or authorize the use of facilities of an agency, directly or indirectly, for the purpose of assisting a campaign for election of a person to an office or for the promotion of or opposition to a ballot proposition. Knowing acquiescence by a person with authority to direct, control, or influence the actions of the state officer or state employee using public resources in violation of this section constitutes a violation of this section. Facilities of an agency include, but are not limited to, use of stationery, postage, machines, and equipment, use of state employees of the agency during working hours, vehicles, office space, publications of the agency, and clientele lists of persons served by the agency.

(2) This section shall not apply to the following activities:

(a) Action taken at an open public meeting by members of an elected legislative body to express a collective decision, or to actually vote upon a motion, proposal, resolution, order, or ordinance, or to support or oppose a ballot proposition as long as (i) required notice of the meeting includes the title and number of the ballot proposition, and (ii) members of the legislative body or members of the public are afforded an approximately equal opportunity for the expression of an opposing view;

(b) A statement by an elected official in support of or in opposition to any ballot proposition at an open press conference or in response to a specific inquiry. For the purposes of this subsection, it is not a violation of this section for an elected official to respond to an inquiry regarding a ballot proposition, to make incidental remarks concerning a ballot proposition in an official communication, or otherwise comment on a ballot proposition without an actual, measurable expenditure of public funds. The ethics boards shall adopt by rule a definition of measurable expenditure;

(c) Activities that are part of the normal and regular conduct of the office or agency; and

(d) De minimis use of public facilities by state-wide elected officials and legislators incidental to the preparation or delivery of permissible communications, including written and verbal communications initiated by them of their views on ballot propositions that foreseeably may affect a matter that falls within their constitutional or statutory responsibilities.

(3) As to state officers and employees, this section operates to the exclusion of RCW 42.17.130. [1995 c 397 ' 30; 1994 c 154 ' 118.]

If you believe that this law has been violated, then by all means contact the Executive Ethics Board at (360) 664-0871 to report Governor Locke and the Legislative Ethics Board at (360) 786-7540 to report legislators who have violated the law. But a little note in advance, just because they disagree with you does not mean they are in violation of the law.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), August 13, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ