Pelz Donations Run Afoul of Ethics Law
As the Stranger first reported, seven members of the Kent-based American Taxi Association collectively donated an even $5,000 to 2005 City Council candidate Dwight Pelz’s campaign. The round figure raised suspicions that the working-class cabbies, not exactly the demographic that usually finances local campaigns, had been reimbursed by the taxi association - an ethical no-no.
Turns out their suspicions were right all along: According to a proposed settlement released today by the city’s Ethics and Elections Commission, the taxi association reimbursed its members for their contributions. First, the association issued seven $650 checks to seven Association members. (The checks were technically “loans” under the Association’s charter, but that distinction seems to be more or less semantic.) Over three days in October 2005, the seven members wrote checks for $650 each to Pelz’s campaign; meanwhile, the taxi association contributed $450, for $5,000 total. According to the settlement, the contributions violated Seattle law, which states that “[n]o contribution shall be made… byone person through an agent, relative or other person in such a manner as to conceal the identity of the source of the contribution.” They also violated the $650 limit on local campaign contributions that was in effect in 2005.
The settlemen, if it’s approved by the ethics commission tomorrow, will require the taxi association to pay the city $4,550 for violating the law. If Pelz refunds the contributions, the taxi association must pay the same amount to the city. Pelz has not yet returned a call for comment.
So... How is any of this Dwight's fault? He took the money, yes, but isn't the crime on the side of the person who gives the crooked money? Are candidates presumed to inspect the financial wherewithall of any donor, looking for inpropriety? A little context please (which I'm sure is coming.)