Slog - The Stranger's Blog

Line Out

The Music Blog

« Debate the Issues, Not the Com... | Clusterfuck Alert »

Wednesday, May 24, 2006

Pelz Donations Run Afoul of Ethics Law

Posted by on May 24 at 15:02 PM

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.


CommentsRSS icon

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.)

Doth Protest Too Much, Will.
Erica never said it was Dwight's fault.

"Oh, and they denied that they had anything to do w/ the break in at Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate Building..."


"Well, isn't that what you'd expect them to say?"

"Yes."

"So?"

"So, I never asked them about the break in."

Given the staffing constraints the PDC operates under, this must have been generated by a PDC complaint. (The PDC really doesn't have the resources to examine campaigns' financing with a microscope unless they get a complaint.) Do you have any information about what generated the investigation?

Kind of smells like WSR SOP to me.

Hey, you got me there, Josh, its just that's usually the next thing out the chute.

Considering Richard McIver had to pay a big ol' fine because Al Rosellini picked up his $6.50 tab at Quizno's, you never know. The Seattle Times will be demanding his resignation by the end of the week, I bet.

It was the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission, not the PDC. The SEEC tends to be more proactive. I don't believe either of the other campaigns filed a formal complaint.

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).