Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Hey, Thanks! | Destroying Constitutional Free... »

Monday, November 5, 2007

Update: Those Suspicous GOP Donations to Dan Satterberg

posted by on November 5 at 12:40 PM

For those that missed the Slog coverage over the weekend, here’s the deal: Big donors to Dan Satterberg, the GOP candidate for King County Prosecutor, appear to have also funneled money through the State GOP to Satterberg. That is a violation of campaign finance rules. Donations to parties cannot be earmarked for specific candiates because it allows big donors to circumvent contribution limits.

Here are the basics from my Slog posts:

Late yesterday [Friday night], the GOP made a huge contribution to Satterberberg’s campaign—$81,000.

Cross reference this list of Dan Satterberg donors with this list of donors to the Washington State Republican Party. You’ll find that people who made big donations to Satterberg, the Republican candidate for KC Prosecutor, subsequently made large donations to a Washington State GOP account that has now downloaded about $125,000 to Satterberg.

78 percent of the money in the account, $139,500 out of $176,700, came from Satterberg supporters, most of whom had already maxed out to the candidate.

The Democratic candidate, Bill Sherman, held a press conference this morning saying our campaign finance laws “aren’t a set of cones that you run around to the finish line. It’s not an obstacle course, it’s a set of ethical standards.” He said Satterberg had “duped voters” by receiving massive donations from the GOP that came from Satterberg donors “under cover of the night.”

The transfer came on Friday night and didn’t get much attention over the weekend as voters were casting ballots and Satterberg’s new round of expensive TV ads ($177,000 worth now) were on the air. Indeed, while the TV cameras at Sherman’s press conference today seemed to be getting great footage of Sherman trashing Satterberg’s ethics, the TV exposure is going to be a little late coming after Satterberg’s GOP-funded TV ad blitz.

Asked how this was any different than Democratic Party donations going to the Sherman campaign or any other campaign—say, John Kerry in 2004—Sherman was emphatic. He explained that the GOP account that kicked in the $126,000 to Satterberg had been “dormant” until mid-October. Then, all of a sudden, after several big donors who had already contributed to Satterberg made hefty donations to the GOP account, the GOP sent that money to Satterberg. In contrast, he said, the Ds’ state account—which contributed $30,000 to Sherman—has thousands of small donations.

I checked the Washington State Democratic Central Committee Nonexempt, and Sherman’s right. It’s not “thousands,” but it’s hundreds (as opposed to the 20 donations in the GOP account), and there’s $85,000 from small contributors out of $597,000 total. It’s also been active all year. (Not active enough, if you ask me. They should have downloaded more to Sherman.)

At the press conference, Sherman said he had “heard rumors” earlier this month that the GOP was soliciting money from Satterberg donors. I asked Sherman if he had talked to specific people who had knowledge that this had happened and whether those people would be part of his complaint with the PDC. He said he had talked to someone, a Republican, who had talked to people who had been solicited, and they were told the money would go directly to Satterberg. However, this person is not willing to go on record with the Public Disclosure Commission because it could damage the party and the person’s standing within it.

Confidential to the Republican Who Knows Their Party is Breaking the Law:
You need to go to the PDC with this information. If the party ostracizes you because you come forward with this information, that would only confirm that they are in the wrong, and it would vindicate you for doing the right thing. Be a good Republican.

Confidential to the Public Disclosure Commission: You should offer this person an anonymity agreement.

The GOP should not be able to flout basic campaign laws.

RSS icon Comments


Yeah, but whoever it is might get extraordinarily tortured in some prison overseas since the Red Bushies don't stop at doing that to American citizens.


Posted by Will in Seattle | November 5, 2007 12:48 PM

Be a good Republican?

That sounds like the punchline to a joke.

Like Winston Smith, we live in a society without laws.

Posted by Original Andrew | November 5, 2007 1:34 PM

Candidate for prosecutor breaks the law to get elected.

Yep, that's the ethical bar we set for our law enforcement in Seattle...

Those little things like laws and civil rights shouldn't interfere with justice.

Posted by Packratt | November 5, 2007 2:00 PM

Another note to the Public Disclosure Commission: why have staff from the Prosecuting Attorney's Office used county cars to distribute "Retain Satterberg" signs? And why have staff from the PAO used their county email addresses to send out attacks on Bill Sherman?

Posted by lorax | November 5, 2007 2:08 PM

@4 This is like Sherman's "Republican informant," whom he will not name, which Feit mentions in the text. Specifics, please.

Posted by T | November 5, 2007 2:15 PM

Yes indeed, the facade of "nonpartisanship" erected around Satterberg continues to crumble. It's never too late for Democrats that endorsed him to repudiate their candidate and his Rove-like campaign tactics, but I suspect that will not happen. Oh well, if he wins I'm sure they would have reserved seats at the Satterberg table at any fundraiser held in King County for Dino Rossi or the Republican presidential nominee.

Posted by Brendan Williams | November 5, 2007 2:51 PM

This is truly unbelievable.

Bill Sherman called a press conference because he "heard rumors" and Josh Feit, News Editor of Seattle's Only Newspaper, finds it newsworthy to post a blog with the headline "NEWS UPDATE".

Maybe we should call a summit to declare a lynching because Bill Sherman had a dream last night that a fellow Democrat donated money to Dan Satterberg's campaign.

The funny thing is that Josh identified the real story in all of this... why isn't the State Democratic Party "downloading" money to Bill Sherman? Could it be that they see all the Democratic support for Dan Satterberg and don't want to tick off those Democrats that gave them all that money to begin with? Just a thought...

Posted by Mr. Winston | November 5, 2007 5:15 PM

Please help me try and understand this...

So Mr. Sherman's information is based on double hearsay confidential sources, and somehow this is sufficient confirmation for Mr. Feit and David Postman to put this garbage to print??

Has the criteria for credible jounalism fallen so far? Really?

Posted by whocaresaboutblueorred | November 5, 2007 5:59 PM

I stand corrected... it is actually three layers of hearsay.

Someone told one person, who told another person, who told Mr. Sherman... wow.

Posted by whocaresaboutblueorred | November 5, 2007 6:02 PM

This is about the suspicious nature of the contributions. The "rumor" was in response to a question asked. Try and follow along.

Posted by hey IDIOTS | November 5, 2007 6:15 PM

The press conf. wasn't based on rumors. It was based on the compelling evidence here that the Republicans raised money from Satterberg donors and kicked it to Satterberg. The rumor thing was a side note that was interesting to me.

Posted by Josh Feit | November 5, 2007 7:46 PM

Thank you to Josh Feit, News Editor of Seattle's Only Newspaper, and hey IDIOTS for explaining the story.

Citizens who lean to the right give money to the Republican party who then think that a Republican candidate can use the money and give some to him.

I heard a story very similar to that, but it was a little different. It went like this...

Citizens who lean to the left give money to the Democratic party who then think that a Democratic candidate can use the money and give some to him.

Josh, you are a brilliant journalist. Your objectivity is unquestioned. Keep up the good work.

Posted by Mr. Winston | November 6, 2007 12:22 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).