Following a tip, I began looking around recently for the federal Financial Disclosure Statements for the Democratic candidates involved in Washington's 1st Congressional District primary race, the election for which will be next week (but for which mail-in voting is currently under way).

I was particularly interested in digging up the information on Suzan DelBene, the Microsoft gazillionaire who is almost entirely self-financing her campaign this year. Indeed, she just wrote her campaign another $900,000 in checks to pay for all the TV-ad time she's bought and is now blanketing our local media airwaves with here in the Seattle area.

But when I contacted the office the Clerk of the U.S. House, where these statements are filed, I was told that DelBene had not filed any Financial Disclosure Statement for 2011.

This is most peculiar. These statements are in fact required by law -- the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, which clearly states:

Title I of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 4 §§ 101-111) (EIGA) requires Members, officers, certain employees of the U.S. House of Representatives and related offices, and candidates for the House of Representatives to file Financial Disclosure Statements with the Clerk of the House of Representatives.

…

Individuals are required to file a Financial Disclosure Statement once they qualify as a candidate by raising or spending more than $5,000 in a campaign for election to the House of Representatives.

It is, in fact, a federal felony to fail to meet these requirements, punishable by heavy fines of up to $50,000 and, in the case of falsification, jail time. (See Page 9.)

Yet we know, from the forms that she filed with the Federal Elections Commission, that Suzan DelBene spent well over $5,000 in 2011 on her campaign for Congress in 2012.

We also know, from looking at the first quarter 2011 report, that she was designating these expenditures as going toward the 2012 primary (see the check boxes on the individual listings beginning on Page 6), as they were indeed for all the subsequent FEC filings for 2011.

We also know that, beginning in the fall of 2011, she began paying a salary to her campaign's finance chief (see Page 6).

It was kind of a startling and disturbing discovery. Why would a major candidate for federal office even run the risk of being investigated for this?

So I wrote to the DelBene campaign last Thursday and asked them to explain it. Here's my letter:

Continue reading »

See, this is why we can't have nice things.

If you want a nice, crystal-clear example of why it's so hard to elect strong, pro-labor progressives to Congress who fight for working families, look no further than the race in Washington's new 1st congressional district. It's a crowded field, and among them you can identify three strong, pro-labor progressives who have excellent track records when it comes to working families: Laura Ruderman, Steve Hobbs, and our own favorite, Darcy Burner.

So who have the local unions (including the Washington State Labor Council, the Machinists, and the Teamsters) in Washington, following the lead of the state's hapless Establishment Democrats, decided to back?

Turns out the answer is a strange one: The 1 percenter who won't take a stand on Social Security or Medicare. The classic Blue Dog in the making who trails in all the polls. But because she's got deep pockets, they're lining up behind her.

The final straw came this week when the local SEIU, of all organizations, decided to turn its back on their hard-working allies and support the candidate who thinks our best strategy should be to compromise with Republicans more.

I have some questions for the nice folks who run these unions:

• What was the thinking behind choosing DelBene out of the field of Democratic candidates? Out of all of them, she has the least impressive record of standing up and fighting for working families. So far, she won’t even commit to defending Social Security and Medicaid. And she has talked endlessly about how Democrats need to be friendlier to business interests, and that we need to compromise more with Republicans. In other words, you’ve endorsed a classic Blue Dog in the making.
• At least two candidates in the race – Laura Ruderman and Darcy Burner – have significantly better track records when it comes to standing up for working families. And Burner is polling significantly better than DelBene, including in a matchup with John Koster. Why turn your backs on obvious allies who could use the support?
• Did DelBene’s deep pockets – that is, her ability to self-finance her campaign – play any role in your decision? And if so, when did that become a consideration for endorsement by a labor union?

Continue reading »