Truly shameless stuff:
First, as to “ The two cities’ legal representatives also took issue with the timing of the complaints as they came immediately before the voting period on April 25. West filed his complaint on April 7; Shirley filed his on April 12. The fliers were mailed as March was ending.” — If the complaints had not been filed until after the election, the lawyers for the defense would claim that the whole thing was moot and should be dismissed as a result. The cmplainants got their complaints down to the PDC in less time after the offending mail pieces than the highly paid lawyers got their responses filed after the complaints.
And as to “The law firm’s response stated that the complaints “appear calculated to use the provisions of RCW 42.17A.555 to chill the ability of the cities to carry out their duties to inform the public.” The letter added that “PDC should acknowledge this context and treat such complaints with a critical eye that is skeptical of the political motivations of the complainants.”
This is absolute bunk, Olympia had no duty to create or send that mailer. There is no “duty to inform the public” about how to vote. There was absolutely no requirement to send out that mail piece.
The two cities made a purely discretionary call to use taxpayer funds to create and send the piece. And they could have done it even handedly. Instead they willfully chose to create a grossly biased mail piece in support of a particular point of view (yes on the RFA) and — except for slapping the “not intended to promote or oppose,” didn’t even acknowledge that there COULD be reasons to vote no. The piece was pure “yes” propaganda with fact-free emotional appeals taken directly from the pro-RFA website and voters guide statements.
This is shameless stuff, lawyering on the Rudy Giuliani level at this point …
Please explain the inappropriate content below.
