Viva La Cola!

Founded in January 2009, PubliCola is a blog about Seattle written by journalists who are dedicated to non-partisan, original daily reporting that prioritizes a balanced approach to news. Started by longtime local editor and award-winning reporter Josh Feit, PubliCola is the first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol.

PubliCola was off and running. In June 2009, PubliCola hired another award-winning journalist, super-sourced Seattle city hall reporter Erica C. Barnett.

People were afraid that blogging would change journalism. Instead, we believe journalism can change blogging. Twenty-first century journalism may look and feel different, and yes Erica isn't afraid to get cranky, but we're committed to making sure online news still delivers independent, reliable, even-keeled coverage. And most of all, we're committed to making sure the coverage sparks honest civic debate.

Bringing you cola for the people, PubliCola is named after Publius Valerius PubliCola, the alias for the authors of the Federalist Papers—the original bloggers.

The first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol and Seattle city hall, PubliCola has been called a “must-read” by the Seattle Post Intelligencer and a hot “New Media Mover and Shaker” by Seattle Magazine—which also cited our own Erica C. Barnett as the city's No. 1 news nerd.

U.S. Supreme Court Ruling Has No Impact on Washington State Races. Corporations Already Unrestricted Here.

Last week’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling allowing corporations and unions to spend freely on independent expenditures did not change the rules governing local races in Washington state. Our rules are already lax when it comes to corporate and union dollars.

First of all, the slightly hysterical reporting at the national level was a bit oblique and never clearly explained what the ruling actually did.

Here’s what it did: Before the ruling, corporations were not allowed to spend money from their bank accounts on independent expenditures (ie, ads and campaigns executed separately from the candidate’s official campaign) in the run-up to election—30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general. The Supreme Court knocked down that rule. In so doing, they went a step further, ruling that corporations can now spend their own money on IEs whenever they want without limit.

Corporations and unions are still barred from directly contributing to candidate campaigns and PACs. (Corporations can still set up PACs to raise money. PACs can contribute to candidates, with limits—$2,400 to a single candidate.)

In Washington state, corporations were already free to directly spend money on IEs at anytime. Washington is one of 26 states that was not affected by the ruling.

Moreover, Washington state does not prohibit corporations from giving directly to PACs or candidates. In short, last week’s ruling creates a federal landscape that is still more stringent when it comes to governing corporate donations.

Certainly, the corporations as people thing is creepy and the logic of the federal ruling is likely to support future challenges to the ban on direct corporate spending to candidates at the federal level. But again, that’s already the status quo in Washington state.

Says Doug Ellis, Assistant Director at the state Public Disclosure Commission, “The state never had a prohibition on corporate spending. We didn’t have restrictions similar to the federal laws.”

Ellis explains that corporations and unions can give directly to candidates and PACs in Washington state, “with full disclosure.”

Before Democrats condemn the ruling as a blessing for the GOP, they should note that  free corporate rein in Washington state has given us a Democratic governor, and Democratic control of both state houses.


  • tpn

    The framing of this debate does not mention that corporations have vast more resources then unions to spend on campaigns; to equate the two by using them in the same sentence, as if the law gives each the same clout, is akin to stating that the law is equal in that it prohibits the poor as well as the rich from sleeping under bridges.

  • tpn

    The framing of this debate does not mention that corporations have vast more resources then unions to spend on campaigns; to equate the two by using them in the same sentence, as if the law gives each the same clout, is akin to stating that the law is equal in that it prohibits the poor as well as the rich from sleeping under bridges.

  • Joey

    I like your last point on strong Democratic power in WA state, though I’d caution that our overwhelming Democratic power still has DOMA in place, killed both marijuana bills, is all behind regressive tolling, continues to favor roads over transit, etc. Sure the centrist part of the party has done well here but truly progressive action; still waiting.

  • Joey

    I like your last point on strong Democratic power in WA state, though I’d caution that our overwhelming Democratic power still has DOMA in place, killed both marijuana bills, is all behind regressive tolling, continues to favor roads over transit, etc. Sure the centrist part of the party has done well here but truly progressive action; still waiting.

  • http://www.myspace.com/dintystew dintystew

    This post brings to light some important elements of our system in Washington State. We often assume that “we’re so progressive here in WA” and especially folks in Seattle.

    That said, the fact that we have Dems in charge of most major institutions in WA is exactly the reason why corporate spending at will is so destructive. Great so we’re not as corrupt as Mississippi (no offense intended to the folks there) but does that mean were actually doing anything positive? We have a Democratic Prez and we’ve escalated a war, not repealed DOMA, made only weak Climate targets, etc, etc. The same can be said for Cantwell, Murray and Gregoire. It is the money that destroys our political system. We vote for Dems cause the republicans are often zealots and bigots, but the Dems don’t change anything except inspire progressive folks to not vote, because why bother? Look at Massachusetts.

    The info in this post is useful, the conclusion was not so. WA is backwards when it comes to corporate spending in politics and great now the rest of the country can also be this way?

    Finally, it also pisses me off when they include unions in this ruling. The amount that corporations have to spend compared to unions is not even comparable. Exxon made $18 Billion in profit last year and that is just one corporation.

  • http://www.myspace.com/dintystew dintystew

    This post brings to light some important elements of our system in Washington State. We often assume that “we’re so progressive here in WA” and especially folks in Seattle.

    That said, the fact that we have Dems in charge of most major institutions in WA is exactly the reason why corporate spending at will is so destructive. Great so we’re not as corrupt as Mississippi (no offense intended to the folks there) but does that mean were actually doing anything positive? We have a Democratic Prez and we’ve escalated a war, not repealed DOMA, made only weak Climate targets, etc, etc. The same can be said for Cantwell, Murray and Gregoire. It is the money that destroys our political system. We vote for Dems cause the republicans are often zealots and bigots, but the Dems don’t change anything except inspire progressive folks to not vote, because why bother? Look at Massachusetts.

    The info in this post is useful, the conclusion was not so. WA is backwards when it comes to corporate spending in politics and great now the rest of the country can also be this way?

    Finally, it also pisses me off when they include unions in this ruling. The amount that corporations have to spend compared to unions is not even comparable. Exxon made $18 Billion in profit last year and that is just one corporation.

  • Gomez

    The Dems are talking smack because it’s a chance to blame the GOP for something that everyone does, including themselves.

    But yeah, this didn’t really change the fabric of anything, Josh, and I’m glad you’re trying to get the word out.

  • Gomez

    The Dems are talking smack because it’s a chance to blame the GOP for something that everyone does, including themselves.

    But yeah, this didn’t really change the fabric of anything, Josh, and I’m glad you’re trying to get the word out.

  • LEFTisRIGHT

    Josh –

    The one exception is Wa State’s prohibition on Insurance Companies spending $$$$$ to influence the Insurance Commissioner elections. This ruling may allow for a successful court challenge (because we limit the “free speech” of insurance companies for the position that in effect is regulating them)

    Keep an eye out for this to be tested.

  • Hmmmm…..

    Wasn’t Initiative 134 or whatever it was a Republican backed campaign measure? If the Democrats in Olympia had any sense they would put a progressive campaign finance measure forward…. but it seems they would rather win a rigged game that they know rather than open it up and possibly lose.

  • Hmmmm…..

    Wasn’t Initiative 134 or whatever it was a Republican backed campaign measure? If the Democrats in Olympia had any sense they would put a progressive campaign finance measure forward…. but it seems they would rather win a rigged game that they know rather than open it up and possibly lose.

  • Plastic Exploding Inevitable

    Guess what.

    According to Maria Cantwell we also have health care with a public option.

    In fact, statist Democrats have a better social system in Washington State than in Washington, DC.

    Stay home and enjoy the social net.

  • Plastic Exploding Inevitable

    Guess what.

    According to Maria Cantwell we also have health care with a public option.

    In fact, statist Democrats have a better social system in Washington State than in Washington, DC.

    Stay home and enjoy the social net.

  • lol

    And we have the best state supreme court money can buy!

  • lol

    And we have the best state supreme court money can buy!

  • Mikos

    The key in our system is transparency. Our reporting system is decent but could be better. People and businesses always think twice about being attached to controversial issues if they think it will be part of the public record.

  • Mikos

    The key in our system is transparency. Our reporting system is decent but could be better. People and businesses always think twice about being attached to controversial issues if they think it will be part of the public record.

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr. Baker

    And that brings us to names on petitions being public.

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr. Baker

    And that brings us to names on petitions being public.

  • Perfect Voter

    dintystew @__, re your “It is the money that destroys our political system. We vote for Dems cause the republicans are often zealots and bigots, but the Dems don’t change anything…”

    Is it time to consider an initiative campaign for public funding of political campaigns? I think the latest buzzwords are “voter owned” election campaigns.

    I hear Arizona has such a system and it lead to Janet Napolitano getting elected in a pretty red state. Something to look into, methinks.

  • Perfect Voter

    dintystew @__, re your “It is the money that destroys our political system. We vote for Dems cause the republicans are often zealots and bigots, but the Dems don’t change anything…”

    Is it time to consider an initiative campaign for public funding of political campaigns? I think the latest buzzwords are “voter owned” election campaigns.

    I hear Arizona has such a system and it lead to Janet Napolitano getting elected in a pretty red state. Something to look into, methinks.

  • http://PartyofCommons.blogspot.com/ Mark Greene

    The U.S. Supreme Court and the Circuit Courts never miss an opportunity to vote in favor of corporations against the People. Although the case that I am working on has nothing to do with corporations, it does have something to do with whether our state will have fair elections or not. It will be an uphill battle for me to get an unequal election candidacy petition law declared unconstitutional, but I have gotten through the first roadblock, and the judge on this civil case has ruled that I, as a plaintiff, am entitled to a bench trial.

    On another front, I will be trying to change the election candidacy petition law through an Initiative to the People this year (I am presently drawing up the paperwork to get it started). Last year’s Initiative to the Legislature (no. 432) on the same matter did not draw enough interest to get enough signatures. The corporate mainstream news media (CMNM) did not cover this initiative effort because it only has to do with low-income candidates for elective office and officeholders running for re-election and others that have an unequal advantage in filing for office, and of course the CMNM is not interested in those who are not likely to represent the interests of corporatists and the rich. The new initiative should be in place on the Secretary of State’s website by mid-February, 2010.

  • http://PartyofCommons.blogspot.com Mark Greene

    The U.S. Supreme Court and the Circuit Courts never miss an opportunity to vote in favor of corporations against the People. Although the case that I am working on has nothing to do with corporations, it does have something to do with whether our state will have fair elections or not. It will be an uphill battle for me to get an unequal election candidacy petition law declared unconstitutional, but I have gotten through the first roadblock, and the judge on this civil case has ruled that I, as a plaintiff, am entitled to a bench trial.

    On another front, I will be trying to change the election candidacy petition law through an Initiative to the People this year (I am presently drawing up the paperwork to get it started). Last year’s Initiative to the Legislature (no. 432) on the same matter did not draw enough interest to get enough signatures. The corporate mainstream news media (CMNM) did not cover this initiative effort because it only has to do with low-income candidates for elective office and officeholders running for re-election and others that have an unequal advantage in filing for office, and of course the CMNM is not interested in those who are not likely to represent the interests of corporatists and the rich. The new initiative should be in place on the Secretary of State’s website by mid-February, 2010.

  • LEFTisRIGHT

    Josh –

    The one exception is Wa State's prohibition on Insurance Companies spending $$$$$ to influence the Insurance Commissioner elections. This ruling may allow for a successful court challenge (because we limit the “free speech” of insurance companies for the position that in effect is regulating them)

    Keep an eye out for this to be tested.