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.

Despite U.S. Sen. Murray’s Tough Talk on Corporate Campaign Money, Federal Bill Would Leave Corporate Power Intact in WA State

U.S. Sen. Patty Murray sent out a press release today hyping her role as a co-sponsor on a bill attempting to regulate corporate campaign money in wake of the controversial Citizen’s United ruling.

The Supreme Court ruling—which President Obama condemned in his State of the Union Speech (prompting an infamous eye-roll from Chief Justice John Roberts)—allows corporations to spend money from their general treasuries on independent expenditures (ad campaigns executed separately from a candidate’s official campaign), something they were completely banned from doing until 2007, and then mostly banned from doing until this year’s ruling. The bill would require disclosure on corporate-funded ads, forcing the CEO to deliver the same sort of “And I approved this message” that candidates have to do now.

Under United, corporations are still barred from contributing to candidates directly from their general treasuries. Candidates can take money from corporate PACS (limited to $2400), but the PACs themselves still cannot take money directly from corporate treasuries. (They must raise it from individuals.) Of course, the United decision, with its notion that corporations are people too, has set the precedent to knock down those campaign finance rules.

As righteous as Sen. Patty Murray’s quote is, I do have to chuckle a little.

Here’s what she says in her press release:

“The Supreme Court’s appalling ruling in Citizens United gave wealthy corporations and special interests a megaphone to drown out the voices of Washington state voters,” said Senator Patty Murray.“No voice should be more powerful in Washington state’s elections than the voices of our state’s voters.  I’m proud to support this effort to protect our democratic process and put power back in the hands of the people and grassroots activism.”

Storm the barricades and all, but as I’ve pointed out before, Washington State voters are already drowned out by corporate giving. Our state election rules are actually more lax when it comes to corporate giving than the new federal rules established by Citizens United.

First of all, in Washington State, corporations are already free to directly spend money on IEs at anytime.

More important, Washington state does not prohibit corporations from giving directly to PACs or candidates.

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 reign in Washington state has given us a Democratic governor, and Democratic control of both state houses.




  • I Really Don't know

    Can the federal government put campaign finance restrictions on state races? Not sure if that's the issue here. I imagine that would be a whole other debate in Congress apart from just regulating federal races. I'm no lawyer so not sure if this is a state's rights issue or not, but it seems like it might be.

  • Trevor

    Two logical fallacies in the statement that “free corporate rein in Washington state has given us a Democratic governor, and Democratic control of both state houses.”

    -Cause and Effect: big money is not the cause of the Dem tilt in WA state, even if it hasn't prevented the state from voting Dem.

    -Qualitative: what KIND of Democratic Party are we talking about? You shouldn't presume that a Dem elected primarily via corporate money and independent expenditures is the same thing as a Dem elected primarily via smaller donations directly to the campaign.

  • http://spifflines.blogspot.com/ John Bailo

    Corporations employ people.

    The should be allowed to represent themselves in Government.

  • http://peacetreefarm.org N in Seattle

    Edit your headline!

    “COROPORATE”?? “IN TACT”??

    Ugh and ugh.

  • notafiree

    Elevators contain people. Elevators should therefore be allowed to represent themselves in Government.

    And what if these Elevators are owned by a foreign government? It doesn't matter! These are aggregations of people too. CITGO is largely controlled by Chavez, so he should have an equal say in our government. It's so obvious people!