PAC responds to complaint over mislabeled mailer

In a formal PDC response, Eastern Washington Freedom for All blamed a design mistake. But the candidate the mailer attacked is not satisfied.
A mislabeled election mailer attacking City Council Member Jonathan Bingle, who’s running for reelection, said a political action committee that doesn’t even exist paid for the message. (Illustration by Valerie Osier.)

A political action committee (PAC) that mislabeled a campaign mailer against the reelection campaign of City Council Member Jonathan Bingle has formally responded to a complaint filed with the state campaign disclosure regulator. 

The mailer said Citizens for Liberty and Labor (CLL) — a PAC that represents the interests of firefighter union IAFF Local 29 and government employee union AFSCME Local 270 — had funded the attack message. 

In fact, it was Eastern Washington Freedom for All (EWFA) PAC, which said in an emailed statement it represents “partners in labor, healthcare, childcare,” that had paid for it. The mistake made it falsely seem as if an organization that had supported Bingle had changed its mind.

“We acknowledge an error on a recent mailer,” EWFA said in a statement earlier this week. “The outdated wording was initially inserted as a placeholder for design purposes only but unfortunately was not updated before printing. We regret the error and will ensure the right disclaimer language is included in subsequent mailings.”

The complaint to the Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) alleged the label violated state law by effectively concealing the identity of the organization that paid for it and sought the most serious penalty, a $10,000 fine. It noted that CLL closed in January and has not operated since, as PDC filings show. 

(Read our explainer from last year on campaign disclosures here.)

EWFA blamed the error on the contractor that had designed the mailer, NWP Consulting, a Seattle-based political consultancy. NWP did not respond to a request for comment by publication time. If they respond, we will update this story.

Bingle, in an interview on October 23, was not satisfied with EWFA’s formal response.

“The damage is done,” Bingle said. “Improper information went out to thousands of people in my district, and those are real damages to what we’re doing here in the city. … An issued apology does not make up for it.”

He called for EWFA to write to all recipients of the original mailer to correct the record, but the PAC suggested it had no plans to do so. 

“We have been transparent with community partners and voters by sharing out the statement you mentioned and inviting others to do the same,” EWFA said in an emailed statement. “We will continue to do our due diligence by quickly responding to the PDC’s requests and providing evidence to them and voters that future mailers sent have the correct information.”

Bingle said the mistake measurably affected his campaign. 

“When I’m at the doors and people [say], ‘I thought you said that you were endorsed by these groups,’ and I’m saying, ‘I’m endorsed by these groups, and here is a letter from the head of AFSCME and the head of the firefighters union saying as much, it definitely affected the campaign,” Bingle said.

Though he acknowledged the possibility the mislabeled disclosure was an honest mistake, Bingle added that he was skeptical because EWFA had not reached out to him to apologize.

EWFA, in an emailed statement, said it would be inappropriate for the PAC to reach out to Bingle.

“PACs should not be communicating directly with candidates at this time,” EWFA wrote. “Bingle should be aware of this policy and not expect that any PAC would reach out to him.”

Conner Edwards, a lawyer for Larry Andrews — a Spokane business owner and city council frequent flyer — filed the PDC complaint about the Bingle mailer. Edwards said in an email suggesting the misprint was not a mistake that he wanted the PDC to impose the maximum $10,000 penalty on the EWFA.

Randy Marler, the president of IAFF Local 29, said EWFA did reach out to him about the mailer to apologize, but he worried the mistake would harm Bingle’s campaign.

“Family members that talk to me when they get who-to-vote-for mailers, they look at who’s supporting which candidate, and that helps make up their mind for them,” Marler said. “People in the district trust the name of firefighters. We work really hard to build that trust. It makes a difference when you get something that says, ‘Firefighters don’t like this guy.’” 

In a Spokesman article published October 20, Bingle expressed skepticism stemming from the fact that the treasurer for the PAC, Geoffrey Bracken, is also treasurer for his opponent, the reproductive rights organizer Sarah Dixit.

PDC spokesperson Natalie Johnson told RANGE it’s legal for someone to act as treasurer for a PAC and a candidate in the same election as long as they do so in a “ministerial” capacity, meaning they only report spending and don’t consult on campaign strategy.

Bracken is listed in PDC filings for the Dixit campaign and EWFA as the “ministerial treasurer” for both and told The Spokesman that he never approved any mailers. Dixit maintained the Bracken is professional and said he kept a strong “firewall” between his duties for different campaigns and PACs.

EWFA’s response said an internal audit of EWFA’s mailers revealed another, less egregious, mistake on a mailer that supported the campaign of liberal City Council Member Zack Zappone.

That mailer “accurately reflects the sponsor as Eastern Washington Freedom for All PAC, however it did omit the address, the top 5 contributors, the top 3 non-PAC contributors, as well as the disclaimer that no candidate authorized the ad,” the PDC response said of the Zappone mailer.

Johnson, of the PDC, said it’s too early to tell what might happen with this case and that the regulator is dealing with a large backlog of complaints. PDC staff will review the complaint within 90 days, by which time it must schedule a hearing to “convert it to a formal investigation.” There is no legal time limit for completing the investigation, she said.

“Case resolutions can include a dismissal, warnings, reminders (which would involve no fine), statements of understanding (in which a respondent would admit to a violation and could agree to pay a small fine) or the case could be taken to the full Commission for a hearing and a potential finding of a violation and fine,” she said in an email.

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to include a short comment from Sarah Dixit.

Make local government work for you.

Every dollar helps Range connect Spokane residents with the decisions that affect their neighborhoods, schools, and businesses.

Join 89 RANGE supporters this month

Don't want to miss another banger like that? Get it all in your inbox!

 

This site uses cookies to provide you with a great user experience. By continuing to use this website, you consent to the use of cookies in accordance with our privacy policy.

Scroll to Top