The monthly campaign expenditure numbers came out last night and are reported on the Washington Public Disclosure Commission’s website. As predicted, radical-right extremists have dumped last-minute money into the race. Family Policy Institute of Washington plopped $200,000 into the mysterious new PAC called “Vote Reject on R-71″ that appeared late last week. FPIW bills itself as an affiliate of James Dobson’s Focus on the Family and Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council. Dobson is famous for advocating the paddling of children, and Perkins for his connections to the Klan. The Vote Reject PAC is run by Dave Mortenson, a seasoned and savvy conservative campaign consultant.
Referendum 71 is the Washington state ballot measure asking voters to approve or reject the domestic partnership law passed by a wide margin by the Washington Legislature in May and signed by Gov. Gregoire. The law makes domestic partnerships parallel to civil marriage at the state level, providing vital rights to straight senior and same-sex domestic partners that married people have like pension inheritance and the right to use sick leave to care for a seriously ill partner.
First glances indicate that the Approve Referendum 71 campaign has greatly out-fundraised the opposition, and sure enough the David and Goliath comparisons are already being made by Larry Stickney. But don’t get too comfortable just yet. Campaigns have 5 days to deposit donation checks, so we won’t know until perhaps Tuesday, October 20th just how much the opposition really raked in right before the large donor ban took effect on October 12th. The large donor ban means that the most money any individual can donate after Oct. 12th is $5,000 (regardless of how much they donated before Oct. 12). There is also the distinct possibility that an out-of-state enterprise like National Organization for Marriage will swoop in an provide tv time and ads for the opposition “unasked”. You know I’ve been right about these things before. The Approve 71 campaign still needs your support.
Half of Reject’s $200,000 has already been spent on radio ad time. Seven local stations have accepted money to run these anti-child, anti-family radio ads.
Meanwhile, true to form, a substantial proportion of expenditures made by Larry Stickney’s Protect Marriage Washington and Gary Randall’s Faith & Freedom PAC have gone to salary for Stickney, attorney’s fees and maintenance of Randall’s redundant website. However, Stickney has spent about $10,000 on yard signs, and Randall about $500 on postage. It isn’t entirely clear who paid for Protect Marriage Washington’s lurid fliers or theocratic tv ads (here and here).
On the Approve Referendum 71 side, Washington Families Standing Together has received just over one million dollars in cash contributions to date. WAFST has invested about $400,00 of this into tv ad time and smaller but substantial amounts into mailings and phone banking costs.
I’ve posted a few of the radio and tv ads from both sides below the fold. As you listen and watch, notice how the Approve 71 campaign found real Washingtonians to speak for the domestic partnership law. The opposition had to hire actors.Here‘s the link to the opposition’s radio ad, and here is the transcript. The ad was paid for by FPIW’s new PAC. I think of this as the “Apples and Oranges” ad because the domestic partnership law has no relationship to the mortgage crisis beyond domestic partners being equally hurt by the economic downturn.
Woman 1: You know something? Our elected representatives don’t get it.Woman 2: What are you talking about?
W1: About the folks in Olympia being out of touch with the real world
W2: So what’s new?
W1: Thousands of people are out of work, others are losing their homes, schools are not properly funded, yet legislators spend time passing a so-called everything but marriage bill.
W2: That’s the one to add more rights to the state’s domestic partnership law?
W1: That’s the one. It should be rejected.
W2: Ok, you want state legislators to solve the real problems that affect our state, not pass bills that change the definition of marriage?
W1: Exactly. The bill they passed expands the rights of same-sex partners to be equal to those of married couples. How does that help people who are losing their home?
W2: What ca we do?
W1: Fortunately Referendum 71 lets us have a voice.
W2: So you want to send a message to the legislature?
W1: Yes! Vote reject on R-71 when you mail in your ballot.
W2: Paid for by Vote Reject on R-71
Have either of those women even set foot in Yakima or Pullman? Doubt it. Even if they had, dollars to donuts they had to be paid to pronounce those non sequiturs. You can listen to voice-over actors in Protect Marriage Washington’s theocratic tv ads here and here.
All of the radio and tv ads released so far by Washington Families Standing Together are posted here. Every one of them features real Washingtonians talking about their real families. Here is my favorite so far, which is now being broadcast on tv. You can help keep this wonderful ad on the air by donating. Ad time gets more expensive the closer we get to election day.
Jane: Pete-e and I have been together for 32 years. We were both in nursing, and Pete-e served in the Korean War.
We raised a daughter together, and she and her husband have given us two beautiful grandchildren.
Now that we are getting older, we need to be able to take care of each other, especially if one of us is ill.
Voiceover: Don’t take away protections for committed couples like family medical leave or extending health insurance coverage to a partner. Vote to approve Referendum 71.
Jane: For all Washington families.
Voiceover: Paid for by Washington Families Standing Together.
Cross-posted at Washblog.




18 Comments


How can it not be clear who paid for the advertising?State law REQUIRES that any and all campaign literature — brochures and commercials — clearly state who is footing the bill.
Are the bigots yet again directly violating transparency laws?
legally required, really?Ugh. I was so disgusted to hear this reject ad on the radio this morning. I sent an angry email to the station and let them know they have lost me as a listener. They replied that they understand, but that they are “legally required” to air the ad. Can anyone confirm if this is true? Do they really have zero discretion in the ads they accept?
the ads do state who supposedly paidbut the PDC numbers don’t seem to support those claims. unless i’m missing something.
They are wrongThere is no requirement for any media outlet — television, cable, radio or print — to accept and publish any advertisment of any kind, political or not. And there hasn’t been any such requirement since the Fairness Doctrine was abolished in 1987. Basically, an outlet has a right to free association and free speech, ie to make whatever editorial decisions on content that they wish; the free speech rights of a group or individual do not trump the free speech rights of a media venue.
So either your station is abjectly ignorant of the laws governing their own business, or they were flat-out lying.
Ah, got itSo they do seem to be violating the law, they’re just not being so blatant about it.
Oh, and have you heard that Tim “I’ve got mine so fuck you” Eyman has petition to have the signatures of every one of the initiatives he sponsored sealed so as to “protect the free speech rights” of people who signed them years ago?
Do we know which companies?CEO’s?, etc have given to Reject on R-71 and any other anti-gay rights campaigns in Washington (they do seem to be duplicating)
We may not be able to choose how we are born, but we sure as hell can choose where we spend our cash!
Lying promoters of hate.TB says,
“There is no requirement for any media outlet — television, cable, radio or print — to accept and publish any advertisment of any kind, political or not. And there hasn’t been any such requirement since the Fairness Doctrine was abolished in 1987. Basically, an outlet has a right to free association and free speech, ie to make whatever editorial decisions on content that they wish; the free speech rights of a group or individual do not trump the free speech rights of a media venue.”
Really!? I’ve been told by media the very same lies multiple times.
Lying B^$#^&)$.
And they lie with that self satisfied smile on their faces like making me suffer is the most compassionate thing they can do for me.
Journalism 101My right to freedom of the press does not obligate me to accomodate your freedom of speech.
Crimeny, that’s not even journalism 101, it’s remedial civics.
Star 101.5 Seattle (KPLZ) used to be one of my favorite radio stationsUntil they started airing the Reject 71 ads. This station is owned by Fisher Communications, which also owns KOMO TV 4.
yes – here are their phone numberscall letters and phone numbers of the radio stations carrying the pro-discrimination ads can be found here.
contact them!and let them know. numbers here.
star 101.5 a*holesAnd if you want to get really pissed off, here’s the response I got from Bryce Phillipy, Sales Manager at Star 101.5 when I emailed my complaint to the station:
“So you’re in support of equal rights, but freedom of speech is a problem? Check your agenda at the door, please. We’ll let the people decide.”
Read this SLOG postRed this excellent post by Dominic over at The Stranger, where he recounts an on-air debate he just had about the Reject’s the nasty, lie-infested radio ad.
I called the station and complained, and did all that WAFST told me I should do. But the state supreme court has ruled in Public Disclosure Commission v. 119 Vote No Committee, 957 P.2d 691 (1998) that telling lies in political advertising constitutionally protected Free Speech under the First Amendment. The state cannot penalize anyone for making false statements in political ads, nor penalize the newspapers/stations airing them. I’m all for calling for boycotts and making complaints, but complaining to the stations about the ads might make us look intolerant of other people’s free speech rights. (Note: the same ACLU that has donated generously to the Approve 71 campaign has also defended the free speech rights of the Nazis and KKK) Perhaps it might be more effective to run counter-ads on the same stations that call the opposition on their deceptive tactics. But that part’s not within my control.
but denying ad time by the radio stationisn’t a free speech issue. it’s an economic issue. stations choosing not to air the ad or deciding to stop airing the ad are not infringing on anyone’s 1st amendment right to free speech.
I Was Thinking of Donating, But …… then I realized that RWGs are nasty and that their cash ain’t nothing but trash. Right Pam?
I wish I could make these people learn…… not only the constitution but the bill of rights and the federalist papers to boot.
It just makes me more and more angry every time they open their mouths. Take the term ‘activist judges’, the SCOTUS is supposed to be activist so the majority does not overrun the rights of the minority. It is specifically outlined in the text’s mentioned.
All they have to do is read?
How did my comment end up here? n/t