Washblog

...you are probably going to need a lawyer from the state Democratic Party to back you up.  Have you contacted them to get their support?

by palamedes on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 02:07:08 PM PST

---

if Satterberg actually won.  As I stood in front of the Dieobld op-scan last night (I am an inspector)reading the totals on the summary tape, all I could think about was, "we have no way of knowing if these returns are true and accurate."

I am not saying he did not, but the truth is, we really don't know. Is this really how we want to continue conducting elections?  Election results based on faith only?  I am sick of it.

by raincity calling on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 03:01:44 PM PST

---

I've been asked for media sources that would more clearly outline the relationship between the apparently illegal donations made to Satterberg's campaign, the timing of the media buys, and the change in the opinion polls for Sherman and Satterberg.  That information is below.

In addition, I tried to check out State GOP Chairman Luke Esser's assertion that the state party took in $400,000 in October 2007 (you'll hear that on the King 5 video linked to below) and gave only a quarter of that to Satterberg.  My search of the PDC records shows that no $ went into the Republican account from 11/06 to 10/12/07.  Then about $176,000 went in, mostly from a small circle of Satterberg supporters.  And following that, $126,000 quickly went out to Satterberg from that account.  The other GOP account, an exempt one, seems to have taken in perhaps $80,000 in October 07.

Sherman was 6 points ahead when the first poll was conducted by Survey USA between 10/14-10/16/07 -- before the advertising began.  Then the advertising purchased with the questionable money began.  The second poll, conducted between 1031/07 and 11/1 -- after the advertising had been airing -- showed that percentage almost exactly reversed, with Satterberg now ahead by 8 points.

Here are the references:

Survey USA poll conducted between 10/12 and 10/16/07:
Sherman at 49%, Satterberg at 43% and Undecided at 8%

Goldy saw it coming.  On 10/26, David Goldstein reported that Satterberg had booked $180,000 worth of TV and radio time -- but had just previously reported only $126,000 in cash in hand:  GOP to flood prosecutor's race with late money.

A Survey USA poll conducted between 10/31 - 11/1:
Satterberg's now at 50%, Sherman's at 42% and Undecided are at 8%

Here's Darryl Holman's analysis at Hominid Views:  Satterberg probably successful at purchasing his first election.

This video at King 5 shows the poll numbers criss-crossing in correlation with the money dump: Fur flies over fundraising in King Co. Prosecutor's race.

Luke Esser, Chair of the state GOP, says in the King 5 segment that the party raised about 400,000 in October 07 -- and only about a quarter of that went to the Sherman campaign.  There's nothing wrong with that....

But this does not appear to be true.  The non-exempt account into which the Satterberg suppporters put $ saw no donations that I can find between 11/06 and 10/11/07.

Then the donations began.  The list below I believe shows every donation made in October, 2007 (I see none in early November):

10/11/07   Bruce McCaw, 15,000

10/11/07   Mike McGavick 5,000

10/11/07   Richard Derham 1,000

10/12/07   Lee Nelson 10,000 (a deputy pros. in Satterberg's office)

10/12/07   Jim Snyder 5,000

10/12/07   Mikal Tomsen 5,000

10/15/07   Skip Rowley 50,000

10/15/07   King Co. Rep. 25,000

10/15/07   Martin Selig 25,000

10/15/07   Bruce McCaw 10,000

10/15/07   Robert Genise 5,000

10/17/07   John Hennessy 5,000

10/17/07   Michael Echelbayer 3,500

10/17/07   Phoenix Dev. 3,500

10/23/07   Dunn Pac 1,000

10/26/07   Michael Malone 5,000

10/30/07   Kevin Hughes 2,000

That's $176,000.  And $126,000 of it went to Satterberg.

There is another State GOP account -- an exempt one.  I assume that candidates can't receive $ from it...  That account shows perhaps $80,000 was raised in October 07 (I don't have the patience to add up all the $100 donations).  It looks to me like Mr. Esser is stretching the numbers a bit here ...  but perhaps there's an explanation

     

by noemie maxwell on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 04:21:36 PM PST

---

This resolution was put together quickly (though most of the information had been carefully verified in advance.  There is at least one small error: the poll conducted before the advertising purchased with probably illegal GOP cash showed Bill Sherman ahead of Dan Satterberg by 6 percentage points, not 8.

RESOLUTION
Requesting an Inquiry into whether sufficient cause exists to initiate legal action to void the recent election for King County Prosecuting Attorney
47th District Democrats

Whereas: Late campaign contributions totaling more than $126,600 from the Washington State Republican Party were made to Dan Satterberg, GOP candidate for King County Prosecutor.

Whereas: There is compelling evidence indicating that these last minute contributions were made purposely to escape public and media oversight, and that they constitute illegal earmarking of funds--a clear violation of campaign contribution limits.

Whereas: Almost all of these contributors to the state party were from individuals who had already donated to Satterberg, most of them having already made maximum contributions.

Whereas: Dan Satterberg reserved large amounts of broadcast advertising air time after the donations in question had been received by the Republican Party but just before receiving the influx of funds from the Party and when he did not have sufficient funds in his account to pay for the ads, indicating likely complicity with the GOP strategy to illegally direct funds to his campaign.

Whereas:  John Hennessy, the CEO of a construction company named Nuprecon, who had already donated $300 to the Satterberg campaign, called candidate Bill Sherman to demand that he stop discussing a serious allegation of environmental crime lodged against his company that was relevant to the campaign, implying that he would become "more directly involved" in the campaign if Sherman did not accede to his demands.

Whereas: After this conversation, in which Bill Sherman indicated to John Hennessy that he would stop talking about the Nuprecon case only if Mr. Hennessy provided additional information to justify this silence, Mr. Hennessy put $5,000 into the state Republican Party fund which was then transferred to Mr. Satterberg's fund.

Whereas: Nine other individuals who had given the maximum allowable donation to Dan Satterberg - or close to it - contributed in mid to late October 2007, collectively, $99,000 to the State Republican Party, funds which were then quickly transferred to Dan Satterberg's account

Whereas: The same State Republican Party account had been nearly empty and dormant before these donations from this small circle of Satterberg donors flooded into it before being transferred into Dan Satterberg's campaign fund.
Whereas: The funds from Dan Satterberg's supporters that were deposited late in the campaign into the State Republican Party account appear to have been transferred only to the Satterberg campaign and not to other Republican campaigns in the state.

Whereas: A formal request for investigation into $126,000 of these donations constitute illegal earmarking of campaign funds has been filed with the State Public Disclosure Commission

Whereas: RCW 42.17.390 states:  "If the court finds that the violation of any provision of this chapter by any candidate or political committee probably affected the outcome of any election, the result of said election may be held void and a special election held within sixty days of such finding. Any action to void an election shall be commenced within one year of the date of the election in question."

Whereas: RCW 42.17.390 also states: "It is intended that this remedy be imposed freely in all appropriate cases to protect the right of the electorate to an informed and knowledgeable vote."

Whereas: Candidate Bill Sherman was 8 points ahead of Candidate Dan Satterberg in public opinion polls shortly before a flood of TV advertising was conducted using the apparently earmarked funds.

Whereas: Shortly after the advertisements purchased with the questionable funds were aired, Satterberg pulled ahead of Sherman in public opinion polls conducted by the same media organizations to 8 points over Sherman, an exact reversal and approximately the margin by which Satterberg appears to be winning the election as of the date of this resolution.

Whereas:In comparison with the reward of a favorable election outcome that the State Republican Party and Dan Satterberg seem to have received for this significant violation of public disclosure laws, even the maximum fine possible is insufficient to deter future crimes

Therefore Be it Resolved:  That the 47th District Democrats request that Dwight Pelz, Chair of the State Democratic Party and Susan Sheary, Chair of King County Democrats, arrange for a formal inquiry to be conducted to determine whether sufficient cause exists for the Democratic Party to initiate legal proceedings to void the anticipated 2007 election of Dan Satterberg to King County Prosecuting Attorney under RCW 42.17.390.

Adopted unanimously by the 47th District Democrats present at the November 7, 2007 general membership meeting

by noemie maxwell on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 04:28:47 PM PST

---

The point is, with the opscan it is possible to verify the outcome, however no cross check is done unless the margin is very close. The public is not permitted to determine if all other races are accurate. The public is told to rely on the summary report created by internal, secret vote counting.

by raincity calling on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 09:18:27 AM PST

---