1

April 24, 2017

Bob Ferguson

Washington Attorney General

1125 Washington Street SE

P.O. Box 40100

Olympia, WA 98504-0100

Dan Satterberg

King County Prosecuting Attorney

516 Third Avenue, W400

Seattle, WA 98104

Jon Tunheim

Thurston County Prosecuting Attorney

2000 Lakeridge Dr. S.W., Building 2

Olympia, WA 98502

Dear Messrs. Ferguson, Satterberg, and Tunheim,

Pursuant to RCW 42.17A.765(4), I write to report violations of the Fair Campaign Practices Act

(“FCPA”), Chapter 42.17A RCW, by the Service Employees International Union Leadership

Council 14 (also known as the SEIU Washington State Council, hereinafter “Council 14”).

For calendar years 2015-2016 or, alternatively, only for calendar year 2016, Council 14 has

operated as a political committee without filing a statement of organization with the Public

Disclosure Commission (“PDC”) as required by RCW 42.17A.205. As an unregistered political

committee, Council 14 has also failed to comply with the other provisions of Chapter 42.17A RCW

governing the conduct and reporting requirements of political committees.

Council 14’s Purpose

On its 2015 990 form filed with the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), Council 14 describes its

“mission or most significant activities” as follows:

“SEIU Washington State Council was established to unite all local unions of the

Washington State Council for their mutual aid and protection, to assist them in their

organization work in their industries and to enhance the working lives of SEIU members

by improving the terms and conditions of their employment, charitable, civic, legal,

legislative and health and welfare activities, provided, however, that the state council

shall not engage in collective bargaining with employers.”

2

See Exhibit A, a copy of Council 14’s 2015 IRS 990 form. Appendix page 2.

However, other sources describe Council 14’s purpose in more explicitly political terms. The

website for SEIU 1948/Public School Employees of Washington, which falls under Council 14’s

jurisdiction, notes,

“Each SEIU local union in Washington maintains its autonomy. The locals often

coordinate legislative and political activities through the SEIU Washington State

Council...”1

See Exhibit B, a copy of SEIU 1948’s webpage. App. 31.

Council 14’s profile on Idealist.org, a progressive job posting site, states, “The SEIU

Washington State Council coordinates the joint political and legislative work of SEIU Locals in

Washington State…”2 See Exhibit C, a copy of Council 14’s Idealist profile page. App. 33.

In addition, Council 14 was listed by the Connections Group, a political consultancy firm in

Seattle, as one of the “30 Seattle-Based Groups Every Mover and Shaker Should Know,”

explaining that, “The SEIU Washington State Council coordinates the joint political and

legislative work of SEIU Locals in Washington State…”3 See Exhibit D, a copy of the

Connections Group document. App. 38.

These descriptions of Council 14’s purpose align closely with a 2012 job posting on SEIU Local

49’s website (Local 49 falls under Council 14’s jurisdiction) from when Council 14 was seeking

a new executive director:

“About the SEIU Washington State Council: The SEIU Washington State Council

coordinates the joint political and legislative work of SEIU Locals in Washington State…

About the Position: The Executive Director leads the State Council staff, directs the

planning and execution of Council political campaigns and projects, oversees the

development of the Council budget, administers Council PACs and other political funds

totaling as much as $2M or more per election cycle, coordinates joint work among SEIU

Locals, provides staff leadership and support to the Executive Board, represents the

Council to various coalitions and allies, assists local unions in the development of strong

political and issue programs, and functions as part of the staff-level leadership of the

SEIU in Washington State…

Who Should Apply? Experienced union and political organizers, who are dedicated to

building the labor movement, building power for working families, and raising standards

for workers in SEIU’s industries. The successful applicant will have 5 or more years of

combined experience working in the labor movement, in an allied progressive

1 Rick Chisa. “SEIU: Who We Are in Washington.” Public School Employees of Washington SEIU 1948. June 10,

2013. http://pseclassified.org/2013/06/seiu-who-we-are-in-washington/ 2 Accessed on April 21, 2017. Available online at

https://www.idealist.org/en/nonprofit/3cc4bb3064294bff8de3b8dae7586e53-seiu-washington-state-council-seattle 3 The Connections Group. “30 Seattle-Based Groups Every Mover and Shaker Should Know.” Accessed on April

21, 2017. http://www.connectionsgroup.org/30_groups.pdf

3

organization, or for progressive electoral campaigns… The successful applicant will be

familiar with all aspects of political and issue campaigns and membership-based political

programs…” (Emphasis not added)4

See Exhibit E, a copy of the job announcement from SEIU 49’s website. App. 43.

Council 14’s 2015 Finances

Article XVIII of the Service Employees International Union (“International SEIU”) 2016

Constitution and Bylaws authorizes SEIU to “establish intermediate bodies including, but not

limited to, State and Provincial Councils,” of which Council 14 is one. The Article also requires

any local unions within the jurisdiction of the “intermediate body” to “affiliate with such bodies

and comply with their bylaws, including provisions in such bylaws requiring the payment of per

capita taxes to the intermediate body…”5 See Exhibit F, a copy of the International SEIU 2016

constitution and bylaws. App. 84.

In Washington State, there are six SEIU locals within the jurisdiction of Council 14: SEIU Local

775, SEIU Local 925, SEIU Local 1199, SEIU Local 1948/Public School Employees of

Washington, SEIU Local 6, and SEIU Local 49.

In accordance with International SEIU’s bylaws, each of these unions pays a “per capita tax” at a

certain rate to Council 14. Article 3.5 of SEIU 775’s 2015 Constitution and Bylaws, for example,

specifies that:

“This Union shall pay per capita tax to the International Union for any person from

whom the Union receives revenue, whether called dues or otherwise… This Union shall

affiliate with such SEIU State Councils, and other SEIU intermediate bodies as the

International Union may direct.”

See Exhibit G, a copy of SEIU 775’s 2015 constitution and bylaws. App. 128-129.

According to Council 14’s 2015 LM-2 report filed with the U.S. Department of Labor in

accordance with the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), Council 14

collected $1,382,417 in per capita taxes from affiliates in 2015 and received another $300,000

from the national SEIU—$100,000 in “infrastructure subsidies” and $200,000 in “contributions.”

See Exhibit H, a copy of Council 14’s 2015 LM-2. App. 147, 162. However, in its 2015 LM-2,

the national SEIU lists its contributions to Council 14 under schedule 16, “political activities and

lobbying,” and describes each of the contributions as “support for political activities.” See

Exhibit I, a copy of the national SEIU 2015 LM-2. App. 401.

Council 14’s receipts for the year totaled $1,711,514 and its total disbursements totaled

$1,276,140. See Exhibit H. App. 147.

4 Accessed on April 21, 2017. Available online at: http://www.seiu49.org/files/2012/08/Council-ExDir-Job-Annc-8-

2012.pdf 5 Service Employees International Union. “SEIU 2016 Constitution and Bylaws.” Accessed on April 21, 2017.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/convdocs.seiumedia.net/documents/constitution-2016.pdf?mtime=20161110135331

4

Council 14 maintains a political committee registered with the PDC, the Service Employees

International Union Washington State Council PAC. See Exhibit J, a copy of the political

committee’s 2016 C1pc report to the PDC. App. 505. In 2015, Council 14 contributed $427,000

to the committee over the course of the year. See Exhibit K, copies of the SEIU WA State

Council PAC’s C3 reports to the PDC. App. 508.

Additionally, Council 14 contributed $55,000 to three other political committees registered with

the PDC in 2015, including:

$40,000 to Vote No on 1366. See Exhibit L, Vote No on 1366’s C3 reports. App. 530.

$10,000 to Best Start for Kids. See Exhibit M, Best Start for Kids’ C3 report. App. 533.

$5,000 to Honest Elections Seattle. See Exhibit N, Honest Elections Seattle’s C3 report.

App. 537.

All told, Council 14 contributed at least $482,000 to PDC-registered political committees and

campaigns in 2015, comprising 28.2 percent of its total receipts and 37.8 percent of its

disbursements.

By way of comparison, Council 14’s 2015 LM-2 indicates it spent merely $215,685 on overhead,

administrative costs and taxes combined (16.9 percent of its total disbursements).6 It contributed

$77,750 (6.1 percent of its disbursements) to various ideological organizations not registered

with the PDC.7 A further $202,054 (15.8 percent of disbursements) went towards employee

wages and benefits.8 Three-quarters of the executive director’s time and activity, however, was

devoted to “political activities and lobbying,” with only 25 percent going towards

“administration.”9 The remaining $368,008 (28.8 percent of disbursements) went towards

activity that qualified as “political activities and lobbying” for purposes of the LMRDA but that

was not reported to the PDC under Chapter 42.17A RCW.10 See Exhibit H, App. 143.

Council 14’s 2016 Finances

Council 14’s 2016 LM-2 report indicates it collected $1,394,797 in per capita taxes last year.

Additionally, Council 14 received an $85,000 “contribution” from SEIU 775 and a total of

$862,833 from the national SEIU—$100,000 for “infrastructure subsidies,” $500,000 for

“political program support,” and $262,833 for “contributions for 2020 campaign.” See Exhibit

O, a copy of Council 14’s 2016 LM-2. App. 543, 558. On its 2016 LM-2 form, however, the

national SEIU lists all its contributions to Council 14 under schedule 16 “political activities and

lobbying,” and describes each contribution to Council 14 as “support for political advocacy.” See

Exhibit P, a copy of the nation SEIU 2016 LM-2. App. 807.

6 Statement B, lines 53, 54 and 65. 7 Statement B, line 52. 8 Statement B, line 55 and Schedule 12, “Disbursements to Employees.” 9 Schedule 12, “Disbursements to Employees.” 10 Schedule 16, “Political Activities and Lobbying.”

5

Council 14’s total receipts for the year were $2,356,869 while its disbursements totaled

$3,021,800. See Exhibit O. App. 543.

Over the course of the year, Council 14 contributed at least $2,251,000 to at least six PDC-

registered political committees, including:

$1,585,000 to the SEIU Washington State Council PAC. See Exhibit K. App. 508.

$575,000 to Raise Up Washington. See Exhibit Q, a copy of Raise Up Washington’s C3

reports to the PDC. App. 905.

$50,000 to the Alliance for Gun Responsibility. See Exhibit R, a copy of the Alliance for

Gun Responsibility’s C3 report to the PDC. App. 913.

$30,000 to Mass Transit Now. See Exhibit S, a copy of Mass Transit Now’s C3 report to

the PDC. App. 916.

$10,000 to Opportunity for Olympia. See Exhibit T, a copy of Opportunity for

Olympia’s C3 report to the PDC. App. 919.

$1,000 to Seattle Protects Women. See Exhibit U, a copy of Seattle Protects Women’s

C3 report to the PDC. App. 922.

These expenditures comprised 95.5 percent of Council 14’s total receipts for the year and 74.5

percent of its total disbursements.

By comparison, its 2016 LM-2 indicates Council 14 spent only $183,881 on overhead,

administrative costs and taxes combined (6.1 percent of its total disbursements).11 It contributed

$40,150 to non-PDC registered ideological organizations (1.3 percent of disbursements).12 It

spent a further $200,371 on employee wages and benefits (6.6 percent of disbursements.)13 The

LM-2 also indicates that 75 percent of Nelson’s activity as executive director was devoted to

“political activities and lobbying,” with the remaining 25 percent devoted to “administration.”14

The remaining $510,139 in disbursements (16.9 percent) were made for activities that were

reported on the LM-2 as “political activities and lobbying” for purposes of the LMRDA but that

were not reported to the PDC.15 See Exhibit O. App. 539.

Over the course of 2015-2016, Council 14’s total receipts were $4,068,383, of which the

$2,773,000 it contributed to PDC-registered political committees comprised 67.2 percent.

Council 14 contributions to political committees made up 64.5 percent of the $4,297,940 in

disbursements it made over the same period.

Council 14’s Leadership and Staff

Council 14’s officers consist solely of the heads of the various SEIU locals in Washington.

Council 14’s 2016 LM-2 lists the following individuals as officers:

11 Statement B, lines 53, 54 and 65. 12 Statement B, line 52. 13 Statement B, line 55, and Schedule 12, “Disbursements to Employees.” 14 Schedule 12, “Disbursements to Employees.” 15 Schedule 16, “Political Activities and Lobbying.”

6

Reen Doser, chair. Kathreen “Reen” Doser is also the president of SEIU 1948. 16 See

Exhibit V, a page from SEIU 1948’s website. App. 924.

Sergio Salinas, vice president. Salinas is also the president of SEIU 6.17 See Exhibit W, a

page from SEIU Local 6’s website. App. 926.

David Rolf, vice president. Rolf is also the president of SEIU 775.18 See Exhibit X, a

page from SEIU 775’s website. App. 928.

Karen Hart, vice president. Hart is also the president of SEIU 925.19 See Exhibit Y, a

page from SEIU 925’s website. App. 930.

Meg Niemi, vice president. Niemi is also the president of SEIU 49.20 See Exhibit Z, a

page from SEIU 49’s website. App. 932.

Diane Sosne, vice president. Sosne is also the president of SEIU 1199.21 See Exhibit AA,

a page from SEIU 1199’s website. App. 934.

Charlotte Shindler, vice president. Shindler is also the president of SEIU 1948’s board of

directors.22 See Exhibit BB, a page from SEIU 1948’s website. App. 936.

From 2015-2016, Council 14 employed only two people, according to its LM-2s: Executive

director Michael Nelson and finance and operations manager Ana Maria Crapsey. See Exhibit

H, App. 159, and Exhibit O, App. 555. Nelson is also listed as the campaign manager and

treasurer of the SEIU Washington State Council PAC. See Exhibit J, App. 505.

Council 14 Endorses Candidates for Office

In July, 2016, Council 14 endorsed Pramila Jayapal in the election for Washington State’s 7th

Congressional District, according to a press release issued by her campaign.23

Violations of Chapter 42.17A RCW

RCW 42.17A.205 requires every “political committee” to “file a statement of organization” with

the PDC “within two weeks after organization or within two weeks after the date the committee

first has the expectation of receiving contributions or making expenditures in any election

campaign, whichever is earlier.”

RCW 42.17A.005(37) defines “political committee” as:

16 Doug Nelson. “President Reen Doser supporting paraeducator bill.” Public School Employees of Washington

SEIU 1948. March 24, 2015. http://pseclassified.org/2015/03/president-reen-doser-supporting-paraeducator-bill/ 17 SEIU Local 6. “Our Staff.” Accessed April 21, 2017. http://seiu6.org/our-staff/ 18 SEIU 775. “David Rolf.” Accessed April 21, 2017. http://seiu775.org/leadership/david-rolf/ 19 SEIU Local 925. “Leaders.” Accessed April 21, 2017. http://www.seiu925.org/about/where-we-work/ 20 SEIU Local 49. “Contact Us.” Accessed April 21, 2017. http://www.seiu49.org/my-union/contact-us/ 21 SEIU Healthcare 1199NW. “Our leadership: Diane Sosne, RN, MN.” Accessed April 21, 2017.

http://www.seiu1199nw.org/about-2/our-leadership-diane-sosne-rn-mn/ 22 Public School Employees of Washington SEIU 1948. “PSE Board of Directors.” Accessed April 21, 2017.

http://pseclassified.org/board-of-directors/ 23 Office of Rep. Pramila Jayapal. “SEIU Announces Its Endorsement of Pramila Jayapal for Congress.” July 11,

2016. https://www.legistorm.com/stormfeed/view_rss/930848/member/3134.html

7

“…any person… having the expectation of receiving contributions or making

expenditures in support of, or opposition to, any candidate or any ballot proposition.”

Three Washington court decisions have clarified and interpreted this definition.

In State of Washington v. Dan J. Evans Campaign Committee, 86 Wn.2d 503 (1976), the State

Supreme Court determined that an entity satisfies the expenditures prong of the definition of

“political committee” if affecting, “directly or indirectly, governmental decision making by

supporting or opposing candidates or ballot propositions” is “the primary or one of the primary

purposes” of the entity.

In Utter v. Bldg. Indus. Ass'n of Washington, 182 Wn.2d 398 (2015), the Washington State

Supreme Court confirmed that an organization may be considered a “political committee” if one

of its primary purposes is to engage in electoral political activity; electoral political activity need

not be the primary purpose of the entity for it to fulfill the definition of “political committee.”

Lastly, in State ex rel. Evergreen Freedom Foundation v. Washington Education Association,

111 Wn. 586 (2002), the court of appeals interpreted the definition of “political committee” to

mean,

“…a person or organization may become a political committee by either (1) expecting to

receive or receiving contributions, or (2) expecting to make or making expenditures to

further electoral political goals.”

Council 14 fulfills both the “receiver of contributions” and “maker of expenditures” prongs of

the definition of “political committee.”

Every month during 2015 and 2016, Council 14 has received contributions from the national

SEIU for “political activities/advocacy,” totaling nearly $1.2 million. See Exhibit I, App. 401,

and Exhibit P, App. 807. It also received an $85,000 “contribution” from SEIU 775 in October

2016. See Exhibit O, App. 558.

Additionally, the per capita payments Council 14 receives from SEIU locals in Washington are

contributions made in expectation of furthering electoral political goals. Because of the bylaws

of the national and local unions, Council 14 has an expectation of receiving and does receive the

per capita payments. See Exhibit F-G, App. 44. Because the heads of each SEIU local in

Washington paying the per capita tax are also officers of Council 14, they are each fully aware of

and oversee Council 14’s use of the per capita funds for electoral political activity. See Exhibits

V-BA, App. 924.

This alone is sufficient to qualify Council 14 as a political committee. However, Council 14 also

fulfills the “expenditures prong” of the definition of “political committee.”

In EFF v. WEA, the appeals court expounded on the primary purpose test established by the State

Supreme Court in State of Washington v. Dan Evans, including the following observations:

8

“…an appropriate framework for determining whether electoral political activity is one of

an organization's primary purposes should include an examination of the stated goals and

mission of the organization and whether electoral political activity was a primary means

of achieving the stated goals and mission during the period in question. Under this

analysis, a nonexclusive list of analytical tools a court may use when evaluating the

evidence includes: (1) the content of the stated goals and mission of the organization; (2)

whether the organization's actions further its stated goals and mission; (3) whether the

stated goals and mission of the organization would be substantially achieved by a

favorable outcome in an upcoming election; and (4) whether the organization uses means

other than electoral political activity to achieve its stated goals and mission.”

Council 14 repeatedly describes its own purpose as “[coordinating] the joint political and

legislative work of SEIU Locals in Washington State,” a description that has been echoed by

other organizations. See Exhibits B-E, App. 029. The summary of Council 14’s mission on its

2015 IRS 990 form appears to be a textbook case of what the court in EFF v. WEA referred to as

“merely [restating] its primary purpose in broad nonpolitical terms.” See Exhibit A, App. 2.

Additionally, the organization’s actions clearly line up with its stated goals. Indeed, an analysis

of Council 14’s finances indicates that it performs no substantive function that is not political.

For both years, contributions to PDC-registered political committees comprised a larger

percentage of Council 14’s disbursements than any other type of expense. And if this were not

enough, in 2016 and over the course of both years, contributions to PDC-registered political

committees comprised a solid majority of the funds disbursed by Council 14. Its next largest

source of expenditures consisted of activity deemed “political” for purposes of the LMRDA, but

not reported to the PDC under Chapter 42.17A RCW.24

Some of the political efforts supported by Council 14 were obviously directly relevant to various

SEIU locals (by definition, the fact that Council 14 funded various political committees and

campaigns presumably means it believed that all such contributions were in the interest of SEIU

in Washington). For instance, Initiative 1433 in 2016 raised the state minimum wage to $13.50

and required employers to provide employees with certain paid sick leave benefits.25 Section 6 of

I-1433 required that the pay and benefits required by the initiative apply to the approximately

35,000 individual providers represented by SEIU 775, even though providers’ pay and benefits

are generally set by the collective bargaining agreements the union negotiates with the state.26 In

24 The Department of Labor’s “Instructions for Form LM-2 Labor Organization Annual Report,” describes a

“political disbursement or contribution” for the purposes of Schedule 16 on an LM-2 form as “one that is intended to

influence the selection, nomination, election, or appointment of anyone to a Federal, state, or local executive,

legislative or judicial public office, or office in a political organization, or the election of Presidential or Vice

Presidential electors, and support for or opposition to ballot referenda. It does not matter whether the attempt

succeeds.” Available online at: https://www.dol.gov/olms/regs/compliance/GPEA_Forms/LM2_Instructions_6-

2016_techrev.pdf 25 Initiative text available from the Washington State Secretary of State online:

https://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/finaltext_954.pdf 26 2015-17 collective bargaining agreement between the State of Washington and Service Employees International

Union Healthcare 775NW. Available from the Office of Financial Management online:

http://www.ofm.wa.gov/labor/agreements/15-17/nse_homecare.pdf

9

effect, passage of the initiative granted certain SEIU-represented employees a pay raise. Council

14 contributed more than half a million dollars to the ultimately successful campaign. See

Exhibit Q, App. 905. In testimony on the operating budget proposed by the State House of

Representatives, an SEIU 775 lobbyist thanked budget writers for “including funds to bring

employees’ wages to the state minimum wage established in Initiative 1433.”27

Similarly, a clear majority of the employees represented by SEIU in Washington are public or

partial-public employees. SEIU 775 represents about 35,000 individual providers in negotiations

with the state.28 SEIU 925 represents about 7,000 family child care providers in negotiations with

the state.29 It also represents employees at the University of Washington, in the K-12 public

school system, and in municipal government.30 SEIU 1199 represents state hospital employees in

negotiations with the state.31 SEIU 1948 represents purely classified employees in the K-12

public school system.32

Since so many of its members are paid with tax dollars, SEIU in Washington believes it to be in

its interest to support measures to increase taxes and oppose attempts to limit or decrease taxes.

For instance, SEIU 775’s lobbyist testified in favor of the operating budget proposed by

Democrats in the State House of Representatives.33 The proposal would increase taxes by about

$3 billion and includes a new tax on capital gains.34 Meanwhile, SEIU 775 opposed the operating

budget proposed by Senate Republicans which included no new taxes. The union’s lobbyist

described the budget as “a step backwards,” said the union was “disappointed” in numerous

elements, and concluded by urging the committee to “please look for revenue solutions such as

capital gains rather than those cuts.”35

Similarly, SEIU 1199’s lobbyist described the House proposal as “excellent” because of the

27 Demas Nesterenko. Testimony on HB 1067 before the Washington State House of Representatives Appropriations

Committee. March 27, 2017. http://bit.ly/2ptz54P 28 2015-17 collective bargaining agreement between the State of Washington and Service Employees International

Union Healthcare 775NW. Available from the Office of Financial Management online:

http://www.ofm.wa.gov/labor/agreements/15-17/nse_homecare.pdf 29 2015-17 collective bargaining agreement between the State of Washington and Service Employees International

Union 925. Available from the Office of Financial Management online:

http://www.ofm.wa.gov/labor/agreements/15-17/nse_childcare.pdf 30 SEIU Local 925. “About Us.” Accessed April 21, 2017. http://www.seiu925.org/about/ 31 2015-17 collective bargaining agreement between the State of Washington and Service Employees International

Union Healthcare 1199NW. Available from the Office of Financial Management online:

http://www.ofm.wa.gov/labor/agreements/15-17/seiu_1199.pdf 32 Public School Employees of Washington SEIU 1948. “About Us.” Accessed April 21, 2017.

http://pseclassified.org/about-us/ 33 SEIU 775’s lobbyist, Demas Nesterenko, gushed over the proposal: “Wow… thank you so much for your hard

work. We applaud the approach of avoiding a cuts-first budget…” Testimony on HB 1067 before the Washington

State House of Representatives Appropriations Committee. March 27, 2017. http://bit.ly/2ptz54P 34 Joseph O’Sullivan. “Democrats in Olympia have plan to fund schools: $3B in new taxes.” Seattle Times. March

27, 2017. http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/house-democrats-plan-to-fund-schools-3-billion-in-

new-taxes/ 35 Demas Nesterenko. Testimony on SB 5048 before the Washington State Senate Ways and Means Committee.

March 21, 2017. http://bit.ly/2pbN78o

10

“injection” of new funds into various “investments” into Washington’s health care system.36 The

same SEIU 1199 lobbyist “opposed” the “deeply concerning cuts” in the Senate operating budget

proposal that would “jeopardize” certain “hard fought gains.”37

Given SEIU’s support for higher taxes and more state revenue, it is not surprising that Council

14 contributed $40,000 to the political committee opposing I-1366 in 2015, which required the

legislature to choose between adopting a constitutional amendment requiring a two-thirds

majority to raise taxes or reducing the state sales tax.38 See Exhibit L, App. 530. Likewise,

Council 14’s $10,000 contribution to the campaign to pass Proposition 1 in Olympia in 2016,

which would have imposed an income tax on certain city residents, followed from its interest in

seeing taxes raised generally.39 See Exhibit T, App. 919.

SEIU in Washington has also expressed significant interest in the outcome of elections for state

legislature and governor, both through its public comments and it political contributions. Just

before the state election last November, the Seattle Times reported that, “In the fight over control

of the state Legislature, no donor has staked more on a Democratic victory this fall than the

Service Employees International Union.”40

It’s worth quoting from the article at length:

“So what’s the union expecting in return for this year’s largesse?

David Rolf, president of SEIU 775, the union’s largest local representing more than

40,000 home health-care workers, says what’s at stake for his members ‘is whether some

of the gains they’ve experienced over the last decade and a half are safe or at risk.’

For starters, lawmakers will vote next year on whether to fund a state contract for SEIU

775 home health-care workers that would raise starting pay to $15 an hour by 2019, up

from the current $11.50.

As it hands out endorsements and campaign donations, SEIU has been asking legislative

candidates to sign a pledge in support of that contract… [See Exhibit CC, App. 938.]

But this fall, SEIU is betting heavily on Democrats — and especially the state House

majority led by House Speaker Frank Chopp, D-Seattle. In addition to SEIU 775,

36 Lindsey Grad. Testimony on HB 1067 before the Washington State House Appropriations Committee. March 27,

2017. http://bit.ly/2opieA4 37 Lindsey Grad. Testimony on SB 5048 before the Washington State Senate Ways and Means Committee. March

21, 2017. http://bit.ly/2pZ8XyQ 38 Initiative text available from the Washington State Secretary of State online:

https://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/finaltext_727.pdf 39 Initiative text available from the Thurston County Auditor online:

http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/auditor/Elections/2016elections/November/olympia.pdf 40 Jim Brunner. “Powerful SEIU pins hopes for higher wages, more state services on Democrats’ victory in

Legislature.” Seattle Times. October 8, 2016. http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/seiu-pins-hopes-on-

democrats-victory-in-state-legislature/

11

contributions have flowed from the union’s state council and locals representing nurses,

university employees and others…

For the past several election cycles, Republicans have chipped away at House

Democrats’ once-solid majority. By picking up just two seats this fall, the GOP could flip

control of that chamber for the first time in 20 years.

If that happens, unions would lose a valuable backstop in Chopp’s majority caucus.

‘It’s always been able to prevent anything really bad from happening when it comes to

workers’ rights or worker benefits. At times they’ve been able to help move the ball

forward,’ Rolf said.” (Emphasis added)41

Shortly after the election, KUOW dubbed SEIU the state’s “2016 heavyweight champion of

election influencing,” noting, “The union and its various locals gave $6.2 million to various

ballot initiatives, candidates and Democratic Party organizations.”42

Some of the political campaigns Council 14 invested in over the past two years were successful,

while others were not: I-1366, which it opposed, was approved by voters; I-1433, which it

supported, was approved by voters; Proposition 1 in Olympia, which Council 14 supported, was

rejected by voters; and so forth. Still, given Council 14’s goal of engaging in political activity it

deems to be in SEIU’s interests, and given the degree to which Council 14 invests in political

campaigns, clearly its effectiveness in advancing its mission hinges on electoral outcomes.

And again, Council 14 does not appear to employ any substantive “means other than electoral

political activity to achieve its stated mission and goals” which makes sense because its stated

goal consists only of influencing electoral political activity. Council 14 does not bargain

contracts or represent employees. It has only two staff and a light administrative footprint. Its

sole purpose is to administer its political funds and coordinate SEIU’s political efforts in

Washington. To the limited extent in engages in non-PDC-reportable activity, it is still generally

political and ideological in nature and intended to supplement its broader efforts to influence

election outcomes.

To be considered a “political committee” under the expenditures prong for the purposes of

Chapter 42.17A RCW, Council 14 need only have as one of its primary purposes the influencing

of electoral political activity. It meets this threshold without question.

Conclusion

Council 14’s failure to register and report as a political committee as required by Chapter 42.17A

RCW has tangibly negative implications for the transparency of Washington elections. For

example, political contributions made by Council 14 or its political committee all show up in

PDC records as coming from the “SEIU Washington State Council,” implying incorrectly that all

41 Ibid. 42 John Ryan. “Here are the real winners (and one loser) of this year's ballot initiatives.” 94.9 KUOW. November 29,

2016. http://kuow.org/post/here-are-real-winners-and-one-loser-years-ballot-initiatives

12

the funds came from an in-state source. The fact that the Washington, D.C.-based national SEIU

is funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars through Council 14 annually to influence elections

in Washington State remains hidden from the public.

Further, the reporting regime required by the law requires both the contributing political

committee and the receiving political committee to report the transaction to the PDC. This dual

reporting promotes transparency, as both the contributor and recipient would have to fail to

report the transfer of funds for it to go unnoticed. Council 14’s failure to properly register as a

political committee thwarts this system of accountability. Since Council 14 already does not

report its contributions, the transfer of funds would be invisible to the public if only the

recipients of Council 14 funds neglected to report as required.

We respectfully request that the Washington Attorney General’s Office perform an investigation

into these allegations as expeditiously and efficiently as possible. Please do not hesitate to contact

me if I can be of assistance. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Maxford Nelsen

Director of Labor Policy

Freedom Foundation

P.O. Box 552, Olympia, WA 98507

360.956.3482

mnelsen@freedomfoundation.com