Response from What's Upstream and EPA Pt2
I'm Bob Larson. The tribe behind What's Upstream and the EPA both claim the state Public Disclosure Commission shouldn't waste their time investigating claims they violated state campaign laws.
But opponents say immunity for the Swinomish Tribe shouldn't apply when their funding comes from a federal agency ...
GERALD BARON ... "They have also said they were not conducting lobbying activities for What's Upstream, but the facts show very clearly differently. The sponsors of the campaign sent out letters talking about how excited they were about the relaunch of their website in December of 2015 just in time for the 2016 legislative session. And of course, the take action button and all the content on the site was really aimed at trying to pass legislation for these mandatory buffers across the state."
Save Family Farming's Gerald Baron says the EPA Administrator's claims don't line up either ...
GERALD BARON ... "It was McLerran himself who apparently, according to documents that we have, overruled the staff's efforts to stop the campaign and allowed it to go forward. So we don't believe that his declaration is truthful. But, he also said in there that, as a federal official, he was immune from state campaign laws. We really don't have a comment on that, but both parties are claiming immunity from state campaign laws and should the PDC and the Attorney General decide that these defenses are to be upheld, there's some real problems with these campaign laws that would need to be addressed in the legislature."
We'll talk tomorrow about the problems an immunity loophole could present for future campaigns.
