Averill’s attorney, Todd Maybrown, called Lasnik’s ruling “an important affirmation of the First Amendment, one that reinforces the rights of dissident parties to participate in the political process.”

“The Court finds that the compelled disclosure of the names, addresses, and/or employers of contributors to and vendors for plaintiffs’ 2003 campaign would violate plaintiffs’ rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association,” Lasnick wrote in his decision. “The Court also finds that (Seattle Municipal Code) 2.04.320 is unconstitutional as applied because the Seattle Ethics and Election Commission interpretation improperly required plaintiffs to make showings not required by relevant Supreme Court precedent.”

In an attempt to strengthen their case after last year’s setback, the Seattle city government had introduced testimony from retired FBI agent James Wright, whom City Hall claimed was a “threat assessment expert.”

A statement issued by the Freedom Socialist Party July 20 said, “Lasnik ruled that Averill had met the burden of proof required by the city and that his previous order for her to submit donor information in coded form both protected donors and ensured financial accountability. In rejecting the city’s position, Lasnik observed that [FBI agent] Wright’s assertions were flawed in light of reality, earlier Supreme Court decisions, and even, threat assessment principles as described in articles the city provided to bolster Wright’s testimony.”

In the August 2003 ruling, Lasnik quoted from a 1974 decision by the Supreme Court granting the Socialist Workers Party exemption from disclosure. The 1974 decision read, “The constitution protects against the compelled disclosure of political associations and beliefs. Such disclosures can seriously infringe on privacy of association and belief guaranteed by the First Amendment. Inviolability of privacy in group association may in many circumstances be indispensable to preservation of freedom of association, particularly where a group espouses dissident beliefs.”

As evidence that the court should protect “privacy of association and belief,” Lasnik referred to a number of threatening e-mails and phone calls received by the FSP and its members.

Lasnik noted that if contributors’ names were disclosed, they would also be accessible to hostile individuals and groups beyond Seattle and Washington State. If the SEEC order stood, he said, the city authorities would “publish the names and, if the amount contributed exceeds $100, employers of plaintiffs’ supporters on the world wide web.”

Connie Allen, the Socialist Workers Party candidate for U.S. Senate in Washington, called the FSP to congratulate the party for the accomplishment and hailed the victory as “an important victory for workers’ rights.”

In 1997 the SEEC had ruled against the SWP, Allen noted, saying it must disclose the names of contributors to its campaign for mayor of Seattle. After a public fight to reverse the SEEC decision, an agreement was reached in which the campaign was not required to disclose the names and addresses of campaign contributors.

The city of Seattle has 30 days to appeal Lasnik’s decision.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home