1 BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

2 

3 ENFORCEMENT PRIORITY SYSTEM

4 DISMISSAL REPORT

5 

6 MUR: 8075 Respondents: The Seattle Times 

7 People for Patty Murray and Jay

8 Petterson in his official capacity

9 as treasurer

10 

11 12 

13 Complaint Receipt Date: October 5, 2022 

14 Response Dates: October 25, 2022 

15 April 7, 2023 

16 

17 

18 

19 Alleged Statutory and 

20 Regulatory Violations: 52 U.S.C. § 30101(8)(A)(i) 

21 52 U.S.C. § 30118(a) 

22 11 C.F.R. § 100.52(d)(1) 

23 11 C.F.R. § 114.2(b) 

24 

25 The Complaint alleges that The Seattle Times, a newspaper serving Seattle, Washington, 

26 violated the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (the “Act”), by allowing People 

27 for Patty Murray and Jay Petterson in his official capacity as treasurer (the “Murray Committee”), 

28 the principal campaign committee of 2022 Senate candidate Patty Murray, to use its corporate logo 

29 in campaign ads while denying the use of its logo in a campaign ad by Smiley for Washington (the 

30 “Smiley Committee”), the principal campaign committee of Murray’s general election opponent, 

Tiffany Smiley.

1 31 The Complaint alleges that by allowing the Murray Committee to use The Seattle 

1

 Compl. at 1-2 (Oct. 5, 2022). The Complaint, filed by the Smiley Committee, states that The Seattle Times

sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Smiley Committee regarding the use of its corporate logo and cites two campaign 

ads that the Murray Committee posted on YouTube that each contain The Seattle Times logo which The Seattle Times 

has apparently allowed. Id. at 1-2, 2 n.8.

MUR807500032
MUR 8075 (The Seattle Times, et al.) 

EPS Dismissal Report

Page 2 of 4 

1 Times logo but not the Smiley Committee, The Seattle Times made prohibited in-kind corporate 

contributions to the Murray Committee.2 2 

3 The Seattle Times responds that, as a threshold matter, the ads by the Murray Committee 

4 cited in the Complaint are from the 2016 election and therefore not relevant to its decision to 

5 enforce its logo during the 2022 election; moreover, The Seattle Times states that if there was a 

6 contribution to the Murray Committee by not objecting to those ads, it would be outside the fiveyear statute of limitations.3 7 In addition, The Seattle Times contends that a newspaper’s decision 

8 regarding whether to assert that its copyright or trademark is being infringed requires a fact-specific 

9 assessment and that making this assessment is a normal function of a press entity that falls within 

the Act’s press exemption.4 10 Here, The Seattle Times states that it assessed that the Smiley

11 Committee had used its intellectual property in deceptive ways and therefore determined that it was 

12 appropriate, in order to protect its editorial integrity and credibility with its readers, to ask that the 

Murray Committee cease its unauthorized use of its intellectual property.5 13 

14 In its Response, the Murray Committee argues for dismissal, asserting that it did not 

15 coordinate or consult with The Seattle Times for a brief and minimal use of the logo in its two 

campaign ads pursuant to the fair use doctrine.6 16 Further, the Murray Committee asserts that it is the 

17 right of The Seattle Times to determine, in light of commercial interests, when it believes that a use 

of its intellectual property violates its rights and when it does not.7 18 The Murray Committee also 

2

 Id. at 2 (stating that “it is difficult to ascertain an exact numerical value of the use of The Seattle Times’ logo in 

campaign advertising”). 3

 The Seattle Times Resp. at 2 (Oct. 25, 2022). 

4

 Id. at 3. 

5

 Id. (stating that the Smiley Committee “alter[ed] the appearance and placement of the Times logo and headlines 

in a manner that falsely suggested the Times (i) ran both articles as lead stories and (ii) endorsed the views expressed in 

the ad, including the Campaign’s interpretation of the articles”). 

6

 Murray Committee Resp. at 1 (Apr. 7, 2023).

7

 Id. at 4 (“The Newspaper’s independent decision to exercise that right in the matter at hand amounts to nothing 

more than it acting in the ordinary course of business for bona fide commercial reasons.”).

MUR807500033
MUR 8075 (The Seattle Times, et al.) 

EPS Dismissal Report

Page 3 of 4 

1 cites to Commission precedent involving in-kind contributions of use of corporate names and logos 

2 where the Commission dismissed either because the value of the contribution was de minimis or too 

difficult to calculate.

8 3 

4 Based on its experience and expertise, the Commission has established an Enforcement 

5 Priority System using formal, pre-determined scoring criteria to allocate agency resources and 

6 assess whether particular matters warrant further administrative enforcement proceedings. These 

7 criteria include (1) the gravity of the alleged violation, taking into account both the type of activity 

8 and the amount in violation; (2) the apparent impact the alleged violation may have had on the 

9 electoral process; (3) the complexity of the legal issues raised in the matter; and (4) recent trends in 

10 potential violations and other developments in the law. This matter is rated as low priority for 

11 Commission action after application of these pre-established criteria. Given that low rating, and the 

12 apparent low dollar amount involved within the statute of limitations for seeking a monetary 

13 penalty, we recommend that the Commission dismiss the Complaint consistent with the 

14 Commission’s prosecutorial discretion to determine the proper ordering of its priorities and use of 

agency resources.

9 15 We also recommend that the Commission decline to open a MUR and close the 

16 file as to all Respondents and send the appropriate letters. 

8

 Id. at 1, 4-5.

9

 Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831-32 (1985). 

 

MUR807500034
MUR 8075 (The Seattle Times, et al.) 

EPS Dismissal Report

Page 4 of 4 

1 Lisa J. Stevenson 

2 Acting General Counsel

3 

4 

5 Charles Kitcher 

6 Associate General Counsel

7 

8 

9 

10 ___________________ BY: ___________________ 

11 Date Claudio J. Pavia 

12 Deputy Associate General Counsel 

13 

14 

15 

16 ___________________ 

17 Wanda D. Brown

18 Assistant General Counsel

19 

20 

21 

22 ____________________ 

23 Kenneth E. Sealls

24 Attorney 

January 30, 2024

MUR807500035