Opinion ID: 2615134
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Seattle ordinance campaign contributions are entitlements.

Text: Entitlements are a form of assistance provided to the public, or a segment of the public, as cash or services, in carrying out a program to further an overriding public purpose or satisfy a moral obligation. The overriding public purpose makes the private benefit incidental. Entitlements by their nature are equally available to anyone who qualifies under objective criteria. The State and municipalities in Washington provide a variety of services without charge. Many are of great value to the recipients including: Day care services for children of working mothers, AGO 18 (1975); Vaccination without charge to control disease or prevent epidemics; Attorneys' services in enforcing support payments under the uniform reciprocal enforcement of support act (RCW 26.21); Fare-free bus zones within a downtown area to reduce traffic congestion or air pollution; Deferral of sales taxes upon investment projects under the Economic Assistance Act of 1972, RCW 43.31A.130.140. Where there is a close nexus to a government process or responsibility, cash payments may be made directly to those who comply with qualifying conditions. Some examples that have survived constitutional challenges are: Veterans' bonuses. Former RCW 73.34.040. Compensation to victims of a felony or gross misdemeanor under Victims of Crime  Compensation, Assistance. RCW 7.68. Reimbursement of court costs to those who act in self-defense or in defense of another in imminent danger of injury or death from a serious crime. RCW 9.01.200. Attorneys' and expert witnesses' fees to a successful litigant in a condemnation case under RCW 8.25.070 and .075. Relocation assistance payments to people and businesses displaced by a condemnation. RCW 8.26. Campaign contributions distributed pursuant to the Seattle ordinance are another form of entitlement which attempts to ensure a representative democracy, where every citizen's vote has equal importance. However, the most compelling reason for upholding the legality of the Seattle ordinance is best illustrated by the Public Disclosure Commission 1980 Election Financing Fact Book. It contains 174 pages, showing the contributions received by state officeholders, including state legislators. The information comes from the disclosure statement filed by each individual candidate. The Public Disclosure Commission's survey reveals the extent to which special interest groups are involved in the election process. There were 108 political action committees classified as business related which reported to the Public Disclosure Commission during 1980. Although this was an off-year election, their total receipts were $1,815,971 and expenditures were $963,778. [4] Special interest political action groups are on the increase, and provided approximately 37 percent of the total amount that state legislative candidates had available to spend on their campaigns in 1980. [5] Only four of the 124 state legislators elected in 1980 were elected without assistance from special interest political action groups. [6] This increase in the influence of special interest groups is also present on the local level. Last session, the Legislature passed an $8.5 billion 2-year budget, making decisions as to the level of spending for all state agencies. These decisions involved appropriations for the handicapped, physically disabled, institutions, schools, higher education, scholarships and highways, etc. After establishing the level of spending, the Legislature also had to levy the taxes to raise the $8.5 billion in appropriations. This meant determining where the tax money would come from, who gets the exemptions and/or deductions, and what sources to draw from in meeting their budget responsibilities. Who helped make these decisions  individual voters or the special interest groups who contributed large sums of campaign contributions? The trial judge below, in referring to campaign contributions, said, Money makes a difference no matter how honest a candidate, some difference.