Campaign-funding limits should be expanded

The Fair Campaign Practices Act, approved by initiative in 1992, is an affirmation of voters' desire for an accountable and independent leadership.

But in the past 14 years, it has become apparent that some elective offices omitted from the law's campaign-contribution limits also are vulnerable to manipulations of monied special interests. This week, the state Senate is considering a House-passed bill to expand current contribution limits imposed on statewide and legislative offices to the state's appellate courts and large municipalities. With three state Supreme Court seats up for election this year, the Senate should feel an urgency to approve this needed legislation. Because judicial races typically are lower-profile, they are especially susceptible to unfair financial manipulation by special interests.

Nationwide, money has been flooding into state appellate-court races, especially around tort reform and environmental issues. As one of only four states with elected judges and no campaign limits on their races, Washington is vulnerable.

The most commonly mentioned example is the 2004 race for an open Supreme Court seat. Justice Jim Johnson, the property-rights advocate who won, collected triple the amount of his opponent — mostly from the building industry.

Under current law, an individual, a union, business or political-action committee can give no more than $700 per election to a candidate for state legislative office and no more than $1,400 for a candidate for statewide office, such as governor. Party contributions are limited also by a formula based on a district's registered-voter counts.

The House-approved bill would impose the $1,400 limit on Supreme Court and Court of Appeals positions. It would limit contributions to $700 for races in jurisdictions with more than 200,000 registered voters. That applies to King, Pierce, Snohomish and Spokane counties and the Seattle and Tacoma port districts.

The Port of Seattle Commission officially opposed the bill on a split 3-2 vote. Opponents believe the limits for the nonpartisan positions would make it difficult for anyone without personal wealth to challenge a port incumbent.

But the alternative — interests with a stake in port business swaying the election — is more concerning.

This worthy bill protects the integrity of these important public offices.