WA Lawyer Free Speech

IJ v. State of Washington
Government Agency Seeks to Silence Not Only Citizen Activists, But Their Public Interest Lawyers, Too


IJ client Robin Farris

IJ Client Robin Farris

A government agency whose job it is to limit political debate is now seeking to drastically restrict free civil rights advocacy—advocacy that has guided our nation to live up to its ideals of freedom and justice.  A first-of-its-kind legal battle over the agency’s actions is now raging in Washington state and will answer important questions about the limits of government power, the right of free speech and political participation, and the ability of civil rights advocates to represent their clients against a government agency when that agency is violating constitutionally enshrined rights.

It is bad enough that Washington’s Public Disclosure Commission is working to silence those who merely seek to participate in the political process.  But now, the PDC has sunk to a new level of vindictiveness pursuing a policy that threatens America’s long-held traditions of civil rights advocacy:  The PDC is now seeking to unconstitutionally silence the public interest law firm that came to the aid of those the PDC tried to bully into silence in the first place.  Undaunted, the grassroots political activists and their pro bono public interest attorneys filed a lawsuit in state court against the Public Disclosure Commission seeking to vindicate their right to receive and offer free legal aid to those whose most-fundamental civil rights are being violated by the government.

Since 2011, the Institute for Justice (IJ) has represented “Recall Dale Washam” in a challenge to a PDC-enforced statute that caps the amount of contributions that can be donated to a recall campaign.  IJ, like most public interest law firms, is a 501(c)(3) organization, which doesn’t charge its clients for its services and, under the tax code, attracts tax-deductible contributions to sustain its mission.  But if the PDC is successful in its efforts to require the Recall Dale Washam campaign to count IJ’s help as a campaign contribution, IJ would not only lose its ability to speak out freely through its pro bono legal help, it would also jeopardize the organization’s tax status because its legal services would be misconstrued as political advocacy—a “no no” in the nonprofit world.  The recall campaign itself would face massive fines and even criminal punishment for accepting what the PDC is calling “in-kind contributions”—or what American jurisprudence has always considered vitally important free civil rights legal representation.  Despite administering one of the most restrictive and intrusive campaign finance regulatory regimes in the country, the PDC seeks to limit the amount of legal services organizations like IJ can provide to organizations to vindicate their rights. For instance, in the recall context, the limit is a mere $900—or about two hours of billable time for the average attorney from any major American city.

The PDC has left IJ with two unacceptable choices:  Jeopardize its nonprofit status or limit its public interest advocacy.  Representing itself as well as its clients from the recall case, who rely on IJ’s free civil rights representation, the Institute for Justice selected a third option:  Take the PDC to court.  IJ filed suit in the Pierce County Superior Court in Tacoma, Wash., on June 13, 2013.  The case—which is the first of its kind in the nation—seeks to put an end to the PDC’s unprecedented actions.  The case seeks to set an important precedent to stop this brazen attempt to frustrate federal civil rights law and secure the plaintiffs’ ability to provide, and receive, legal help in vindicating fundamental constitutional rights.



Essential Background


Backgrounder: Washington’s Public Disclosure Commission vs. America’s Civil Rights Laws

Video: Gov't Bully to Citizen Activists: Lie or Face Crippling Fines
Client Photos
Latest Release: U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Hear Challenge to Washington Recall Statute (February 24, 2015)

Legal Briefs and Decisions

Order Granting Summary Judgment (February 20, 2015)
Launch Release: Left Unchallenged, State’s Public Disclosure Commission’s Actions Could Shut Down Civil Rights Representation (June 13, 2013)



Case Timeline

Lawsuit Filed:

June 13, 2013

Court Filed:


Superior Court for the State of Washington In and For Pierce County



none available

Current Court:


Pierce County Superior Court



Case filed

Next Key Date:




Additional Releases

Maps, Charts and Facts

Release: Important Civil Rights Court Victory: Court Rules Free Legal Services Aren’t a “Campaign Contribution” (February 20, 2015) none available


Op-eds, News Articles and Links

Article: Ruling bars state from treating free legal advice as a campaign contribution The Olympian (February 21, 2015)

IJ's Washington Recall case; Farris et al. v. Seabrook et al.

Op-ed: Campaign Finance Laws Thwart Grass-Roots Recall Efforts; The News Tribune (June 2011)

Op-ed: Right of Recall Shouldn't be Limited to the Wealthy; The News Tribune (June 2011)
Op-ed: How Campaign Finance Laws Benefit Incumbents and Insiders; Center for Competitive Politics (June 2011)

Email Address
Please enter a valid email address

Institute for Justice
901 N. Glebe Road, Suite 900
Arlington, VA 22203
Tel 703.682.9320, Fax 703.682.9321
© 1997-2015