On October 23, 2017 a formal citizen complaint was filed with the Attorney General’s office, the City of Auburn Attorney and the Public Disclosure Commission. On Friday October 27, 2017 the complaint was further filed with the King County and Pierce County Prosecuting Attorney, King County and Pierce County Elections and the Secretary of State.
The complaint has been assigned to an investigator in the Attorney General’s office, Campaign Finance Unit.
The complaint and accompanying press release can be found here.
Since the filing of the complaint another television commercial has run, at least 1 more mailer has gone out, 3 ads of varying sizes have been printed in the October 27, 2017 issue of the Auburn Reporter and an animated video was produced and posted on Dr. Wales’ campaign Facebook page. This does not include any consultants also working on her campaign.
While 2 finance reports were filed with the PDC on October 26, neither were C4 reports.
At the October 23, 2017 study session, during the break, Robert Whale from the Auburn Reporter inquired to Dr. Wales based on the press release he received on the complaint. You can see this interaction here. Strangely, no article was put out by the Auburn Reporter regarding the complaint.
When a complaint is filed individuals are notified, with the full text of the complaint, shortly (usually with 24-72 hours) after.
So, there’s that.
Auburn Mayoral Race: Fact vs. Fiction 
Hi MC! this is the page I was talking about. The troubling sentence was “While 2 finance reports were filed with the PDC on October 26, neither were C4 reports.” …so…. Part of it was on me and my lack of reading skills. I was pretty quickly able to figure out from looking in the paragraphs above that PDC was Public Disclosure Commision, but I still don’t know what a C4 report is or why I should care ;-p
also… The link to Whale asking Wales a question takes me to a LONG video. Can you help me find where that interchange takes place on that video? What is the implication with the Auburn Reporter not posting a story about the interchange? Do you see something fishy in that? Some kind of Whale/Wales collusion? That would be a whale of a conspiracy. Sorry. I have an immature sense of humor…. …but I could really get caught up in this sort of a net. Just tell me to shut my blowhole.
LikeLike
Sure thing Steven!
There is actually a page dedicated to the Public Disclosure Commission (https://auburnmayoralrace.wordpress.com/research/the-pdc/) and there it explains what exactly the PDC is, with links for those who want to further explore the explinations. I outline in that page, as does the PDC, that candidates have a schedule (put out by the PDC) that they must file financial reports related to their campaign. Lobbyists, PACs (Public Action Committees) and the like also have to file financial reports.
A C3 report is one that lists contributions to the campaign. These are due weekly, and more frequently based on the amount as the campaigns get closer to election day.
A C4 report outlines campaign expenditures. These are due monthly.
Again, these reports are due on set days as put forth by the PDC.
All expenditures and contributions are required to be reported. This means if a supporter hosts an event for a candidate, that individual (or business) must provide an invoice or receipts that disclose the amount spent so it can be reported as an “in-kind” donation. Any money a candidate spends out of their own pocket also must be reported.
There is a maximum allowance of donations from individuals, businesses and PACs of $1k per elections (the primary and general each being considered an election. So, $2k in total for a candidate who makes it to the general election.)
Independent expenditures are required to be reported as well. This would be if a group put out an ad on their own, without input or involvement from the candidate. They must report that to the PDC as well and it will be listed under the “independent expenditure” section of the candidates reports with the PDC.
As for the Auburn Reporter not putting out an article, I don’t think it is collusion (though, their last names did give me quite the giggle.) I personally find it intriguing, but sadly not surprising. Why inquire after a matter and not follow through with it or even mention it at all in your front page article about the election? It lacks logic, at least in my opinion.
There have been a few interesting articles from the Auburn Reporter that did not have correct or complete facts, and I was able to find the information out very easily. The best example is this one:
http://www.auburn-reporter.com/news/wales-explains-her-absence-on-car-tab-fee-vote/
I break it down and refute several points made in that article here: https://auburnmayoralrace.wordpress.com/research/car-tab-fees/
As for the video, I did update the link to jump right to the break. I do put minute marks when referencing a video so you can jump to the relevent point, but it can be tedious, I know.
Here is the link again for sake of ease: https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=2h3m&v=5iiGVgC3xyk&feature=youtu.be
LikeLike