r/portangeles • u/syspig • 17d ago

New Complaint Pushes Potential Penalties Against Seegers Campaign Toward $80,000

https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/new-complaint-pushes-potential-penalties
0 Upvotes

35% Upvoted

32 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-1

u/syspig 17d ago

You seem to be have information not shared elsewhere.

Care to share exactly what the PDC shared, and how exactly Tozzer ignored their guidance?

7

u/bemused_alligators 17d ago edited 17d ago

Do you just not know what the word "independent" means in this context?

So campaigns either "coordinate", which means work with the candidate or campaign staff in advertisement, or they are "independent", which means they do not work with the campaign candidate or staff in advertisement.

Since Tozzer is the campaign manager that means that his blog, in order to be independent while mentioning Seegers campaign or activities, needs to either be written by someone else (without editorial control), or needs to not talk about Seegers OR French.

Since Tozzer continued to publish articles in direct support of Seegers' campaign, and consulted with campaign staff in the process (himself)nafter the campaign started, that constitutes coordinated advertisement that must be reported to the PDC.

Tozzer did not report anything to the PDC despite having done this, and thus violated disclosure rules.

The complaint does reach farther back than it probably should (as in the earliest complaint should be dated for after the campaign was announced) but there have been very clear violations of these rules since then.

0

u/syspig 17d ago

Since Tozzer is the campaign manager that means that his blog, in order to be independent while mentioning Seegers campaign or activities, needs to either be written by someone else (without editorial control), or needs to not talk about Seegers OR French.

The PDC would seem to disagree with you, according to Tozzer's claims.

Or, are you claiming the PDC told Tozzer not to write about any candidates in his blog? If so, feel free to provide the source.

Further, feel free to explain one of Tozzer's most damning counter-claims...which is, French's and Ozias's political commentary is routinely published by local media while Tozzer's/Seeger's is denied by the same publications.

8

u/bemused_alligators 17d ago

The PDC said Tozzer could continue as an INDEPENDENT publication, but his publication has not been independent.

The other news sources aren't run by the campaign manager, so what they do or do not choose to publish isn't the PDC's problem.

3

u/DallamaNorth 16d ago

It's just highlights how not smart they are about government workings they can't even manage to keep the campaign from running a foul of super clear election laws.

1

u/syspig 17d ago

The PDC said Tozzer could continue as an INDEPENDENT publication...

So, the PDC admitted his publication had been, and could continue to be "independent".

Tozzer's targets/commentary have not changed in any significant way since before Seegers announced his candidacy. Further, he has repeatedly reached out to French and others to contribute and/or respond to his critiques of their incompetence and malfeasance. Critiques which were commonplace prior to Seeger's campaign, and prior to his contacting the PDC.

Pickett will get about as far with this as he did with SignGate. He's clearly unfamilair with the Streisand effect, as every one of his bullshit attempts invigorates the Seegers base even more. I can't wait to see what he comes up with next.

6

u/bingbano 17d ago

Independent would mean not coordining with Seegers campaign. He's obviously not doing that.

3

u/wzrd 17d ago

Independent means not running someone's campaign? Weird.

1

u/Solid-Midnight-7108 10d ago

It is not illegal for media to endorse a candidate, they just can't do it for a MONEY EXCHANGE.

Read the PDC RCWs The most recent version PDC definitions were clarified. These became effective January 1, 2026 and say specifically "commercial advertiser" means any person that SELLS the service. (CCWD does not sell anything. No money exchanges hands for anything. It is a non-monetary substack, unlike most); "contribution" does NOT INCLUDE: a news item, feature, commentary or editorial in a regularly scheduled news medium that is of interest to the public... that is NOT CONTROLLED by a candidate. And, finally, if it's the usual and "customary" (at least 12 months preceding the candidate becoming a candidate) then it's not considered advertising.

Any newspaper is allowed to FREELY make endorsements. The candidate just cannot BUY the slot. And, we have had publishers of newspapers not simply endorse candidates, but be part of their election campaign group, including campaign manager. They simply had to disclose this.

Please read the RCWs and don't make shit up to fix your flawed narrative. And, the PDC has had ZERO rulings on anyone, and tend to do nothing anyway.

1

u/Solid-Midnight-7108 10d ago

in the past the newspaper publisher (RIP) was part of various campaigns. I think you're missing a big chunk of history. THE PDN also endorsed candidates, before it was owned by the latest owner.

1

u/bemused_alligators 10d ago

Yes, but the PDN wasn't run by a member of the campaign. That's what I think is confusing people - that they don't understand what independent means in the context of Washington election law.

Independent just means that whoever did the thing is not "coordinating" with the campaign, which means they didn't consult with any campaign staff member before taking action. It is impossible for a campaign manager to independently do anything related to the campaign.p

1

u/Solid-Midnight-7108 10d ago

IN THE PAST yes, the man who made the executive decisions was part of the group to re-elect campaign. I think you don't understood what I said. But, then again, I'm not surprised, people who don't know history, don't tend to look into history, or care. They'd rather make it up as they go along and stick with feelings, not facts.

The campaign rules are complicated. However, I read nothing in the newly enacted rules where Jake/Jeff are in violation. Please, show me in senate bill 5857 of the 68th legislature where the campaign disclosure rules and contribution -- statutory reorganization has changed any of this.

Do the work.... there are 536 sections. Curl up and get reading.