A bill sponsored by Senator Rossi and passed by the Senate has come under fire by some newspapers for appearing to target labor unions.

SB 5533 would prohibit political contributions to candidates for governor from labor unions that collectively bargain with the state.

Currently, state employee unions negotiate contracts directly with the governor, instead of going through the normal legislative process.  The contract negotiations, conducted in secret, set the wages, hours, benefits and other conditions of employment for union-represented state workers.  While union executives are negotiating behind closed doors with the governor for the wages and benefits of the state workers they represent, they make contributions to the political campaign of the same governor. 

The bill would end the obvious conflict of interest of the governor directly negotiating state worker contracts with the state unions who contribute to his campaign.  It’s a simple solution to a real problem.  The problem is that the mere perception of a quid pro quo is sufficient to cast doubt and suspicion on the whole process and inspire public distrust.

But the Union-Bulletin and Spokesman Review claim this narrow focus on unions is unfair and proof the bill is more about "pure politics" than policy.  Their take is that if the bill was about fixing a real problem it would have prohibited contributions to any candidate and as the U-B put it, “certainly not targeted at one specific politician.”

Curiously absent from either paper’s analysis is any mention of the fact that current state law already targets one specific politician from receiving campaign contributions from a specific special interest.

Precisely because of concerns over the possibility and perception of an inappropriate quid pro quo, under current Washington state law, insurance companies that do business in the state are prohibited from making political contributions to candidates running for the Office of Insurance Commissioner.

The dual purpose of this restriction is to ensure insurance companies do not exert undue financial influence on, or extract favors from, the state Insurance Commissioner as a result of political contributions, as well as to guard against any appearance or impression that such machinations could happen.  The absence of any perception of a conflict of interest benefits the public, the insurance industry and the Office of Insurance Commissioner.

If the objections of the Union-Bulletin and Spokesman Review to SB 5533 are really about fairness, where is their outrage over the "pure politics" behind this existing prohibition that is "targeted at one specific politician?"  

SB 5533 would simply extend the current ban on political contributions from insurance companies to the Insurance Commissioner, to contributions from state worker labor unions to the governor.  It is not about targeting labor unions; it is about targeting a practice that simply doesn't pass the smell taste and erodes public confidence in the honesty and integrity of our state's government.  

The only "pure politics" taking place with SB 5533 is the false narrative being pushed that the bill is somehow unprecedented and unfairly targets unions.