Following a contentious debate, the Washington State Senate narrowly voted to pass legislation on Tuesday preventing state employees’ unions from making political contributions to the governor while negotiating collective bargaining agreements with the governor.
The bill, SSB 5533, introduced by Sen. Dino Rossi (R-Sammamish), passed on a 25-24 vote, with all members of the Senate Majority Coalition Caucus voting in favor and all Democrats opposed.
Since the Legislature passed the Personal System Reform Act of 2002 granting state employees collective bargaining rights, unions representing state employees have negotiated their collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) determining wages and working conditions with the governor’s representatives at the Office of Financial Management (OFM). Contract negotiations are exempted from the state Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) and take place behind closed doors. After the contracts are negotiated, they are submitted to the legislature for an up-or-down vote without amendment.
At the same time, unions representing state employees spend heavily on gubernatorial elections, with the knowledge they can elect the person they will bargain with. A Freedom Foundation analysis of campaign finance reports for the 2012 gubernatorial election filed with the state Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) indicated that affiliates of the Service Employees International Union spent $1.8 million to support Gov. Jay Inslee and defeat his opponent. Affiliates of the National Education Association spent $1.7 million and affiliates of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees spent $1.1 million.
Each of these unions has large affiliates that bargain directly with the governor’s representatives.
In other words, a private special interest group gets to negotiate the expenditure of billions of taxpayer dollars behind closed doors with a government official it helped elect. There are many ways to improve the transparency of the process, and Rossi described his bill as one means to eliminate the “appearance of corruption.”
Unions and their legislative allies contended the bill amounted to an unconstitutional restriction on unions’ political speech. While, if ultimately passed into law, unions would certainly challenge the measure in court, there is some precedent under current state law for similar campaign finance restrictions.
For example, RCW 48.30.110 prohibits insurance companies from making political contributions to candidates for insurance commissioner. Additionally, RCW 42.17A.560 prevents state legislators from accepting political contributions during a legislative session.
Freedom Foundation Senior Policy Analyst Jami Lund testified in favor of SB 5533 when the bill was heard before the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee, noting:
“There is a tremendous amount of power that the governor has in setting that bargaining agreement… That concentrated power over such a significant part of the state budget is one reason why this maybe deserves a different level of scrutiny and attention… It really is a unique situation when so much power over the budget lives with one person who’s meeting in secret with one interest group.”
Rep. Matt Manweller (R-Ellensburg) introduced HB 1891, a companion bill to SB 5533, but the measure did not receive a hearing in the House.
Hearing on SB 5533 before the Senate Commerce, Labor and Sports Committee
Senate floor debate on SB 5533
