SPOKANE — Just weeks after being accused of violating anti-corruption laws, Let’s Go Washington has accused the state government of using its authority to sway voters.
The complaint, filed Monday with the state Public Disclosure Commission, alleges the Washington State Department of Commerce broke state law by planning to send out utility rebate checks timed to reach voters before ballots for the upcoming November election are distributed.
State commerce officials denied the allegations Tuesday, saying the political action group took a sentence sent in a longer email thread out of context and that a commerce employee was simply clarifying the law to a utility after the rebate money already was spent.
Under the state’s landmark climate policy called the Climate Commitment Act, a new rebate program was established to offset energy costs incurred by Washingtonians through sending $200 checks to eligible ratepayers. Let’s Go Washington alleges the Commerce Department planned to send these checks out before state residents vote on Initiative 2117, a ballot measure that would repeal the Climate Commitment Act if passed.
Let’s Go Washington, sponsored by millionaire hedge fund manager Brian Heywood, is the driving force behind I-2117, along with two other initiatives on November ballots that would end the state’s long-term care tax and capital gains tax.
Over the summer, Heywood’s political group held a number of events across the state offering heavily discounted gas, including an Aug. 21 event in Spokane.
“Governor Inslee can’t just ignore the law when public opinion shifts against him,” Heywood said in a statement Tuesday. “This is a clear attempt to bribe voters into protecting his hidden gas tax and it’s time Governor Inslee adhered to the law instead of acting like he’s above it.”
The complaint argues that a “recently-surfaced email” from Cheryl Chan Hardee, deputy assistant director of the Energy Division at the Department of Commerce, “shows Hardee outlining that the public utilities must send out bribery checks to voters before they vote on I-2117. The language in the email suggests that the rebate checks were timed to reach voters before ballots are distributed, implying that the rebates should be used as a way to sway public opinion.”
According to the complaint filed with the PDC, the portion of the email sent by Hardee reads: “… The funds must be spent by Sept. 15, meaning that funds must be deposited into eligible customer accounts on or before the Sept. 15, before the state votes on the initiative.”
In statements Tuesday, the state commerce department denied any wrongdoing.
Commerce department spokesperson Penny Thomas said Let’s Go Washington “completely misused” a portion of the email they reportedly got from a public records request, adding that the full email thread in question began with a utility’s question to the commerce department about the rebate program.
Another commerce spokesperson, Amelia Lamb, reported Tuesday afternoon that all funds from the rebate program had previously been spent, and that utility companies do not have to return any funding from the program if I-2117 passed.
“We do not believe this presents a conflict,” Lamb wrote in a statement, “as the utility, not Cheryl, brought up the election timing, and Cheryl was responding to their concern. Her response also aligns with the Legislature’s proviso creating the program.”
The commerce department sent a copy of what they reported was the full email thread to The Spokesman-Review.
In the forwarded thread, a utility employee asked the commerce department about the rebate requirement. One of the emailed questions read, “In the budget it states if Initiative 2117 is approved, Climate Commitment Act Funds cannot be used for this. If this is the case, will utilities be expected to return funds back to the state?”
In response to that question, a commerce employee said, “my understanding is that these funds are going to be spent by Sept. 15 before the state votes on the initiative. I don’t see anything in the proviso that says the funds would ever be returned back to the state.”
In a follow-up email, Hardee clarified the previous commerce employee’s statement, adding that funds must be spent by Sept. 15, meaning that the “funds must be deposited into eligible customers accounts” before the state votes on the initiative.
The utility customer responded in thanking Hardy for the clarification, adding that they “didn’t want to make the assumption that the funds would not have to be returned.”
