Monthly Archives: May 2003

Eyman raises over $120,000 to pay “legal bills”, including his PDC fine from last year totaling $55,000.

Now you see it, now you don’t. Tim Eyman is at it again. Another movement of megabucks, this time $120,000 in money flowing between bank accounts faster than the eye can see. Tim Eyman had hoped that this flow would have been invisible to the public eye. Send checks made out to “Tim Eyman, Taxpayer Advocate” he said, and your name and donation will not be made public. Who are his political donors that want to keep their name secret?

The money Eyman says has gone to pay “legal fees” includes paying back his business corporation, Permanent Offense, Inc for the $55,000 it paid in penalties and fines last year for illegally funneling over $200,000 to his campaign consulting firm without disclosing he took over $50,000 in salary for his work. Paying Permanent Offense, Inc back $55,000 means that Eyman has transferred to the Permanent Offense bank account new money and he can now pay himself a salary but never disclose who is supporting him. Meanwhile he claims that he has given almost $34,000 in kind to the Initiative I-807 campaign to give a 1/3 legislative voting minority control over the state budget.

Eyman loves to harangue elected officials about “lusting for money” and saying the only way to treat government is to limit all funding. The types of accountability he thinks elected officials should have are the same ones which he refuses to abide by.

“It’s time to come clean, Tim! The voters would ask an elected official caught in this type of shell game of money transfers to resign,” said Steve Zemke of Taxpayers for Washington’s Future. Taxpayers for Washington Future is a political action committee opposed to Initiative 807.

With all the confusion, Eyman might want to voluntarily disclose, not just to the press but also to the public, his bank accounting and his income tax returns. Is this “Tim Eyman, Tax Advocate” registered with the state or the Federal government as a legal defense Fund or is it a personal account in Tim Eyman’s name or is it a business account? Are their any other officers besides Tim Eyman, and who decides which checks are written to whom, and for how much?

Many questions arise regarding “Tim Eyman, Taxpayer Advocate.” Calling this bank account a legal defense fund and using it to pay back $55,000 in fines owed by Tim Eyman and previously paid by his business means that new undisclosed political contributions totaling some $55,000 will now appear in his Permanent Offense business account–money that now can be used to pay Tim Eyman a salary off the public disclosure books. (He currently has “donated” some $34,000 in consulting work to the I-807 campaign.) The $55,000 was paid by Permanent Offense last year and probably was listed as a business expense for his corporation. Now it is to come back as a gift from anonymous donors to support his business. Why would people want to do this? Probably because they support Tim Eyman’s political work which would make their gift a political donation.

It is certainly creative bookkeeping and probably deserving of a real close look by not just the PDC but also the IRS. And the state will probably also want to take a look at this creative financing arrangement to make sure that it is not losing business tax revenue. Based on Eyman’s past actions his protesting innocence and swearing it is all legal does not make it so. That is why a careful investigation by the PDC and others is warranted and necessary.

Note – Taxpayers for Washington’s Future is a political action committee filed with the Public Disclosure Commission as opposing I-807.

Complaint Filed Today with Washington State Public Disclosure Commission over Tim Eyman’s Attempts to Avoid Disclosing Campaign Contributions and Violating Court Orders

Dear Public Disclosure Commission:

This letter constitutes the formal filing of a complaint against “Tim Eyman, Taxpayer Advocate” in apparent violation of state public disclosure laws and agreements made in previous court actions against one Tim Eyman with the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission.

According to a May 12, 2003 campaign filing Tim Eyman has donated some $33,897.96 in campaign services to the campaign committee Voters Want More Choices, which is trying to collect signatures for Initiative 807 for 1/3 minority veto control over the state budget. In an article in the Seattle P-I written by Neil Modie on Friday, May 16, 2003, it is disclosed that Mr Eyman is sending fundraising letters to his campaign supporters asking them to send donations directly to him written out to “Tim Eyman, Taxpayer Advocate” and not to his campaign committee. This seems to be a pretty transparent effort to allow campaign funds to be sent directly to him without being disclosed to the public. Because they wouldn’t be reported, the public would not know how much or who gave money to support Tim Eyman to allow him to donate his services to campaigns. Are there secret big donors supporting his campaigns like I-807 who do not want the public to know who they are or how much they are willing to give to allow Eyman to do “free” consulting?

How is it possible for him to be donating $33,897.96 in kind to the Initiative 807 campaign and not asking them for repayment while at the same time asking campaign supporters to make contributions or gifts directly to him?

Donations made out to “Tim Eyman, Taxpayer Advocate” could obviously be used for anything Eyman wanted.

The reality is that Eyman like most people can not work for free. If Voters Want More Choices paid him for his services he would have to pay state and Federal taxes and I?m sure he would have to use it also to keep his family going and pay house and car bills. So if he asks people to support him directly with gifts does he avoid state and Federal taxes and public disclosure? The I-807 campaign would also only have about $2000 in the bank if it paid him for his services.

Is this no more than some little trick? What contributing directly to him does is to avoid accountability and public disclosure of who supports Eyman efforts on Initiative 807 and what he is being paid.

He can once again appear as if he is generously donating his time to campaign work without asking for payment for services.

Eyman appears to be mocking the state Attorney General Christine Gregoire and the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission which had Eyman agree in a court settlement that he would not be the treasurer of a campaign committee again. Certainly he is the “treasurer” of any “gifts” or contributions made out to “Tim Eyman, Taxpayer Advocate.”

Is “Tim Eyman, Taxpayer Advocate” any other than “Tim Eyman, Campaign Consultant” or “Tim Eyman of Permanent Offense”?

In such a public position as he is in, working political campaigns subject to disclosure of campaign financing, how stupid does he think the public is? His actions are just the reason why voters passed Initiative 276 for one of the strongest public disclosure laws in the country in 1973 with 72% of the people voting to approve it, a much higher margin of victory than any of Eyman’s measures have seen.

I request that the Public Disclosure Commission investigate this transparent attempt to once again circumvent the state Public Disclosure Act.