Elisabeth Britt and I have recently been reviewing most of the documents that Sandy Robson cites in contemplation of possible NW Citizen articles and PDC complaints regarding Doug Ericksen’s improper or potentially illegal use of surplus campaign funds. Although we have a somewhat different perspective on his activities in The Other Washington, we find that Sandy’s interpretation of these documents is accurate and highly credible.

We’ve been scooped! Congratulations, Sandy, on another great feat of gumshoe work.

Most revealing to me are the November 14, 2017, emails from Nancy Grantham—with whom Doug had worked earlier in 2017 in connection with his temporary EPA job—indicating that by then he ALREADY HAD at least an informal, more permanent  job offer at the EPA Region 10 Office in Seattle. This was well before the new Regional Administrator Chris Hladick of Alaska was due to step in, on December 4. This confirms what I had learned from reliable sources within that office, that Doug had not been selected by Chris but instead been IMPOSED ON the office by Trump regime (I hesitate to use the word “administration”) officials in DC. These were probably loyal allies and cronies that Doug had cultivated at the EPA and possibly even the White House during his earlier visits that year.  That would not be a legitimate use of surplus campaign funds.

By my estimates, the November 20, 2017 payment to Embassy Suites of $846 (see above illustration of Doug’s PDC form for that month) corresponds to a five- or six-night stay, and the $54 at Lot M parking at SeaTac that same day to a similar length of time.

Thus it seems that our spendthrifty senator, chagrined by the November 8 special election of Democrat Manka Dhingra to the 45th district senate seat and the consequent loss of his potent majority status in the senate (including his powerful chairmanship of the Energy, Environment and Telecommunications Committee) became determined to seek gainful and lucrative employment in the Trump regime. Two days later he purchased an Alaska Airlines ticket to Reagan Airport. And less than a week later, he had his coveted plum!

And he paid for this mid-November EPA job-search junket largely out of his surplus campaign funds, which as Sandy writes is not an appropriate use of those funds. My coauthor Elisabeth Britt, who worked for five years in Olympia and is familiar with the rules for use of such funds,  may want to add more on this subject.

Excellent work, Sandy. I certainly don’t mind being scooped. Sandy has just skimmed the surface of Senator Ericksen’s potential PDC violations. Granted, this is certainly one of the most flagrant examples of alleged improper expenditures. But there are many more reported expenses in Senator Ericksen’s C-4’s that require critical analysis. 

In a nutshell: what does the Public Disclosure Commission allow a candidate do with his/her surplus funds? 

1. A candidate can refund the contribution(s) to the contributor.

2. A candidate can reimburse themselves for earnings lost as a result of their campaign activities.

3. A candidate can transfer surplus funds without limit to a political party or to a caucus political committee.

4. A candidate can make a charitable donation.

5. A candidate can give a portion of the funds to the state treasurer for the state’s general fund, the oral history, state library, and archives account, or the legislative international trade account. 

6. A candidate can spend funds on non-reimbursed public office expenses if the candidate is elected. And I agree with Ms. Robson’s allegation that spending surplus campaign  funds to secure a new job in Washington D.C. is an inappropriate use of surplus campaign funds.

7. Finally, a candidate can leave the surplus funds in the campaign account for possible use in a future election campaign for the same office that the candidate was campaigning for when the contributions were received.   

Can’t wait to see the PDC’s response. 

Upon closer examination, a few other oddities pop out from Doug Ericksen’s PDC form (see above) and the emails turned up in a recent FOIA request  by Seattle Times reporter Jim Brunner (which can be found in Sandy Robson’s Exhibit A).

Note that he apparently spent $70 for a “meeting” at Boston’s Bellingham on November 13. If that indeed occurred, he must have taken a “red-eye” overnight flight to DC in order to be present at EPA meetings the very next day, as the Nancy Grantham emails attest. But Alaska Airlines does not offer such overnight flights, unless they can be accomplished through linking up with another airline for the final leg to DC.

Note also the additional Alaska Airline ticket for $79 plus an entry in Doug’s December 2017 C4 form claiming $174.59 for “Travel Reimbursement—Alaska Airlines.” All told, there are $635.01 in expenses related to that airline in November and December 2017. PDC examiners should request detailed receipts for all three expenses and ask Ericksen to justify why they were billed against his surplus campaign funds account.

Doug’s return date of November 20 is the Monday of Thanksgiving week, in which both House and Senate were in recess, the House since Thursday, November 16 and the Senate since that Friday. So there would not have been any WA state Representatives or Senators for Ericksen to meet with after the 17th, and most Congressional staffers would have been absent, too, returning home for the recess and holiday. Yet he apparently stayed in DC though the entire weekend. On WA state business? That’s pretty hard to stomach. What was Doug up to?

Finally, the annual salary Ericksen apparently accepted, $133,096 (GS-15, step 2), was significantly less than the approximately $161,000 rate (GS-15, step 10) he was being paid for his work on the EPA “beachhead” team earlier in 2017, even though the nature of the work involved—in both cases public communications—was quite similar. This curious discrepancy suggests that he was vastly overpaid for his EPA work from January 23 to May 20, 2017.