Type Complaint Opinion 
Date 3/18/1999 
Number 99-01 
Topic Special privileges - campaign contributions - quid pro quo 
Respondent Rep. Tom Mielke, Rep. John Pennington 
Question/Complaint
It was alleged that Respondents accepted campaign contributions from a group, thereafter pushed the group's agenda, and then intimidated state employees to make certain decisions favorable to the group.  Also alleged that respondents failed to respond to complainant's request to have a meeting.
Summary
There was no evidence in support of the intimidation allegation.  Ethics law doesn't require a legislator to respond to a constitutent's request for a meeting.  Acceptance and reporting of permissible campaign contributions is not probative of any alleged violation of the Act nor is the act of "pushing an agenda" of a campaign contributor.  "Quid pro quo" allegation involves looking for conduct which offers or appears to offer something specific in exchange for something specific.  RCW 42.52.070 and 42.52.140.  Dismissed.
Document View this publication in Acrobat (PDF) Format