State Democratic Party Chairman Dwight Pelz says that Hillary Clinton will be the big attraction at the party's fall fundraiser, the Maggie Awards Dinner, Oct. 22. The event this year is at Benaroya Hall.

The AP has just moved a story saying that Bill Allen, who ran Alaska's largest oil field service company, said in an Anchorage courtroom today that he bribed Ben Stevens, the former state Senate president and son of U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens.

Former VECO Corp. CEO Bill Allen, 70, testified Thursday in the federal corruption trial of another former lawmaker, Pete Kott. Allen and a former company vice president, Rick Smith, have pleaded guilty to bribing lawmakers, and await sentencing.

On the stand Thursday, Allen said he bribed Ben Stevens, Kott and Vic Kohring, but did not elaborate during 15 minutes of testimony.

Ben Stevens is under federal investigation, but has not been charged.

``Mr. Stevens has consistently said he's not engaged in any of the illegal activity that is alleged by Mr. Allen. He denies it,'' John Wolfe, Stevens' attorney, told The Associated Press.

The trial attorneys funding the Referendum 67 campaign say that the insurance industry's ads making fun of lawyers are "slanderous, uncivil and reckless." Karen Koehler, president of the Washington State Trial Lawyers Association, wrote a letter last week to the Washington State Bar Association, with copies sent to members of the state Supreme Court, complaining about TV spots featuring the made up law firm of "Sooem Settle & Kashin." The Reject 67 campaign, which wants to repeal a new state law that allows judges to award triple damages in insurance cases, has used the parody in two different TV spots. You can watch them here and here.

Koehler wrote:

These ads are an affront to all lawyers. They are causing irreparable damage to the efforts of the WSBA to instill public confidence in the bar. They are slanderous, uncivil, and reckless.

When the trial attorneys say "slanderous," it's a threat of litigation, says Dana Childers, the spokeswoman for the Reject 67 campaign.

It is amazing that the trial lawyers don't see the irony of threatening to sue someone who criticizes them for filing too many frivolous lawsuits.

But, that's in fact what their letter says.

The letter asks the bar association to take action against the ads:

1. Issuance of a public statement condemning the ads

2. Adoption of a resolution condemning the practice of generalized, slanderous attacks on the legal profession for the purpose of political gain

3. Enactment of remedial action to counter the negative effects of the ads upon the public

4. Submission of a letter to the offending entity requesting that they cease and desist utilizing generalized, slanderous lawyer attack ads

It is of critical importance that the WSBA not stand by silently while the public is whipped into a frenzy by special interest groups bent on destroying credibility of our profession.

The bar association has so far taken no action on the letter, said association spokeswoman Judy Berrett.

The insurance industry has donated an astounding $7.7 million to the Reject 67 campaign. The Approve 67 campaign has raised $752,706, most from trial attorneys.

ALSO: The Approve 67 campaign has dropped one of its endorsers, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN. The group was among endorsers in a July 11 press release from the campaign and added to the campaign's list of backers.

About two weeks later, ACORN workers were charged in what is said to be the largest voter fraud case in state history. Approve 67 spokeswoman Sue Evans said:

We did remove them from the list after we learned about the investigation.

It is also important to note that we have more than 35-plus organizations (not including individuals and local Democratic leg districts, and others etc.) that are on board with the Approve 67 campaign.

The state Supreme Court ruled this morning that Washington's law regulating political committees is not vague and that the Public Disclosure Commission didn't infringe freedom of speech rights by demanding a business group disclose its donors.

The case, Voters Education Committee v. Washington State Public Disclosure Commission, stems from ads run in the 2004 race for attorney general. The Voters Education Committee, a group affiliated with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, ran ads attacking Democrat Deborah Senn, but did not register as a PAC and refused to report its contributors. The VEC argued that it was not a political group and was engaging in "issue advocacy," not "express advocacy." In 2005, a King County Superior Court judge agreed with the Public Disclosure Commission that the ads were designed to defeat Senn, and not meant merely to educate voters about an important issue.

In a 7-2 decision, the majority opinion was written by Justice Mary Fairhurst.
she wrote:

The people have declared that it is the policy of the state of Washington that
groups who sponsor political advertising must disclose their identities, contributions, and expenditures. Contrary to VEC's assertions, these disclosure requirements do not restrict political speech — they merely ensure that the public receives accurate information about who is doing the speaking. As Justice Brandeis famously observed, "[p]ublicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman."

Justice Jim Johnson wrote a dissent that was also signed by Justice Richard Sanders. He wrote that any "government regulation of political speech too readily becomes censorship, which violates constitutional rights."

If a government entity like the Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) has the power to regulate political speech through context analysis, the State can stifle attempts to speak truth to power. I cannot endorse government speech sentinels claiming power to divine a speaker's intent. Such regulation vitiates core protections of political speech under the United States and Washington Constitutions.