Our justice system must protect free speech. ‘Overreaching’ court fine shouldn’t stand | Guest Opinion

All Americans know that the justice system should be fair and impartial and hand out punishment commensurate with the offense.

In the State of Washington v. Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), those basic principles were not followed and, if allowed to go unchecked, will set a dangerous precedent that may affect future rulings, free speech and other fundamental rights.

In what now appears to be a questionable move, in October 2013 the state sued GMA, now known as the Consumer Brands Association, for failing to register as a political committee and disclose which of its specific members helped to fund a campaign opposing GMO labeling in a ballot initiative.

Having been made aware of the requirement, GMA ultimately registered and disclosed its funding members in advance of Election Day.

Nevertheless, the trial court ordered GMA to pay a $6 million base fine, which it tripled to $18 million. Three appeals and eight years later, $18 million is where the penalty stands.

For those unfamiliar with campaign finance violations fines, both the $6 million and $18 million are unprecedented; They are exponentially higher than every other campaign finance penalty, both in Washington and around the country.

The state’s disparate treatment of Food Democracy Action! (FDA) on the same ballot initiative is a stark example of its apparent lack of neutrality and questionable motives.

Food Democracy Action! was on the opposite side of the GMO debate but was similarly found to have violated the same campaign finance statute by not registering as a political committee and disclosing its funding member.

To be clear, the proponents of the initiative violated the same statute in much the same way.

Food Democracy Action! however was fined a more appropriate $322,000. The scale of the infractions by GMA may be construed as greater than that group, but is it 55 times more egregious and warrant a punishment 55 times higher?

The relative comparison of the two fines is alarming, GMA was fined over 55-times more than the Food Democracy Action! for what is essentially the same violation. Whatever the rationale, in today’s very divisive environment, the optics of this fine are bad and strongly imply bias against the GMA given its stance on the ballot initiative.

If left to stand, this case sets a frightening precedent that should concern all Washingtonians. It opens the door for current and future attorneys general to hold those they disagree with to a different standard than others who are aligned with their perspective.

This could lead to a gross overreach of power and political prejudice in the courtroom that significantly limits free speech in our state.

Simply put, the punishment in this case was excessive. Thankfully, the size of the penalty and implications on free speech opens the door for appeal on grounds that the fine violates the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The amendment protects all parties from excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishments and is critical in ensuring that the punishment fits the crime.

To protect our political process, the ruling and $18 million fine should be overturned, and a more even-handed fine applied.

Free speech is at stake. If left to stand, organizations around the state, like trade associations, local chambers of commerce, labor unions and nonprofits that may want to express a legitimate point of view on an issue may be deterred or have to risk their very existence to speak out because a mistake in paperwork could lead to a multi-million dollar fine.

Fortunately, our judicial system lays out opportunities for appeal, which GMA is currently pursuing.

We should all hope that a new legal review by the state Supreme Court is granted and it overturns this excessively punitive penalty with a fine appropriate to the offense.

That would not only help ensure that the central tenant of the Eighth Amendment is upheld, critically important for all of us, but also that individuals and groups are able to participate in the political and electoral process without the threat of facing excessive, financially ruinous fines.