In July 2005, criminal charges were filed at the conclusion of a lengthy investigation into a political money laundering scheme to try and influence the election of Seattle City Council members during the 2003 election cycle.

As background, the campaign contribution limits in place at the time were $650 per donor. Implicit in campaign limits is a rule that donors are precluded from making excess contributions through a third party whom they then reimburse. In this case, we have proven that the defendants reimbursed third parties who made contributions at their direction. As much as $39,000 may have been contributed to three Seattle City council candidates through this method.

While the contributions were, in all likelihood, an effort to influence a pending vote on a zoning variance to expand a parking lot at the defendants' business, there was never any evidence that the candidates themselves were aware of the hidden source of the money. Nonetheless, these candidates did unwittingly file false reports with both the City Elections Commission and the State Public Disclosure Commission. Causing another party to commit a crime is tantamount to committing the crime yourself.

The central legal issue associated with this case from the beginning is that there are no criminal penalties written into the state Public Disclosure Act. It was our theory of the case that the actions of the defendants caused other parties to file false public records, which is a crime in another section of state law. We thought that the absence of criminal penalties in the Public Disclosure Act did not invalidate other crimes on the books.

Our theory of the case was vigorously challenged by the lawyers representing the defendants. They won round 1, getting the case dismissed by the Superior Court in February of 2006. We won round 2, in March of 2007, when the State Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court, holding that the absence of criminal statutes within the state's Public Disclosure Act did not preclude prosecution under other statutes, such as the law against filing false official documents. Finally, in October 2007, the US Supreme Court denied the petition for review of this case, sending it back to the trial court.

More than two years after we filed the case, we were cleared to proceed under the false records statute. A few weeks ago we sat down to assess the goals of our prosecution, and ultimately negotiated today's agreement.

The guilty pleas today represent a victory for the integrity of our campaign finance laws. At the time we filed this case, there was significant doubt as to whether such conduct was a crime. Today there is no question. The guilty pleas entered today hold the principal actors accountable at a felony level for their scheme to attempt to influence elections and policy on the Seattle City Council.

The consequences of the plea are significant: felony convictions and the collateral consequences, probation, and a very large financial penalty - between the court and the Seattle Election Commission -- totaling more than $76,000.

A lesser actor, Mr. Conte, has pled to a conspiracy charge, which is an accurate description of his role. We have, as part of this agreement, dismissed charges against the least culpable defendant, Ms. Fufaro, an employee of the principal defendants who followed her boss's directions to encourage her daughters to make contributions, for which they were reimbursed.

The investigation and prosecution of this case spanned more than four years. Significant prosecutorial resources have gone into the investigation and litigation of these charges. This investment has paid off by revealing the truth of the details of this scheme to illegally influence our political process, and by establishing the principle that hiding the true source of campaign contributions is a felony offense. These were the goals of the prosecution, and they have been met.

A recent newspaper headline read that these defendants "avoided jail" by this agreement. This case was never a fight about incarceration. In our view significant jail time was an unlikely result, under any scenario, plea or trial. The standard range for this "unranked" class C felony is zero to 12 months. The reality of our practice is that jail sentences are used sparingly, and are reserved for repeat property offenders and serious violent offenders. Significant jail time was never a likely outcome in this case, for the crime of filing false public records. It was even much less likely for a defendant in his 90's with documented medical issues. In such a case, any jail time ordered is routinely converted to home detention.

We faced weeks of trial and years of appeals to establish what we did today with this plea of guilty. Sometimes you have to know when to declare victory and move on. This result is a victory for the integrity of the elections process in our state, and just in time for the major election cycle of 2008.

The so-called "Strippergate" case will stand for the proposition that intentional violations of campaign finance rules have serious repercussions: for candidates, contributors, and for the public trust essential to our democracy.

All are now on notice, those who give, those who receive, and those who closely observe campaigns, that acts of bundling, channeling, funneling contributions to hide the true source are, in fact, criminal acts.

Donors looking to circumvent the rules can face felony charges. Candidates themselves must be on the lookout for funneling schemes like this one, and be prepared to not only refund the money, but also to report such schemes to law enforcement.

We are justly proud of the reputation in our county and our state for integrity in public office. It has not always been that way. Reputations for integrity are built over decades and can crumble in an instant of bad judgment or criminal behavior. We therefore hold our public office holders to the highest standards of ethical conduct, particularly when it comes to campaign finance issues. We should expect the same from citizens who participate in the political process through financial contributions to candidates.

Campaigns and political contributions constitute democracy in action. The responsibility for building ethical democracy falls upon all citizens and, as this case shows, that responsibility carries with it legal obligations to play by the rules.

For Information Contact: Dan Donohoe: 206-296-9029

Dated: January 24, 2008