Brachtenbach, J.
— This is an action for declaratory judgment in which plaintiff seeks to have declared uncon stitu'tional section 14 of Initiative 276, codified as RCW 42.17.140. Section 14 imposes spending limitations on campaign expenditures in any election campaign for public office or in connection with ballot propositions.1 Plaintiff is a resident of the Marysville school district and cotreasurer of a “levy pass committee” which was designed to gain support for a special levy election in that school district.
The Public Disclosure Commission, which is charged with administration of the initiative, intervened as did a private citizen who had made a citizen’s complaint against plaintiff under the provisions of section 40(4), RCW 42.17.400 (4), of the initiative.
The trial court held section 14 in its entirety unconstitutional. We affirm.
We first answer defendants’ challenge to plaintiff’s standing to maintain this suit which was brought as an individ[382]*382ual rather than as a class action. Plaintiff’s standing is so clear that little discussion is needed to substantiate its viability.
There is no doubt that the “levy pass committee” in the Marysville school district is a political committee within the definition of RCW 42.17.020(22). Plaintiff was cotreasurer of that committee, and there are specific duties imposed upon her as such regarding deposits, records and expenditures. RCW 42.17.050-.080. Indeed, no expenditure can be made by a political committee except on authority of the campaign treasurer (or a candidate which is not here involved). Under RCW 42.17.390 a person violating the act is subject to civil penalties ranging from $10 per day, for failure to file a complete or timely report, to $10,000 for each violation, as well as an amount equal to any contribution or expenditure which is not reported.
Thus, plaintiff’s interest is hardly theoretical and abstract as defendants claim. In fact, the intervening private citizen has filed demand on the Attorney General to take action against plaintiff for violation of the act and, in addition, gave notice of his intent to bring a citizen’s action under RCW 42.17.400(4) if the Attorney General fails to proceed. Plaintiff therefore meets the requirements of standing as enunciated in Sorenson v. Bellingham, 80 Wn.2d 547, 496 P.2d 512 (1972).
Next it is argued that plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. The Public Disclosure Commission does have authority to provide certain relief from some requirements of Initiative 276, but only as provided in RCW 42.17.370(7) and (9). Subsection (7) authorizes an exemption of general applicability, but the scope is limited to campaigns involving less than $1,000 and is not applicable in this particular case since that sum had been exceeded by the levy committee. Subsection (9) is also not applicable because it authorizes the commission only to suspend or modify the reporting requirements and not to modify spending limitations.
Therefore, plaintiff has no administrative remedy to [383]*383exhaust. Even if such a prior remedy were available, such a course of action is unnecessary where the issue raised is the constitutionality of the very law sought to be enforced. An administrative body does not have authority to determine the constitutionality of the law it administers; only the courts have that power. United States v. Kissinger, 250 F.2d 940 (3d Cir. 1958); cert. denied, 356 U.S. 958, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1066, 78 S. Ct. 995 (1958). 3 K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 20.04, at 74 (1958).
Turning to the merits, we are faced at the outset with serious questions about the section’s meaning and its operation. Section 14(2) establishes limits for every election campaign for and against any ballot proposition. While this scheme seems simple enough in the abstract, it poses intractable problems of administration and enforcement. Several hypothetical but realistic examples prove the point:
First, who decides and what standards are to be used in determining whether a particular communication is for or against a proposition? Imagine an avdertisement which states “If you believe you should raise your taxes for a teacher salary increase, vote for the special levy.” The act provides no standards to determine how to allocate the cost of that message as for or against the proposition.
Second, nonpartisan “neutral” messages may have a substantial influence by dissemination of information without favoring or opposing the measure. Apparently there is no limit applicable.
Third, expenditures which are limited include “contributions.” RCW 42.17.020(12). In turn, contributions include personal services for less than full consideration but do not include the rendering of “part-time” personal services of the sort commonly performed by volunteer campaign workers. “Part-time” services is defined as services in addition to regular full employment, or, in the case of an unemployed person, services not in excess of 20 hours per week, excluding weekends. RCW 42.17.020. Thus, an unemployed person is limited in contributing personal services to 4 [384]*384hours a day during the 5-day week, while a person employed part-time has no limitation.
Fourth, the record discloses that several groups have been active in promoting or opposing special levies in the Marysville district. Who violates the law if their combined expenditures exceed the limit? The act provides no answer.
Fifth, looking at the limits on candidates, what if a political party by paid advertisements urges voters to vote for all candidates of that party? Such communications could have a substantial impact on voters, but the act does not provide how the expenditures are to be allocated if at all.
Sixth, a candidate has a right to communicate effectively with his constituency, but apparently he could be silenced altogether if a committee over which he has no control has spent the maximum on his behalf. The problem is aptly illustrated by Professor Rosenthal’s posing of a hypothetical of a committee promoting a slogan: “We admit he’s pretty terrible, but he’s the best of a bad lot.” A. Rosenthal, Federal Regulation of Campaign Financing: Some Constitutional Questions. Citizens Research Foundation Study No. 18 (1972).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Brachtenbach, J.
— This is an action for declaratory judgment in which plaintiff seeks to have declared uncon stitu'tional section 14 of Initiative 276, codified as RCW 42.17.140. Section 14 imposes spending limitations on campaign expenditures in any election campaign for public office or in connection with ballot propositions.1 Plaintiff is a resident of the Marysville school district and cotreasurer of a “levy pass committee” which was designed to gain support for a special levy election in that school district.
The Public Disclosure Commission, which is charged with administration of the initiative, intervened as did a private citizen who had made a citizen’s complaint against plaintiff under the provisions of section 40(4), RCW 42.17.400 (4), of the initiative.
The trial court held section 14 in its entirety unconstitutional. We affirm.
We first answer defendants’ challenge to plaintiff’s standing to maintain this suit which was brought as an individ[382]*382ual rather than as a class action. Plaintiff’s standing is so clear that little discussion is needed to substantiate its viability.
There is no doubt that the “levy pass committee” in the Marysville school district is a political committee within the definition of RCW 42.17.020(22). Plaintiff was cotreasurer of that committee, and there are specific duties imposed upon her as such regarding deposits, records and expenditures. RCW 42.17.050-.080. Indeed, no expenditure can be made by a political committee except on authority of the campaign treasurer (or a candidate which is not here involved). Under RCW 42.17.390 a person violating the act is subject to civil penalties ranging from $10 per day, for failure to file a complete or timely report, to $10,000 for each violation, as well as an amount equal to any contribution or expenditure which is not reported.
Thus, plaintiff’s interest is hardly theoretical and abstract as defendants claim. In fact, the intervening private citizen has filed demand on the Attorney General to take action against plaintiff for violation of the act and, in addition, gave notice of his intent to bring a citizen’s action under RCW 42.17.400(4) if the Attorney General fails to proceed. Plaintiff therefore meets the requirements of standing as enunciated in Sorenson v. Bellingham, 80 Wn.2d 547, 496 P.2d 512 (1972).
Next it is argued that plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. The Public Disclosure Commission does have authority to provide certain relief from some requirements of Initiative 276, but only as provided in RCW 42.17.370(7) and (9). Subsection (7) authorizes an exemption of general applicability, but the scope is limited to campaigns involving less than $1,000 and is not applicable in this particular case since that sum had been exceeded by the levy committee. Subsection (9) is also not applicable because it authorizes the commission only to suspend or modify the reporting requirements and not to modify spending limitations.
Therefore, plaintiff has no administrative remedy to [383]*383exhaust. Even if such a prior remedy were available, such a course of action is unnecessary where the issue raised is the constitutionality of the very law sought to be enforced. An administrative body does not have authority to determine the constitutionality of the law it administers; only the courts have that power. United States v. Kissinger, 250 F.2d 940 (3d Cir. 1958); cert. denied, 356 U.S. 958, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1066, 78 S. Ct. 995 (1958). 3 K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 20.04, at 74 (1958).
Turning to the merits, we are faced at the outset with serious questions about the section’s meaning and its operation. Section 14(2) establishes limits for every election campaign for and against any ballot proposition. While this scheme seems simple enough in the abstract, it poses intractable problems of administration and enforcement. Several hypothetical but realistic examples prove the point:
First, who decides and what standards are to be used in determining whether a particular communication is for or against a proposition? Imagine an avdertisement which states “If you believe you should raise your taxes for a teacher salary increase, vote for the special levy.” The act provides no standards to determine how to allocate the cost of that message as for or against the proposition.
Second, nonpartisan “neutral” messages may have a substantial influence by dissemination of information without favoring or opposing the measure. Apparently there is no limit applicable.
Third, expenditures which are limited include “contributions.” RCW 42.17.020(12). In turn, contributions include personal services for less than full consideration but do not include the rendering of “part-time” personal services of the sort commonly performed by volunteer campaign workers. “Part-time” services is defined as services in addition to regular full employment, or, in the case of an unemployed person, services not in excess of 20 hours per week, excluding weekends. RCW 42.17.020. Thus, an unemployed person is limited in contributing personal services to 4 [384]*384hours a day during the 5-day week, while a person employed part-time has no limitation.
Fourth, the record discloses that several groups have been active in promoting or opposing special levies in the Marysville district. Who violates the law if their combined expenditures exceed the limit? The act provides no answer.
Fifth, looking at the limits on candidates, what if a political party by paid advertisements urges voters to vote for all candidates of that party? Such communications could have a substantial impact on voters, but the act does not provide how the expenditures are to be allocated if at all.
Sixth, a candidate has a right to communicate effectively with his constituency, but apparently he could be silenced altogether if a committee over which he has no control has spent the maximum on his behalf. The problem is aptly illustrated by Professor Rosenthal’s posing of a hypothetical of a committee promoting a slogan: “We admit he’s pretty terrible, but he’s the best of a bad lot.” A. Rosenthal, Federal Regulation of Campaign Financing: Some Constitutional Questions. Citizens Research Foundation Study No. 18 (1972).
Finally, since the last expenditure report is filed 5 days before the election, persons spending during the critical days before an election do so at their peril since they have no means of knowing accurately what other sums are being spent and by whom.
With reference to the facts in the present case, defendants assert that section 14 does not apply to individual expenditures, not made through a committee, if less than $100 in aggregate amount, and that only direct expenditures in excess of $100 are counted toward the limitation of section 14. There is, however, nothing in section 14 which so qualifies the operation of the limitation. Indeed, defendants concede that if a committee had actual knowledge of direct expenditures in amounts less than $100, such amounts would probably count toward the limit. Defendants attempt to bolster their argument with the contention [385]*385that a campaign necessarily implies a shared purpose through an organized effort subject to control or coordination. In essence they say that there must exist a committee of some sort before there is a campaign. However, a campaign can be simply a series of unrelated operations or efforts directed toward influencing the public to support a particular candidate, political party or measure. Nothing in the act states, directly or by implication, that only committee-run efforts constitute a campaign. If defendants’ theory is carried to its logical conclusion a candidate who had no committee would escape the limitations of the act.
It is evident that a person who wishes to avoid violating the provisions of section 14 faces substantial and unresolved issues of meaning and application. The rights involved with respect to the limitations imposed by section 14 are derived from the First Amendment. Such rights, it must be remembered, are “delicate and vulnerable, as well as supremely precious in our society.” NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 433, 9 L. Ed. 2d 405, 83 S. Ct. 328 (1963). First Amendment rights are not to be abridged or even chilled by statutory vagueness. Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360, 12 L. Ed. 2d 377, 84 S. Ct. 1316 (1964), Any legislative impingement on these rights must be drawn with precision . and narrow' specificity. Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589, 17 L. Ed. 2d 629, 87 S. Ct. 675 (1967). Section 14 is impermissibly vague.
Even were there not these problems as to what the law requires and how it operates, section 14 is fatally defective because it can operate to prohibit absolutely plaintiff and others from exercising their constitutionally guarantied freedom of speech. The defendants argue that the section merely imposes a regulation on the amount of money which can be spent in communicating. However, freedom of„ speech and press involve more than the bare right to speak 'and pubfisErTo say otherwise is to ignore reality. To communicate effectively with the mass of voters,- one cannot be limited to verbal communication, _ person-to-person, but must use the media in one form or another. The protected [386]*386rights include dissemination, .distribution and the correlative rights of the public to receive such expressions , of. opinion. Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367, 23 L. Ed. 2d 371, 89 S. Ct. 1794 (1969).
The right of freedom of speech and press includes not 'only the right to utter or to print, but the right to distribuirte, the right to receive, the right to read . . .
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 482, 14 L. Ed. 2d 510, 85 S Ct. 1678 (1965).
If a committee, indeed if one person, has spent the maximum allowable in favor of a levy, plaintiff is absolutely barred from any communication which involves an expenditure, even the contribution of personal services beyond the statutory minimum. The same would be true of every other person in the school district. Furthermore, section 14 is so restrictive that plaintiff cannot even mail a letter with first class postage to each voter since the stamp alone equals the limitation.2 These First Amendment freedoms cannot be so trammeled upon. Both in terms of the potential of absolute prohibition and for lack of narrow regulation drawn with precision and specificity, section 14 is unconstitutional. Keyishian v. Board of Regents, supra; Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 82 L. Ed. 949, 58 S. Ct. 666 (1938).
Defendants argue as a matter of policy that one of the overriding and, therefore, justifying purposes of the act is to prevent moneyed interests from drowning out the voices of the less affluent. We acknowledge the State’s interest in promoting an open, honest and effective electoral process. We held in State v. Conifer Enterprises, Inc., 82 Wn.2d 94, 508 P.2d 149 (1973), that such a goal was sufficient to meet the stringent, compelling interest test. However, it is far from certain that section 14 serves to accomplish the desired goal. For example, the affluent could spend the maximum amount allowable under section 14 in [387]*387one concentrated campaign promotion, thereby precluding further effective political communication on the same side of the issue, affecting rich and poor alike. Conceivably, then, the power of money is increased, not diminished, by section 14.
Defendants urge us to limit our holding to subsection (2) of section 14, thereby leaving unanswered the question of the constitutionality of subsection (1) relating to limits on candidate spending. However, the trial court declared both subsections to be unconstitutional, and we agree that such action was proper as coming within the holding of State ex rel. O’Connell v. Dubuque, 68 Wn.2d 553, 413 P.2d 972 (1966). Facing elections in September and November of this year, candidates and the public are entitled to a holding on this point. Here, both subsections of section 14 raise the same issues of vagueness and over-breadth. Essentially the same conduct noted above which we find to be unconstitutionally affected by operation of subsection (2) is similarly restricted by subsection (1).
The judgment of the trial court declaring section 14 of Initiative 276 unconstitutional is affirmed.
Hale, C.J., and Rosellini, Hunter, Hamilton, and Stafford, JJ., concur.