From the start of the 2010 campaign season, Doug Richards,
candidate for
26th District Representative, position 2, has been a
lightning rod for questions about his public and private
life.
Perhaps it’s a reflection of his viability as a candidate. His
opponent Larry Seaquist,
in a recent interview, said, “The first day we got his name and
looked at his bio, we said to our campaign team, this is the most
serious opponent we’ve had.”
The
questions about Richards have not emanated directly from
Seaquist or his campaign, but inevitably, they reflected on the
campaign. And Seaquist has had to answer prying questions from the
opposing camp.
With just a week to go until the election, I thought I’d take a
whack at sifting assertions from fact. I’m going to give Richards a
chance to address more recent questions surrounding his campaign
filings with the state Public Disclosure Commission, his voting
record and tax payment history. Speaking of taxes, I’ll also give
his Seaquist a chance to more fully explain a federal tax lien
filed against him Jan. 21, 2009, with the Pierce County
auditor.
Questions about Richards’ voting record were raised in campaign
fliers produced by the Washington State Democratic Central
Committee and in a related television ad.
The TV ad, which I haven’t seen, was described to me by a
co-worker and by Richards himself. The ad and the flier claim
Richards has failed to vote in 41 of the last 55 elections,
including “7 local fire, rescue and medical or 911 measures (even
though he is a firefighter himself!).”
The flier and the ad show a picture of Richards in a suit and
pink bow tie, holding a cigar. The picture, Richards told me, is
from his Facebook. It was taken at the opening of a friend’s cigar
shop in Seattle, he said. And if you could see the big picture,
you’d see him with his wife dressed up in 1930s-style garb, which
was part of the fun at the event. The impression the cropped
picture gives, however, is of a shady character.
On the voting record issue, Richards said that, yes, when he was
younger he voted only in presidential elections.
“I don’t remember if I voted for every election and off-year
elections. I did vote in every presidential campaign,” he said. “I
was in my 20s. It wasn’t at the top of my priorities.”
That changed, Richards said, when he became a small business
owner in 2000, building and selling custom homes. Then, he said, “I
recognized how every vote counted.” And he became more politically
active.
Richards said he does not remember every levy issue he did or
did not vote on. If he had known he’d be running for public office,
he would have kept a list, he joked.
The flier indicates he missed votes on tax- and budget-related
measures, including I-960 in November, 2007, requiring a
legislative super-majority to raise taxes.
Although the ad and flier don’t come directly from Seaquist’s
campaign, Richards said, they show to what degree Seaquist is
running scared. “To try to say this is a character issue is a
stretch,” Richards said. “As best this is a campaign that’s
struggling, that’s grasping at straws.”
According to Richards, the TV ad also claims he has failed to
pay his taxes. True, he missed a payment in 2009. But the story
behind the claim is a lot less sensational, he said. With the
recession, Richards lost an investment property to foreclosure.
Since taxes on the property were taken out of monthly payments to
the bank, Richards’ account fell into arrears while he and the bank
were negotiating on possible remedies to the foreclosure. He
received notice in April that the bank had not paid the tax, and he
wrote a check to cover it himself. The foreclosure eventually went
through, and he lost the property. The experience
helps him sympathize with voters who have faced similar
challenges with the recession, he said.
Speaking of taxes, Richards added, “I think it’s hypocritical he
(Seaquist) attacks me on taxes, considering he failed to pay his
taxes for three years.”
Neither Seaquist nor his campaign made the back tax allegations,
but by their very design, attack ads corral the opponent of the
attacked and make them part of the process. So, Richards’ statement
is perhaps understandable, if technically incorrect.
The assertion that Seaquist “failed to pay taxes” for three
years makes it sound like he blew off the IRS entirely. In fact,
what happened was in 2005, he had an overpayment of about $2,400,
which he advised his tax accountant to apply to 2006 taxes. Due to
a bookkeeping error, the amount was not properly credited. The
error was not discovered by the IRS until 2008, by which time
penalties and interest brought the amount owing to $23,532.83. How
could this be? Believe it, said Jackie Chowning, the revenue
officer who handled the Seaquist lien.
Chowning, speaking in general and not about Seaquist’s case,
said errors often take considerable time to be caught by the
automated behemoth that is the IRS. In Seaquist’s case, the notice
of federal tax lien (not a lien on his home as I mistakenly
reported in an earlier story) was filed Jan. 21, 2009. That would
be where the “three years” in arrears apparently comes from (2006,
when the payment was due to 2009, when the lien was filed).
Seaquist found out about the lien, he said, when his wife
checked a savings account they had and found the IRS had withdrawn
a sizable amount. From Chowning, he found out that the IRS had
placed holds on several other accounts. In October, the IRS
acknowledged the $2,400 had been applied to his account, adding it
could take up to 120 days for the credit to show up on his account.
The lien was cleared The
couple paid the outstanding amount and cleared the lien in
February, 2009.
The PDC complaint about Richards came to the Kitsap Sun from
George Robison of Gig Harbor, a Seaquist supporter who also was
part of a group that questioned Richards’ service records. Robison
did not identify himself as a Seaquist supporter to the Kitsap Sun
or the PDC, with whom he raised the following issues, but his name
was familiar from numerous e-mails, comments on stories and blogs,
and a display ad the group ran in the Kitsap Sun about the service
record issue.
Robison accused Richards of:
“1. Double booking of some expenses as a ‘loan’ and as an ‘in-kind
contribution’ by Mr. Richards, leading to the appearance of the
potential for being reimbursed twice, after having been repaid for
an item that is still carried on the books as a loan. No credit
entry has been made for any loan reimbursement even though some
reimbursements match loans.
2. Reimbursement to Mr. Richards for many items forbidden by the
PDC. This includes political conferences, trainings, memberships in
the NRA and Chamber of Commerce, charitable gifts, entertainment
and personal food and fuel. In the amended C4 for 9/1, about 56
food and fuel expense items totaled about $1997 or about 25% of
total campaign expenditures for that period alone. On some reports
he was reimbursed over $150 per day for fuel.
3. Overall, a large number of campaign expenses were reported as
‘repayments’ made directly to Mr. Richards. This raises the
appearance of campaign funds being mingled with personal
expenses.”
Doug Richards told me his wife Whitney, who is acting as his
campaign treasurer, has been working with Chip Beatty, a filer
assistance specialist with the state’s Public Disclosure
Commission, to be sure the campaign is in compliance with PDC rules
and campaign finances laws.
Beatty, who spoke to Whitney Richards on Oct. 19 as a result of
Robison’s e-mail, found some merit in one of Robison’s complaints
regarding reimbursements for fuel. Whitney Richards had submitted
fuel receipts. Beatty advised that did not accurately reflect
personal driving as distinct from campaign-related driving. Beatty
asked Richards to reimburse his campaign for the personal use. He
was directed to keep a mileage log and have the campaign reimburse
him for mileage in the future.
Beatty noted that since Oct. 19, the Richards’ have amended the
filings in question. “It appears they were very proactive in making
the changes I requested right away,” Beatty said.
Richards’ C3 form, documenting income to the campaign, shows
$389.60 on Oct. 19 paid by Richards to the campaign “to refund fuel
used for personal use.” There’s another refund on Oct. 25 for
$188.
Beatty did say that Richards could have been more specific about
items like food and beverages. But he said Richards’ requests for
cost reimbursements for these items were not out of line. He
advised Whitney Richards to be more descriptive. On a receipt for
“wine,” for example, she should have stated what is was for (a
primary night event). He also suggested that the word “repayment”
be replaced with “reimbursement.”
Beatty had no issues with costs related to “political
conferences, trainings, memberships in the NRA and Chamber of
Commerce, charitable gifts, entertainment and personal food.” It is
acceptable, under PDC rules, he said for candidates to join an
organization and attend its meetings, likely paying for meals at
these events, as part of the process of networking and seeking
support.
Voters aren’t required to like or approve of all expenditures
that are technically legal. But at least they can go to the PDC, as
Robison did, and
see for themselves how much was spent on what. And if, like
Robison, they aren’t satisfied with the clarity of the reporting,
they can contact the PDC and complain. The PDC has the authority to
sanction a candidate and their website has this nifty
little page where you can track the status of compliance cases.
Apparently Richards’ bookkeeping errors did not rise to the level
of egregiousness that would earn him a spot on the list.
Chris Henry, reporter
