SEATTLE -
Opponents of stronger legal partnerships for gay couples must abide by Washington state's campaign finance laws while a lawsuit challenging those laws' constitutional footing moves ahead, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.
The lawsuit was filed by a week-old political action committee
called Family PAC, part of a socially conservative Lynnwood
political group called the Family Policy Institute of Washington.
Family PAC is opposed to Referendum 71, a ballot measure asking
voters to approve or reject a new law that would significantly
broaden state domestic partnership rights for gay couples and
unmarried seniors.
Family PAC's lawsuit argues that two state campaign finance laws
violate constitutional free speech rights: A ban on donations above
$5,000 in the three weeks before Election Day, and a requirement to
identify everyone who contributes more than $25.
On Tuesday, the committee was asking for an emergency suspension
of those laws, arguing that supporters' free speech rights would be
irreparably harmed if the ban and disclosure requirements remained
in place for the campaign's final week.
U.S. District Judge Ronald B. Leighton refused the request,
saying Family PAC hadn't shown strong enough evidence to justify
such an intrusion.
"I do not believe it is in the public interest for court, the
The lawsuit was filed by a week-old political action committee
called Family PAC, part of a socially conservative Lynnwood
political group called the Family Policy Institute of Washington.
Family PAC is opposed to Referendum 71, a ballot measure asking
voters to approve or reject a new law that would significantly
broaden state domestic partnership rights for gay couples and
unmarried seniors.
Family PAC's lawsuit argues that two state campaign finance laws
violate constitutional free speech rights: A ban on donations above
$5,000 in the three weeks before Election Day, and a requirement to
identify everyone who contributes more than $25.
On Tuesday, the committee was asking for an emergency suspension
of those laws, arguing that supporters' free speech rights would be
irreparably harmed if the ban and disclosure requirements remained
in place for the campaign's final week.
U.S. District Judge Ronald B. Leighton refused the request,
saying Family PAC hadn't shown strong enough evidence to justify
such an intrusion.
"I do not believe it is in the public interest for court, the
