concluding that a half dozen subtopics, ranging from regulation of lobbyists to inspection of public records, were "reasonably related," thus satisfying "the nexus requirements of the `rational unity' test"
How later courts described this case
- concluding that a half dozen subtopics, ranging from regulation of lobbyists to inspection of public records, were "reasonably related," thus satisfying "the nexus requirements of the `rational unity' test"
- Notwithstanding the importance of First Amendment rights, the general public has a paramount right to information which would help it "evaluat[e] the influence of money upon legislative decisionmaking and related functions of government"; the state's lobbying and disclosure law was designed "for the expressed purpose of fostering openness in ... government ... [and] to exhibit in the public forum the identities and pecuniary involvements of those individuals and organizations that expend funds to influence government."
- holding this to be a basis for finding the citizen's lawsuit provision of the Act constitutional
- "factors that may influence the electorate's evaluative processes are not always disclosed in the heat of a campaign and less often when the official has taken office."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Wright, J.
(concurring) — I concur in the majority opinion and have signed the same. I wish to add this brief concurrence in order to point out that amendment 26 is not relevant to the applicability of article 2, section 19 to initiative measures. Amendment 26, also known as article 2, section 41, contains the words “[n]o act, law, or bill” (italics mine). The wording is in the disjunctive. Amendment 26 is directed to referendum as well as initiative measures. A referendum measure having its origin in the legislature may properly be referred to as a “bill,” and, therefore, amendment 26 can in no wise be viewed as modifying the rule of Senior Citizens League v. Department of Social Security, 38 Wn.2d 142 , 228 P.2d 478 (1951).