Is the mayor's proposed new rule about campaigning at city hall just a clarification of the restrictions already in place? Or is it a new rule that will chill the speech of volunteers on grassroots campaigns?

That's the debate underway about the mayor's proposal, which would prohibit "use of any of the facilities of a public office or agency, directly or indirectly, for the purposes of assisting a campaign for election." The prohibition includes, "but is not limited to, an elected official, or the official’s agent, engaging in election campaign activities within 300 feet and one hour of any official city public event that is organized by that elected official or any employee of the official’s office." (Three hundred feet is about one downtown block, according to city staff.)

This is a direct response to a housing affordability town hall hosted last month by council members Kshama Sawant and Nick Licata in their capacity as council members, at which Sawant's campaign was also gathering signatures to get her on the ballot. After that event, council member Sally Bagshaw (who told the Seattle Times the pro-rent-control event was actually a "political rally") and an anonymous tipster complained to the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission that Sawant had violated city ethics rules by using city resources to campaign. Sawant's camp argues that's not true, since Sawant herself wasn't collecting signatures. We're still waiting on a ruling from the SEEC.

There's no question about who's the target of this new rule change. At a council committee meeting about the issue yesterday, council member Tom Rasmussen decried the town hall as an "unprecedented" mix of campaigning and city business. After her colleagues referred to her and to the event several times in vague terms, Sawant said, "They’re talking about me ... she who shall not be named."

It's an extension of the recent breakdown in niceties between the council majority (who tend to support Mayor Ed Murray) and Sawant, who's often critical of her colleagues on policy decisions and their role as part of "establishment" and "corporate" politics.

The more important question is what the result of the change will be. Murray staffers at yesterday's meeting, along with Rasmussen and Bagshaw, promised there is no new limitation being pitched here—just a simple clarification.

"The amendment is not intended nor should it be read as expanding the scope of the election code," wrote executive staffers in a memo to the council. "Rather, the language is drafted to provide additional clarity when interpreting existing law."

But Sawant and her supporters believe this is an effort to hamper grassroots campaigns like the one that got her elected. Sawant said yesterday the rule was "poorly thought out," unenforceable, and would have "a chilling effect on grassroots campaigning" and "end up violating or potentially violating the free speech rights of the public."

She worries a lack of clarity around who is an "agent" of a campaign will scare volunteers and advocates away from getting involved at events like her town hall, cutting down on public participation in city government. (Rasmussen and city staff said "agent" means a council or campaign staffer, not just anyone off the street.)

During public testimony, Jennifer Kaplan, president of the Seattle chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, agreed with Sawant, calling the proposal too vague and saying "it would quickly be struck down if challenged."

The rule also unfairly favors council members' opponents, Sawant argued, because it's only the council member who organized the event who can't have people campaigning there or nearby. In other words, say this rule were in place at that recent town hall. Sawant's opponent Pamela Banks could have had a campaign table set up, but Sawant's campaign could not.

"This is not a question of taxpayer money," Sawant said. "This is a question of free speech."

Bagshaw countered: "To me, this is not a matter of free speech at all. It is a complete matter of integrity and complying with the ethics rules."

The council took no vote on the proposal yesterday, but will send it over to the Ethics and Elections Commission in hopes that the group will make a recommendation at its June 3 meeting about whether the council should pass it.

That got the council to the most telling question yet: Why the rush?

Rasmussen argued that with this year's election of all nine council seats—and the mayor's transportation levy expected on the ballot this fall too—it's important the rules are clear. But Sawant and Licata (who isn't running for reelection) are wondering aloud about council priorities. After an event that drew hundreds of people concerned about the city's housing-affordability crisis, Sawant pointed out that the mayor has given his housing-affordability committee an extra month to make policy recommendations, but the council is moving with urgency on this. Licata told his colleagues yesterday, "I'd like to see the council move as quickly on that [problem] as it's moving on this issue."