On Sept. 16, Bruce Harrell was scheduled to attend a fundraising event for Bruce Harrell for Seattle’s Future, the political action committee supporting his reelection campaign. According to an email invitation obtained by The Stranger, the event started at 5 p.m. at a downtown office building. There were refreshments. At 5:15 p.m., Harrell was scheduled to address the group “regarding accomplishments, progress made, needs, policy priorities, and the campaign.” At 6 p.m., “PAC leader” Tim Burgess, who works under Harrell as deputy mayor, addressed “the current imperatives, leads discussion” and then did a Q&A with the attendees.
According to Kim Bradshaw, deputy director at the Public Disclosure Commission, Harrell speaking at a fundraising event for his PAC is “unusual.”
“[It] does invite questions regarding whether the event was an in-kind contribution to the candidate and/or the PAC,” Bradshaw wrote in an email.
The PAC, which has raised $1.5 million to support Harrell’s campaign, is allowed to fundraise far beyond what Harrell’s campaign can. A PAC can accept a donation of any size, while Harrell, who is participating in the democracy voucher program, can only accept $650 per donor.
According to Washington State Law, they absolutely cannot coordinate. The Washington Administrative Code states that any money spent in “cooperation, consultation, concern, or collaboration with, or at the request or suggestion of a candidate” should be considered a contribution to that candidate. Any expenditure made with “fundraising-assistance” from someone from the campaign—like, perhaps, speaking at the fundraising event—should be considered an expenditure for the campaign.
The Stranger shared the event invitation details with election experts and political consultants familiar with Washington’s election law. The law is complicated and nuanced, they all said, but this event creates the appearance of coordination between the campaign and the PAC. If they did coordinate, the PAC’s big-dollar spending on attack ads this month could be a violation of campaign finance law, or more specifically, the Washington Administrative Code.
When reached for comment, Harrell’s campaign did not answer detailed questions regarding this event and the efforts the campaign might have made to avoid coordinating with the PAC. “Neither Mayor Harrell nor our campaign coordinates with IE groups, and we ensure that we are in compliance with all PDC rules,” was the only response.
Neither the PAC nor Deputy Mayor Burgess responded to The Stranger’s requests for comment.
The event’s invitation came from organizers of the People for Seattle PAC, which backed Chamber of Commerce candidates and papered mailboxes with negative ads about the progressive city council in 2019. Burgess, Harrell’s deputy mayor, co-founded PFS. In the Bruce Harrell for Seattle’s Future event email, the organizers wrote that PFS “contributed significantly to voters eventually changing the make-up of the City Council and to electing Mayor Bruce Harrell.” All of PFS’ 2019 candidates, save for Alex Pedersen, lost their races. However, the more conservative slate of candidates began winning elections in 2021 and 2023.
In order to keep power in Seattle, “we again need to come together and support balanced, moderate City government candidates,” the email read. Harrell and other moderate candidates like Seattle City Council President Sara Nelson, the email cited, experienced bad primary showing “in large part due to the stresses our voters are feeling that have been put on ‘Blue States’ by the current federal administration…non-centrist, unprepared, and inexperienced voices grew support for candidates… that do not align with the moderate and bi-partisan vision we all had.”
The invite urged people to donate to the PAC.
“Your contribution to Bruce Harrell for Seattle’s Future will help us show voters what has happened and outline our future with Bruce as Mayor,” the event email reads. “Our targeted voter outreach will include TV and Internet ads, direct mail, and social media efforts.”
“You can give whatever you feel will help,” the email reads. “There are no limits on contributions to the PAC, which is separate and independent from Bruce’s personal campaign.”
The key issue here is the independence of this “independent” expenditure. Candidates are subject to campaign finance laws that limit the total amount of money they can raise, and how much they can accept from individual donors. Political Action Committees (PACs) are not, and they’re allowed to make “independent expenditures” in favor of, or against, a candidate.
Those expenditures might look like the $103,750 spent on mailers in favor of Bruce Harrell, financing the $34,000 attack ad against Katie Wilson’s record that aired during Monday’s post-season Mariners game, or the $84,130 they spent on ads that will air from this week until the day before the election. To keep their “independent” status, though, these PACs can’t coordinate with the candidates’ campaigns. The campaign can’t tell them what to do, or vice versa. Otherwise, a PAC simply becomes a slush fund that allows candidates to work around campaign finance laws.
Political consultant Crystal Fincher tells The Stranger that an event like the one Harrell spoke at blurs the lines between contributions to him as a candidate and to his PAC. “If you’re coordinating directly with the campaign that is essentially exceeding the donation limits there,” Fincher says.
And the event was invite-only. That makes it a private thing, Fincher explains, which is more eyebrow raising.
“They are getting information from and about the campaign that is not available to the general public—that’s inside information that they’re then using to electioneer on Bruce’s behalf,” Fincher says. “[The PAC] is then just an extension of the campaign. It just flies in the face of our entire campaign finance system.”
And, as we know from the helpful agenda in the email, Harrell was literally scheduled to discuss the campaign with his PAC in the room.
As of October 15, the PAC supporting Harrell has a warchest of more than $1.5 million. Of that, $822,400 came in after this event where Bruce Harrell spoke last month, and 99 percent of those donations were above the limit that would be allowed to give to a candidate.
The PAC is putting that $1.5 million to use—and according to Fincher, that kind of money would make the risk of a campaign finance complaint worthwhile for most candidates. “When you’re raising a million dollars on the hard side and the soft side,” Fincher says, referring to candidate funds and PAC funds, “it doesn’t seem like much of a penalty.”
Marcus Harrison Green contributed reporting to this story.
The story does not support the claim made in the headline. The headline claims he spoke at the event, but the story does not: “On Sept. 16, Bruce Harrell was scheduled to attend a fundraising event… 5:15 p.m., Harrell was scheduled…” (The story flatly claims that Burgess spoke, but offers no proof of this.)
Is there an issue with a candidate speaking to their financial supporters?
It’s not just Bruce thumbing his nose at the state campaign finance laws, in their mailer his PAC is making it clear like they did four years ago that Harrell is part of a cabal of Trump-lite “centrists” (Bruce, Sara, and Ann), which is in sharp contrast to his recent makeover by his expensive political consultant as a “progressive changemaker”. When you keep changing who you say you are to voters from one election to the next, you lose credibility as a public servant, as it becomes clear that you simply want to stay in power and are addicted to the trappings of the office. Seattle needs a mayor who is committed to doing what most voters in the city want, not someone desperately clinging to power.
@1 Yes, the headline should be “Did Bruce Harrell Speak at a Fundraiser for the PAC Supporting Him?” But come on, if Harrell didn’t show up, his spokespeople and surrogates wouldn’t be shy about making that fact known every chance they got and then some. Their collective silence in response to a scandalous (if true) allegation speaks volumes.
@2 Legally, a PAC is not a “financial supporter.” Candidates aren’t supposed to meet with them, talk with them, eat dinner with them, or coordinate any campaign activities with them, as this article explains quite well. I’m surprised a veteran pol like Harrell apparently made such a miscalculation. Whatever passes for ethics in MAGA-land these days, it’s safe to say most voters in Seattle still care about campaign finance laws and think they’re too permissive as it is.
Also, reading the e-mail carefully reveals the event itself was not described as a “fundraiser,” because the e-mail itself asked for donations, whether the recipient planned to attend the event or not. The event’s agenda says nothing about donating money. So, if Harrell did actually speak at the event — and, as we’ve already covered, the Stranger has presented no evidence he actually did — the event may not have been a fundraiser.
@4: Both assertions the Stranger made in the headline completely lack support in the article. The article provides no evidence Harrell spoke at the event, and if he did speak at the event, the article provides no evidence the event was a “fundraiser,” even though the Stranger repeatedly claimed it was.
@5 I hope you don’t strain yourself grasping at them straws!
@5 you sound like Republicans trying to claim Trump wasn’t actually friends with Epstein
The headline isn’t confirmed in the article but you would think his office would want to clarify that he was listed as a speaker at an event he wasn’t speaking at, whether he backed out or was never set to speak at all, because they would want people to know why he wasn’t there if they had been expecting him.
Folks turn themselves inside out to defend Mr Harrell…that is the smell of a dying candidate
“The Stranger shared the event invitation details with election experts and political consultants familiar with Washington’s election law.”
Which details did the Stranger share, and with whom? Why didn’t the Stranger just forward the e-mail to them?
Also, who were the other “election experts and political consultants” to whom the Stranger did not simply forward a copy of the e-mail? The story quotes exactly one political consultant. Did the Stranger even attempt to contact anyone from, say, the state’s Public Disclosure Commission?
@6, @7: Even though you have provided absolutely no evidence of any kind whatsoever to validate the headline, nor have you described anything wrong in my facts or logic, you still sound completely sure of yourselves. (Good thing you have no history of being confidently wrong, hahahahahahahahahahaha…)
@8: “The headline isn’t confirmed in the article but…”
Now, that doesn’t sound desperate at all!
“…you would think his office would want to clarify that he was listed as a speaker at an event he wasn’t speaking at,”
Either Harrell’s office, the event organizers, or both, may have done just that, in a follow-up e-mail. We don’t know, and I doubt very much the Stranger would provide additional evidence just to contradict their chosen headline. (A headline which, as you agreed, they published while lacking evidence to support it.)
Why would anyone from the Harrell campaign speak to the Stranger? His blowout victory terminated the political career of one of their favorite politicians, they still want him out of office as a result, and the Stranger’s willingness to twist source material so as to fit predetermined conclusions has been very well documented here (e.g., https://www.thestranger.com/news/2025/05/07/80045377/uw-cries-antisemitism-in-wake-of-pro-palestine-protest/comments).
TS has obvious bias for Wilson and against Harrell. You’d think they have been able to come up with a better hit piece than this if there was actually anything wrong with Harrell.
Nobody really cares about campaign finance, anyway. And if you do, I’ll suggest you’re barking up the wrong tree. The cost of communication is next to nothing these days. Everyone can get their message out. If the voters allow themselves to be manipulated by repetitive billion dollar ad buys, that’s not an argument for campaign finance reform. It’s an argument against democracy. We don’t need campaign finance laws, we need an informed and rational citizenry that’s able to identify bad ideas. We sorely lack that on both sides.
Besides, we all know the proper way to win elections – sleep with editors of papers who endorse you. Hi Stranger!
Following up on @10, I was wrong when I wrote, “The story quotes exactly one political consultant.” The story also quotes “Kim Bradshaw, deputy director at the Public Disclosure Commission,” who didn’t say Harrell’s alleged speaking at the event actually violated any law. She said it was “unusual,” and
‘“[It] does invite questions regarding whether the event was an in-kind contribution to the candidate and/or the PAC,” Bradshaw wrote in an email.’
I apologize for my error. In that same spirit, I also look forward to the Stranger updating the headline to match their story.
@11 “Nobody really cares about campaign finance, anyway.”
Harrell supporters are losing their minds in here
@10 to be clear i don’t have a dog in this fight and i am approaching my question and speculation in good faith because i find it odd that the campaign hasn’t clarified whether he appeared at an event where he was reported to be. I suppose we could speculate that they responded to the stranger’s request and the stranger is refusing to disclose this information, but it would be a weird thing to do since they’re the ones asking questions for their own reporting. Presumably we will find out in due time when the campaign calls out the stranger for not updating their reporting with the statement provided by the campaign.
But even absent the stranger, the mayor’s supporters deserve to know why he wasn’t at an event where they were expecting him. If he didn’t appear I would assume others would be asking too, and the campaign surely has an obligation to follow through with them even if they don’t think they also owe it to the press, however unfair their coverage may be.
@14: “…i find it odd that the campaign hasn’t clarified whether he appeared at an event where he was reported to be…”
We don’t know whether the campaign communicated anything about that to “the mayor’s supporters” or not. All we know is the Stranger either didn’t receive a response from the campaign, or did receive one and decided not to publish it. (Also, just to clarify, he wasn’t “reported” to be there by anyone other than the writer of the headline. As the Stranger noted, he “was scheduled” to be there, but as to whether he actually attended, neither the Stranger nor anyone else has confirmed.)
“If he didn’t appear I would assume others would be asking too,”
Have we seen any questions about this from anyone else?
“…the campaign surely has an obligation to follow through with them even if they don’t think they also owe it to the press, however unfair their coverage may be.”
Whether the campaign followed through with their own supporters is up to the campaign; I’m neither part of this campaign specifically nor a supporter of it generally, so I cannot say.
“Presumably we will find out in due time when the campaign calls out the stranger for not updating their reporting with the statement provided by the campaign.”
Or maybe the campaign never responded to the Stranger, or did respond and decided the Stranger’s decision not to include their response means further effort would be wasted. Either way is up to them.
“I suppose we could speculate that they responded to the stranger’s request and the stranger is refusing to disclose this information, but it would be a weird thing to do since they’re the ones asking questions for their own reporting.”
Why would that be “a weird thing” for the Stranger to do? In the example I gave @10, SUPER UW had issued a “manifesto” declaring their seizure of a UW building. This “manifesto” had also explicitly celebrated the 10/7 attacks. Multiple commenters in multiple threads here had noted SUPER UW’s celebration of rape and slaughter. In their headline story, the Stranger first didn’t mention the “manifesto” at all, but then updated the post to include a quote from this “manifesto,” — a highly selective quote, one which carefully excised the “manifesto’s” celebration of rape and slaughter. So no, the Stranger refusing to report something it was actively claiming to report does not constitute “weird” behavior by the Stranger.
@5 The fact that the email asks for donations makes the email itself a fundraiser, even if the live event was not billed as such. And Harrell’s apparent direct involvement with both (which, again, he has curiously not denied) means he and the PAC have both likely broken the law. Now, is this something that anyone will go to jail for? Probably not. Trump and his allies have made an art form out of exploiting loopholes and gray areas in laws like this one, and none of them have yet faced any real consequences. But it’s a serious political misstep for Harrell, especially since the story broke at the precise moment when ballots are landing in people’s mailboxes (got mine today). I sure don’t envy his crisis response team.
@14 I’m sorry no shade but i’m not reading all that
Let me put it this way. You are making a lot of assumptions that i personally do not find plausible. I would expect the campaign to complain about their comments not being included in the reporting, and/or to demand a retraction of an allegedly false headline that paints him in a bad light if that’s what happened here.
Even if they don’t like the stranger they have an interest in not being lied about in print. They also have an interest in showing the public that an adversarial outlet is lying about him. Maybe they will do this eventually but right now i find it more likely that he actually appeared at the event that said he would be appearing at than the campaign letting a misleading and defamatory story linger for this long.
@15 i mean
@17: “I would expect the campaign to complain about their comments not being included in the reporting, and/or to demand a retraction of an allegedly false headline that paints him in a bad light if that’s what happened here.”
You’re making assumptions: that they care enough to complain, or that they could reasonably expect the Stranger to correct a headline which the headline’s own post already does not support. What are the bases for your assumptions?
“Even if they don’t like the stranger they have an interest in not being lied about in print.”
Why do you assume they care what the Stranger prints, especially when anyone can see the Stranger printed a headline which the Stranger’s own post does not support?
“They also have an interest in showing the public that an adversarial outlet is lying about him.”
Again, they have the current post, which does not support the headline atop it. What could the campaign say which would make the point better than that?
“Maybe they will do this eventually but right now i find it more likely that he actually appeared at the event that said he would be appearing at than the campaign letting a misleading and defamatory story linger for this long.”
You are making a lot of assumptions that I personally do not find plausible.
Yes we’re both making different assumptions, that has been my point all along. I’m not trying to convince you or anyone of anything and don’t care to argue about any of it, i am just sharing my interpretation of events.
@20: Your assumptions all support the idea that if Harrell’s campaign, or the independent campaign, or both, do not respond to this story, then there is some truth to it. That’s a very large claim for a story which does not even support its own headline.