Democrats May Go After McKenna's Budget

Seattle Times ^ | 24 March 2010 | Jim Brunner

[Publius]

Democrats in the state Legislature are considering a budget maneuver to block Republican Attorney General Rob McKenna's involvement in a lawsuit challenging the health-care bill signed by President Obama Tuesday.

Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown, D-Spokane, confirmed that Democrats are investigating the legality of a budget proviso which would prohibit McKenna's office from spending public money on the lawsuit.

"We are looking at that," Brown said. "We're researching it right now, but there is no decision yet."

Brown also sent a letter to McKenna urging him to reconsider his position, which she called "far outside the mainstream interests" of the state.

I'm told that similar discussions are underway in the state House. Both chambers are controlled by large Democratic majorities.

McKenna's involvement in the lawsuit, filed Tuesday in Florida by 13 state attorneys general, has infuriated Democrats who say he doesn't represent the state in the lawsuit.

On Tuesday afternoon, the state Democratic Party filed a public-disclosure request for all documents related to McKenna's decision to participate in the lawsuit.

[Publius]

In Washington, the AG is elected separately from the governor. Thus he is accountable to the people.

But the legislature can strip him of his budget if it so chooses. What the Democrats propose to do is perfectly legal.

[jersey117]

The Republicans need to be as ruthless as they are from here on out. They want war.... the Republicans need to play the same dirty game.

[Rational Thought]

But, I did notice the statement speaks of “public money”. Does that mean the AG could use private funds to wage such a battle?

[Frantzie]

Perfectly legal for attorneys to donate there time to help him too.

[Lexinom]

Bingo. It worked for Obama. Playing the polite guy, maintaining the decorum has gotten us nowhere and made us appear weak in the eyes of the average 100 IQ voter. We are well beyond that point. It’s war from here on out, sadly, just as you say.

[Publius]

Good question. But I doubt it. The financial accountability issue would bog everything down.

[Gay State Conservative]

But the legislature can strip him of his budget if it so chooses. What the Democrats propose to do is perfectly legal.

I'm not really surprised by *that*.I guess the legislature can give the AG's office whatever it wants to...in keeping with the state's Constitution.But I would think that the only way the AG's office can be forbidden to spend what it *has* received from the Legislature is if that activity is a clear violation of the State's Constitution.A suit like that simply *can't* be illegal...even in Washington.

[proudpapa]

If they strip him of his budget...the people will mail him checks to cover the legal costs.

[Publius]

The legislature holds the power of the purse. If It chooses to ban the use of state funds for a paricular effort, it can do so.

[Chet 99]

Don’t be so sure... They may be able to lower his budget overall, but it may not be legal for them to use the power of the purse to direct how he runs his office. It depends on what the state’s constitution has to say on the issue.

[pollywog]

Call NOW and do WHAT?

[ForGod'sSake]

Well THAT didn’t take long. The gutter dwelling Rats(but I repeat myself) cannot debate ANY issue on the merits so they must silence rational dissent, God luvem!

[mockingbyrd]

Called. Asked what the problem was....don’t we win if it’s confirmed to be Constitutional? That answers my questions. Don’t we win if it’s unConstitutional, because our AG protected our rights. Either way, the state citizens benefit.

[Gay State Conservative]

The legislature holds the power of the purse.

Understood.

If It chooses to ban the use of state funds for a particular effort, it can do so.

That doesn't sound right particularly because the AG is directly elected by the people.Where do you get this info?

[Lexinom]

Good for you, my avian FRiend. Your right on, specifically regarding Article 1 Section 8 which enumerates federal congressional powers, and the Tenth Amendment. (and the 9th and 13th).

I called earlier. We all need to call and make some noise! Lisa Brown is the one out of the mainstream, not McKenna.

[Lexinom]

Remind them that McKenna is upholding his office oath and is acting in defense of Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, and in favor of the Tenth Amendment protecting states against an increasingly intrusive Federal statism.

Tell them you are angry!

[livius]

I agree, except that you may have been too generous with the Obama voter’s average IQ.

[SeaHawkFan]

If McKenna was really interested in defending the constitution, Gregoire would be in prison right now.

The truth is he us doing this primarily to help himself in a run for governor.

[BigEdLB]

Majority Senate Leader, Lisa Brown, D-Spokane confirmed that Democrats are investigating the legality of a budget proviso which would prohibit McKenna's office from spending public money on the lawsuit.

[tallyhoe]

Called!!!!!