With nearly $80,000 in penalties now being sought through separate complaints, Jake Seegers’ campaign is facing mounting legal and financial pressure before voters ever cast a ballot. The latest complaint, filed by Clallam County Democrat leader Paul Pickett, seeks $49,200 over content published by Clallam County Watchdog and challenges the publication’s status as an independent media platform.
Running for public office is not easy.
Most candidates expect criticism. They expect opposition research. They expect uncomfortable questions and heated debates. What they do not usually expect is the possibility of nearly $80,000 in requested penalties, vandalized signs, stolen signs, accusations of being a “Christian Nationalist,” accusations of being a “carpetbagger,” accusations of being an “out-of-town real estate investor,” and a steady stream of complaints that consume time, money, and energy that could otherwise be spent talking to voters.
Yet that is exactly where Jake Seegers finds himself today.
A complaint filed with the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission by local Democrat leader Paul Pickett seeks $49,200 in penalties against the Seegers campaign and activities associated with Clallam County Watchdog.
According to the complaint, articles and podcasts published through CC Watchdog should be treated as political advertising and reported accordingly. The complaint specifically requests maximum penalties and argues that months of content should be retroactively treated as campaign activity.
This is occurring while the campaign is already dealing with a separate PDC matter involving campaign sign font size, which seeks roughly $30,000 in penalties and has already resulted in thousands of dollars spent bringing signs into compliance.
Taken together, the requested penalties approach $80,000.
For a local county commissioner campaign, that is not a small amount of money. It is the kind of financial burden that could cripple a grassroots campaign and leave it fighting regulatory battles instead of campaigning.
The obvious question is whether that is the point.
What Is Clallam County Watchdog?
For readers who may be unfamiliar with the facts, Clallam County Watchdog is my publication.
I own it.
I created it.
I publish it.
It is not a business. It generates no income. The Substack platform operates under a free account. The only recurring expense is the domain name, www.ccwatchdog.com, which was purchased before Jake Seegers announced his candidacy and before I agreed to serve as his campaign manager.
Any expenditures associated with CC Watchdog occurred before Jake registered with the PDC.
There have been no campaign expenditures related to Clallam County Watchdog, its website, its Substack publication, or its podcasts.
After Jake announced his candidacy and asked me to serve as campaign manager, I proactively contacted the Public Disclosure Commission last year. I explained that I owned CC Watchdog. I explained that I was the publisher. I explained that I would also be serving as campaign manager.
I asked detailed questions.
I was transparent.
Based upon those discussions, I understood that continuing to operate Clallam County Watchdog as an independent publication would not violate PDC requirements.
That understanding is one reason this complaint is so remarkable.
Jake Was Writing Before He Was Running
One of the biggest problems with the complaint is that it ignores the actual history of this publication.
Jake Seegers did not suddenly appear on CC Watchdog because he decided to run for office.
He was contributing to CC Watchdog before he became a candidate.
He was contributing before he informed me he intended to run.
He was contributing before he asked me to become campaign manager.
Today, Jake represents roughly one-seventh of the content published by CC Watchdog. That is because Clallam County Watchdog has always been a platform that welcomes contributors.
When James Taylor ran for Port Angeles City Council, I gave him space.
When Marolee Smith was running, I gave her space.
Today, Clallam County Auditor candidate Virginia Shogren is publishing guest columns through CC Watchdog.
The publication has never been limited to one candidate, one political party, or one viewpoint. The complaint treats CC Watchdog as if it suddenly materialized for the purpose of electing Jake Seegers. The historical record says otherwise.
The Question Nobody Wants to Answer
Paul Pickett should remember this issue well because we served together on the Charter Review Commission.
Last year, Charter Review Commission Chair Susan Fisch and League of Women Voters activists, including Sequim School Board member Patrice Johnston, pushed a proposal that would have restricted Clallam County Watchdog’s ability to report on publicly available information emerging from the Charter Review Commission process. The proposal was a direct attack on my First Amendment rights. Public information is public information, and the idea that an independent publication should be prohibited from reporting on publicly available governmental proceedings should alarm anyone who claims to care about transparency, democracy, or free speech.
What makes that episode particularly remarkable is that Paul Pickett himself repeatedly exercised his own First Amendment rights during Charter Review Commission meetings. On one occasion, Pickett characterized public commenters who wanted Clallam County to answer the federal government regarding tribal trust land issues as ignorant racists. His right to say that was protected. No effort was made to silence, censor, or punish him for expressing his views. In fact, Susan Fisch would not even entertain the idea of censuring him.
Which brings us back to the question that Susan Fisch and Patrice Johnston refused to answer, and one Paul Pickett should be willing to address today.
What if my coverage had been complimentary?
What if my coverage of Susan Fisch had been glowing?
What if my coverage of Patrice Johnston had been flattering?
What if my coverage of Mike French had consisted entirely of praise?
Would anyone have filed this complaint?
Would anyone be demanding $49,200 in penalties?
Would anyone be arguing that Clallam County Watchdog is actually campaign advertising?
Or is the real issue not that Clallam County Watchdog exists, but that it frequently challenges the political views of the people filing complaints?
Apparently, the First Amendment applies when Paul Pickett is speaking. The question is whether it also applies when Clallam County Watchdog is speaking.
Mike French Has Been Invited. Repeatedly.
One of the most frustrating aspects of this entire controversy is the implication that Mike French somehow lacks access to CC Watchdog readers.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
In my “sent” folder are hundreds of emails to Commissioner Mike French. The overwhelming majority involve questions from CC Watchdog, requests for comment, or invitations to participate in conversations about issues affecting Clallam County.
Almost all have been ignored.
This is particularly interesting because French campaigned prioritizing “robust community engagement.”
He has had repeated opportunities to communicate directly with thousands of readers and thousands more podcast listeners.
Instead, French appears far more comfortable participating in friendly interviews with legacy media, writing favorable articles about programs such as Recompete, and engaging in environments where difficult questions are less likely to be asked.
That is his choice.
But it is difficult to claim exclusion from a platform when invitations have been repeatedly extended and repeatedly ignored.
Who Gets a Platform?
The complaint also arrives in the context of broader questions about who gets to participate in public debate. Earlier this year, Jake Seegers attempted to submit a letter to the editor to the Peninsula Daily News and was informed that, because he was a candidate for office, the newspaper would not publish it. At the same time, incumbent Commissioner Mike French is allowed to author and publish articles in the newspaper and has been featured discussing his accomplishments and policy priorities.
Newspapers have every right to decide what they publish. That is their First Amendment right. But voters are equally entitled to ask whether the standards are being applied consistently. When one candidate struggles to find a platform while another benefits from the visibility that comes with incumbency and established media relationships, independent outlets become even more important.
That is precisely why efforts to classify Clallam County Watchdog as campaign advertising rather than independent commentary concern so many people. If candidates cannot participate in legacy media, cannot build alternative platforms, and cannot appear in publications willing to ask difficult questions, where exactly are they supposed to speak?
The Hypocrisy Problem
Perhaps the most ironic aspect of this complaint is who filed it. Paul Pickett writes for Clallam Democrats Rising.
He publishes political commentary.
He promotes Democratic causes.
He writes favorable articles about Democratic elected officials, including Mike French.
He has every right to do that.
I support Paul Pickett’s right to do that. What I do not understand is why his political commentary is protected speech while mine is allegedly a PDC violation worthy of $49,200 in penalties.
How does that work?
Why is a Democrat-affiliated blog acceptable while an independent publication becomes campaign advertising? Why is one political commentator protected while another becomes the subject of a lengthy regulatory complaint?
The contradiction is impossible to ignore.
The Real Issue
Democrat PCO Jim Stoffer has called me a “pretend journalist.” He has called me “the boy with the blog.”
Fair enough.
I have never claimed otherwise.
I am not a traditionally trained journalist.
I do not have journalism degrees hanging on my wall.
I am a political commentator and a reporter.
I investigate stories.
I gather records.
I ask questions.
I publish opinions.
Sometimes, very strong opinions.
That is exactly what independent citizens have done throughout American history. The First Amendment was not created to protect speech everyone agrees with. It was created to protect speech that powerful people would prefer not to hear.
The most troubling aspect of this entire situation is not the complaint itself. It is that the complaint is being taken seriously enough to trigger investigations, consume public resources, and potentially expose a grassroots campaign to nearly $80,000 in requested penalties.
At some point, voters have to ask themselves a simple question.
If an independent candidate can be subjected to complaints over signs, complaints over blogs, complaints over podcasts, accusations on social media, vandalized signs, stolen signs, and endless allegations from political opponents, when does ordinary political competition become something else?
The Clallam County Democrats regularly warn about threats to democracy, abuses of power, unfair processes, censorship, tyranny, and political intimidation.
Perhaps it is time for them to hold up a mirror and ask whether they are living by the same standards they demand of everyone else.
Today’s Tidbit: Name Recognition
A recent Letter to the Editor in the Sequim Gazette urges voters not to “fall for name recognition” and warns against supporting candidates simply because their signs seem to be everywhere. Fair enough. Voters should absolutely do their homework.
But then the letter takes an interesting turn.
Readers are told to pay attention to which properties host campaign signs and even remember which candidates those same property owners supported in previous elections. In other words, don’t be influenced by signs—except when you should be influenced by signs.
The logic becomes even harder to follow when you consider the actual race. If this is truly a warning about name recognition, wouldn’t the obvious beneficiary be Mike French? French has spent nearly four years on the Clallam County Board of Commissioners and five years before that on the Port Angeles City Council. That’s nearly a decade of public office and built-in name recognition.
Jake Seegers, by contrast, is the challenger. The reason his signs are appearing across the county isn’t because voters automatically know his name. It’s because supporters are voluntarily putting them up.
And those supporters come from all walks of life. Democrats, Republicans, independents, business owners, blue-collar workers, retirees, environmentalists, entrepreneurs, and families throughout Clallam County have chosen to display Seegers signs because they support his message.
One image making the rounds shows a Mike French sign and an Emily Randall sign displayed beneath an upside-down American flag with the word “RESIST!” painted across it.
Resist what?
If we’re making a list, some residents might choose to resist transferring two national wildlife refuges to a commercial seafood corporation, a proposal supported by Emily Randall. Others might choose to resist policies Mike French has supported, such as continuing free shower vouchers for clients of the Harm Reduction Health Center to use at the William Shore Memorial Pool—a facility frequented by families and children.
That’s the beauty of elections. People support different candidates for different reasons.
So by all means, don’t vote based solely on a sign. Read the voter pamphlet. Visit candidate websites. Ask questions. Attend events.
But if you’re going to judge candidates based on sign placement, you’re not really arguing against name recognition at all. You’re arguing that some signs count more than others.
And voters are smart enough to notice the difference.
