The sponsors of Initiative 645 are setting the record straight: a yes vote simply repeals Washington’s new 9.9% income tax on earnings over $1 million — and nothing else.

Opponents have been frantically claiming that passing the initiative would somehow eliminate the capital gains tax, paid family and medical leave, the long-term care program, unemployment benefits, and other popular programs. Let’s Go Washington’s legal memo makes clear those claims are false. The plain text of I-645 targets only the new income tax. Washington courts have never interpreted ballot measures the way Democrats are trying to spin this one.

A recent poll shows two-thirds of Washingtonians already oppose the income tax — before the real campaign even begins. That’s why the “No on 645” side, heavily funded by public-sector unions that stand to benefit from the revenue, is resorting to fearmongering.

As LGW notes, Governor Bob Ferguson campaigned on not taxing his way out of the budget deficit, then signed an income tax built on billions in future, uncollected revenue while working with allies to block voters from having a direct say. Trust has been broken. I-645 gives Washingtonians a chance to demand better.

When Democrats have to invent catastrophic side effects to defend their tax, it’s a clear sign they know the public isn’t buying what they’re selling. Read more at Seattle Red.

Federal data confirms what Washington families already feel: the Seattle-Tacoma area now has the second-highest cost of living in the country. The biggest drivers are fuel and shelter — both inflated by years of one-party Democratic policies.

Washington’s Climate Commitment Act continues to jack up gas prices by roughly 50 cents a gallon, and those costs cascade through the entire food supply chain. Truckers pay more, farmers pay more (even when incomplete exemptions exist), and shoppers pay the difference at the grocery store. Fruits and vegetables alone rose 11.7% year-over-year.

Labor regulations make it worse. Under Democratic leadership, Washington now has the highest minimum wage in the nation and the strictest agricultural overtime law in the country — time-and-a-half after just 40 hours with no flexibility. Farms absorb higher costs or cut hours, farmworkers lose income, and consumers ultimately pay more for food.

This is the predictable result of progressive governance in Olympia: layer on expensive climate mandates and rigid labor rules, then act shocked when the cost of living soars. Food producers aren’t pocketing the difference — the extra money goes to compliance, fuel taxes, and bureaucracy.

Until Democrats are willing to roll back the Climate Commitment Act and reform the agricultural overtime rules they created, Washington families will keep paying the price for policies that prioritize ideology over affordability. The data is clear. The pain is real. The responsibility sits with the party that has controlled Olympia for decades. Read more at the Washington Policy Center.

A recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling is raising serious questions about whether Washington can continue enforcing its strict limits on coordinated spending between political parties and their candidates.

In a 6-3 decision last month, the Court struck down federal caps on party-coordinated expenditures as a violation of the First Amendment. The Washington Public Disclosure Commission is now scrambling to figure out whether the state’s own similar limits are vulnerable to costly legal challenges.

Under current Washington law, political parties face tight restrictions on coordinated in-kind contributions — things like paying for campaign staff, advertising, or voter outreach developed with a candidate. The formula is based on a per-voter amount that can be adjusted for inflation. If the SCOTUS reasoning applies at the state level, those caps could be wiped out, allowing parties to spend far more freely in support of their candidates.

The disparity in recent cycles is already telling. Democratic Party and caucus committees poured millions into Bob Ferguson’s 2024 campaign, while Republican counterparts spent a fraction of that on their nominees. The ruling could level the playing field — or at least make it harder for the dominant party to use campaign finance rules as a tool to maintain its advantage.

PDC staff are developing guidance, but the commission is being careful not to declare the state limits dead just yet. The broader point remains: when courts start protecting political speech from government-imposed spending caps, the side that has long benefited from those restrictions starts looking nervous.

Washington’s one-party Democratic machine has grown comfortable with rules that limit how effectively the opposition can compete. The Supreme Court just reminded them that the First Amendment still applies. Read more at Center Square.

Federal data shows the Seattle-Tacoma area now has the second-highest cost of living in the country, driven largely by higher fuel and shelter costs — the predictable result of years of Democratic climate and regulatory policies.

Washington drivers already know the pain at the pump. The Climate Commitment Act continues to inflate gas prices, and those costs ripple through the entire food supply chain. Truckers pay more, farmers pay more (even when exemptions exist but are nearly impossible to claim), and grocery shoppers ultimately foot the bill. Fruits and vegetables alone jumped 11.7% year-over-year.

Labor regulations compound the problem. Washington has the highest minimum wage in the nation and the strictest agricultural overtime law in the country, forcing farms to pay time-and-a-half after just 40 hours. The result is higher production costs that get passed on to consumers while many farmworkers lose hours and income.

This is classic one-party Democratic governance: impose expensive climate mandates and rigid labor rules in the name of virtue, then act surprised when working families struggle to afford basic necessities. Food producers aren’t getting richer — the extra money is going to fuel, compliance, power, and bureaucracy.

Until Olympia is willing to revisit the Climate Commitment Act and the agricultural overtime rules, the cost-of-living crisis will only get worse. Washington families are paying the price for policies that sound good in progressive press releases but deliver higher bills at the grocery store and the gas pump. Read more at the Washington Policy Center.

As Jason Rantz details in his latest piece for Seattle Red, Washington’s official voter guide is hosting one of the most nakedly antisemitic candidate statements ever published by the state.

David W. Blomstrom, challenging Rep. Pramila Jayapal in Seattle’s 7th District, used his taxpayer-funded statement to open with “Jewarchy,” claim a “Gaza Genocide,” and declare himself more pro-Iran and anti-Israel than his opponents. He closes with the explicit call: “From the river to the sea, let’s globalize the Intifada!”

As Zionist Organization of America President Morton Klein correctly noted, that slogan is a call for the murder of Jews. Blomstrom’s campaign website goes further, blaming Jews for controlling both parties and the global economy and stating the need to “deal with our Jewish problem.”

As Rantz explains, this is what progressive Seattle has taught candidates is acceptable. Blomstrom is running to the left of Jayapal, whose own record includes anti-AIPAC fundraising. Washington Democrats’ platform now blames Israel for rising antisemitism. When Jew-hatred carries no political cost, this is the result: a government website platforming eliminationist rhetoric. Read more at Seattle Red.