Washington Supreme Court Race Sees Ad Spending Clash Over Tech Rules

Washington Supreme Court Race Sees Ad Spending Clash Over Tech Platform Rules

Money and acrimony are flooding into the heated races for the Washington Supreme Court. Candidate Sean O’Donnell’s campaign has flagged tens of thousands of dollars in advertisements placed by the independent group Beware the Attack on Our Courts, which is funded by labor unions and trial attorneys.

The dispute centers on digital advertisements that highlight the high-stakes nonpartisan contest for an open seat on the state’s high court between King County Superior Court Judge Sean O’Donnell and King County Appeals Court Judge Ian Birk. While Google and Meta prohibit state and local candidate ads in Washington because they do not comply with state disclosure laws, outside political committees have managed to push digital spots through the tech giants’ filters.

Unethical Digital Ad Buys and Platform Restrictions

Stephen Paolini, a political consultant for O’Donnell’s campaign, stated that the ads violate both state regulations and the private policies of the tech companies. He noted that while the spending may technically comply with certain campaign finance flexibilities, it remains fundamentally unethical.

“These ads on these platforms do not comply with Washington state law and everyone involved in politics knows that’s the case,” Stephen Paolini said. “They know it is the policy of both Meta and Google to not accept these advertisements.”

Paolini explained that the Google ads effectively bought search placements to direct users seeking information on O’Donnell straight to the independent expenditure’s website. Google agreed on Monday to remove the group’s ads, while Meta rejected the material by Wednesday, according to a spokesperson who reiterated that company policies continue to prohibit ads targeted to Washington state relating to state or local candidates.

Jack Sorensen, a spokesperson for Beware the Attack on Our Courts, defended the spending, noting that there is nothing illegal about running the digital spots and that the group reported the expenditures to the state’s Public Disclosure Commission. Sorensen put the total spent on Google ads at $58,000.

Broader Campaign Finance Battles and Legal Precedents

The friction over digital enforcement builds on a history of legal conflict between tech platforms and Washington officials. In June, the Washington Supreme Court upheld a $35 million penalty against Meta—the largest campaign finance fine in state history—after the company failed to maintain certain records about digital ads in compliance with the state’s Fair Campaign Practices Act.

Tallman Trask, an attorney in Seattle who filed an initial complaint with the PDC a decade ago regarding Meta’s disclosure failures, described the current environment as the worst of both worlds. He noted that state rules constrain candidate-led online advertising while outside groups find loopholes, creating a landscape where a PAC can run messaging that a candidate cannot match or effectively refute.

Wisconsin Supreme Court race: Battleground state sees record-breaking spending

Beyond digital ad platforms, the campaigns are divided over outside spending and recent rule changes. Sorensen accused another outside group, the business-backed Citizens for Working Courts, of delayed reporting of contributions from a related PAC, including hundreds of thousands of dollars from oil, pharmaceutical, and insurance companies via JOBS PAC. Citizens for Working Courts has reported spending more than $290,000 on O’Donnell’s behalf, while the conservative-backed Concerned Taxpayers of Washington State has spent nearly $94,000 to support him.

Meanwhile, O’Donnell’s campaign has criticized Beware the Attack on Our Courts for benefiting from an October 22 rule change by the state’s Public Disclosure Commission that suspended contribution limits for political committees. Paolini pointed out that the union-backed PAC recently reported $250,000 in new money from SEIU 775 that would have been restricted prior to the commission’s last-minute adjustment.