Follow the Money: The Republican Network Behind Let’s Go Washington

 

More Than a “Nothing Burger”

There is something a little ironic about watching a political organization insist there is “nothing here” while the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission is doing exactly what you would expect it to do when there might actually be something there: investigate it.

The PDC has now opened a formal investigation into Let’s Go Washington, the conservative political action committee backed by businessman Brian Heywood. The investigation follows a complaint alleging that Let’s Go Washington failed to properly disclose political advertising and other support connected to political commentator and podcaster Brandi Kruse. The decision to move the matter into a formal investigation does not mean the allegations have been proven. It means the commission determined that the complaint warrants additional investigation.

That distinction matters. Before anyone starts declaring people guilty or throwing around words like “corrupt,” let's pump the brakes. An investigation is not a finding of wrongdoing. It means the state has questions and is gathering evidence to determine what actually happened. I don't care which political team is involved. If we're going to demand accountability from one side, we should be willing to apply the same standard to the other.

The Allegation

The complaint, filed by Washingtonians for Ethical Government, alleges that Kruse provided political promotion benefiting Let’s Go Washington that should have been reported as an in-kind political contribution or campaign expenditure. WFEG alleges there were at least 159 instances of political advertising or promotional content connected to Let’s Go Washington and estimates the value of that activity at somewhere between $345,000 and $1.25 million.

The complaint centers in part on Kruse's unDivided podcast and other political activity. The basic question isn't necessarily whether somebody handed Kruse a check. The question is whether Let’s Go Washington received something of value that should have been reported under Washington's campaign-finance laws. That's an important distinction.

Let’s Go Washington disputes the allegations. The organization has argued that there was no payment or formal relationship with Kruse, while Kruse has denied receiving money from Let’s Go Washington. Supporters of the organization have also argued that her political commentary falls under protections for journalism and editorial speech.

Those are arguments the organization and Kruse are entitled to make. They are not, however, the same thing as the PDC determining that there is nothing to investigate.

Six Initiatives and a Very Big Political Operation

To understand the political connections surrounding Let’s Go Washington, it helps to go back to 2023. In December of that year, Cascade PBS reported that Let’s Go Washington was pushing six initiatives for the 2024 ballot. The measures targeted some of the biggest political fights in Washington, including the Climate Commitment Act, the capital-gains tax, state and local income taxes, police pursuit restrictions, parental rights in public schools and the WA Cares long-term-care program.

The six measures were I-2117, which sought to repeal the state's Climate Commitment Act; I-2109, which sought to repeal Washington's capital-gains tax; I-2111, which sought to prohibit state and local income taxes; I-2113, which loosened restrictions on police pursuits; I-2081, which established a Parents' Bill of Rights concerning public schools; and I-2124, which sought to allow people to opt out of the state's WA Cares long-term-care program.

Cascade PBS reported that businessman Brian Heywood had put millions of dollars behind the signature-gathering effort, while state Rep. Jim Walsh was identified as the citizen sponsor of the initiatives. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. The initiative process exists so Washington voters can challenge laws and policies they don't like. The question is whether everybody involved followed the campaign-finance rules while doing it.

The Republican Political Connections

Brian Heywood was the money behind Let’s Go Washington, but he wasn't the person who developed the entire initiative strategy by himself. Cascade PBS identified Jim Walsh as the citizen sponsor of the six initiatives and reported that Heywood backed initiatives drafted by Walsh. That makes Walsh's connection to Let’s Go Washington considerably more direct than simply being a Republican legislator who supported the measures after they were filed. He was the citizen sponsor, was involved in developing the initiatives and was working within a political operation financed by Heywood.

None of that means Walsh violated campaign-finance law. I haven't seen evidence establishing that he did, and the current PDC investigation is against Let’s Go Washington, not Walsh. It does mean that pretending Walsh was merely an outside observer to the operation would leave out a pretty significant piece of the story.

Walsh wasn't the only Republican legislator publicly connected to the Let’s Go Washington agenda. Rep. Peter Abbarno publicly supported Let’s Go Washington initiatives, including I-2111, while Rep. Joel McEntire also publicly supported and discussed the initiative package. McEntire's own legislative communication from March 2024 discussed the initiatives and described the passage of I-2113, I-2081 and I-2111 as a significant development while identifying I-2117, I-2124 and I-2109 as the remaining initiatives headed to voters.

That matters because we don't have to interpret his position based on somebody else's political commentary. His own legislative communication documents his support for the initiative package. There is still an important distinction here: supporting an initiative is not the same thing as participating in a campaign-finance violation. I have not found evidence showing that Abbarno or McEntire participated in the alleged undisclosed promotional activity involving Brandi Kruse.

McEntire also has a separate PDC matter involving his own campaign-finance reporting. That case should remain separate from the Let’s Go Washington investigation. An open PDC matter is not automatically a finding that somebody violated the law. Facts are annoyingly resistant to being shoved into convenient political narratives.

Jeff Wilson and the Initiative Campaign

Another Republican connection worth looking at is Sen. Jeff Wilson, the Longview Republican who represents part of Cowlitz County. Wilson's connection is particularly interesting because it went beyond simply supporting the policies behind the initiatives. He became involved in the fight over how Let’s Go Washington was gathering signatures.

While Let’s Go Washington was collecting signatures for its six initiatives, Wilson introduced legislation establishing protections for citizens participating in the initiative and referendum process. His proposal was connected to concerns about harassment and interference with people collecting signatures. Wilson continued working on the issue in subsequent years, including pushing additional protections after reports of attacks involving people working for Let’s Go Washington.

That is a documented political connection, but it needs to be described accurately. I have not found evidence that Jeff Wilson is a respondent in the current PDC investigation or that he participated in the alleged undisclosed advertising involving Brandi Kruse. His connection is different. Wilson was a Cowlitz County-area Republican state senator who publicly defended the initiative process and introduced legislation addressing conflicts surrounding signature gathering during the Let’s Go Washington campaign. That's worth mentioning, but it doesn't make him part of a campaign-finance violation.

The Cowlitz County Connection

This is where the story gets particularly interesting locally. Let’s Go Washington's political network didn't exist only in Olympia. Cowlitz County appears to have had a noticeable base of local political support for the policies behind the initiatives, including among some local mayors, city councilmembers and county-level elected officials.

I want to be careful with that statement because there is a difference between an elected official supporting the underlying policies and an elected official actually participating in Let’s Go Washington's campaign operation. I have not found sufficient documentation to say that a particular Cowlitz mayor, councilmember or county commissioner was formally affiliated with Let’s Go Washington or involved in the current PDC allegations.

There does, however, appear to be a broader local political alignment with the agenda behind these initiatives. That's worth paying attention to, particularly because several of the measures involved issues that directly affect local governments and their residents. I-2111 addressed state and local income taxes, I-2113 changed the rules governing police pursuits, and I-2081 addressed parental rights in public schools. These weren't obscure issues happening somewhere in Olympia that had no impact on Cowlitz County.

The important distinction is between supporting the policies and being involved in the campaign. A mayor, councilmember or commissioner publicly saying they support eliminating a tax or changing police-pursuit laws isn't evidence that they were part of Let’s Go Washington's operation. If an elected official encouraged residents to sign petitions, promoted the initiatives, appeared at Let’s Go Washington events or otherwise helped the campaign, that would be a much more specific connection.

That's an area where the local record deserves more scrutiny. Social-media posts, local Republican events, archived campaign material and statements from individual elected officials could establish exactly who was merely sympathetic to the initiatives and who was actively helping promote them. Until those records are documented, I'm not going to turn political proximity into something it isn't.

Still, the apparent level of local support is worth noting because Let’s Go Washington wasn't simply a statewide political operation floating above Cowlitz County. It had a political presence here, and some local elected officials appear to have been very comfortable with the agenda it was pushing. That's context. It isn't evidence of wrongdoing.

The Washington State Republican Party Connection

This is where the connection gets considerably more concrete. The Washington State Republican Party gave Let’s Go Washington $100,000 during the 2024 initiative campaign. The PDC subsequently found that the Republican Party improperly used money from its exempt fund for that contribution and issued a penalty.

That is different from simply saying Republican politicians supported the initiatives. Money actually moved from the state Republican Party to Let’s Go Washington. The PDC's finding involved the Republican Party's use of exempt funds and whether those funds could legally be used for the contribution. The commission determined that the contribution was not an allowable use of the party's exempt account.

That was a separate PDC enforcement case. It does not prove that Let’s Go Washington violated the law in the current Brandi Kruse matter. It does establish a direct financial relationship between the Washington State Republican Party and Let’s Go Washington, along with a documented PDC finding concerning that transaction.

Those are facts.

A Political Network, Not an Isolated PAC

When you put all of this together, a larger picture starts to emerge. Brian Heywood was the primary financial force behind Let’s Go Washington. Jim Walsh was the citizen sponsor of the six initiatives and was involved in developing them. Peter Abbarno and Joel McEntire publicly supported the initiative agenda. Jeff Wilson, a Longview Republican representing part of Cowlitz County, defended the initiative process and introduced legislation aimed at protecting signature gatherers during the Let’s Go Washington campaign. The Washington State Republican Party provided $100,000 directly to Let’s Go Washington, a transaction that later resulted in a PDC finding against the party.

Cowlitz County also appears to have had local elected officials who were supportive of the broader policies behind the initiative movement, although individual connections should be documented before claiming someone was actively involved in the campaign.

That's a political network. It is worth documenting because it shows that Let’s Go Washington did not operate in a vacuum. Its initiative agenda had support from Republican lawmakers, its signature-gathering operation was defended by Republican lawmakers, the state Republican Party provided direct financial support, and there was visible local political sympathy for the broader agenda.

That doesn't mean everyone connected to that network is implicated in the current investigation. Political support is not the same thing as participation in a campaign-finance violation. That distinction needs to stay intact.

Follow the Money. Then Follow the Free Stuff.

Campaign spending isn't always somebody handing another person a check. An in-kind contribution can involve goods or services provided to a political campaign or organization without a corresponding cash payment. Those goods or services can still have monetary value for campaign-finance purposes.

That is why the current allegation isn't necessarily about whether Heywood wrote Kruse a check. The question is whether Let’s Go Washington received something of value that should have been reported.

Kruse saying she didn't receive money from Let’s Go Washington doesn't automatically answer whether an in-kind contribution occurred. The absence of a direct payment doesn't prove that one did, either. That's the question sitting in the middle of the investigation.

The Brandi Kruse Question

One of the more interesting parts of this dispute is the argument over whether Kruse's activities qualify as journalism, political advocacy or some combination of the two.

Let’s Go Washington and Kruse have argued that political commentary should not automatically be transformed into a campaign contribution simply because the commentary benefits a political cause. There is some legal history behind that argument, and Washington's campaign-finance laws contain exemptions involving news and feature reporting.

The modern media landscape makes the question considerably more complicated. What exactly is a journalist in 2026? Someone employed by a newspaper? Someone working for television? Someone with a podcast and hundreds of thousands of followers? Someone who produces political commentary while also selling advertising?

The internet has managed to take the relatively straightforward concept of “media” and turn it into a giant philosophical argument with microphones.

That doesn't mean Kruse isn't a journalist. It means the PDC has to determine what legal standard applies to the activity in question and whether the facts fit within Washington's campaign-finance exemptions.

This Is Where Both Sides Need to Grow Up

There is a tendency in Washington politics to decide the answer before the investigation even begins. If you support Let’s Go Washington, you might see this as another political attack designed to undermine initiatives you support. If you oppose Let’s Go Washington, you might be tempted to treat the existence of the investigation as proof that the organization did something wrong.

Neither position is particularly useful.

The PDC has now moved the case into a formal investigation. That means the agency believes additional investigative work is necessary. It does not mean the PDC has found Let’s Go Washington guilty of the allegations.

The investigation will have to determine what actually happened, what relationships existed, whether any services or promotion constituted reportable contributions or expenditures, and whether any media exemption applies. Maybe Let’s Go Washington ultimately gets cleared. Maybe the PDC finds violations. Maybe the situation turns out to be considerably more complicated than either side is currently claiming.

We don't know yet. That's literally why there's an investigation.

What We Actually Know

We know Let’s Go Washington was created as a political action committee to advance six major conservative initiatives in 2024. We know Brian Heywood provided millions of dollars to the initiative effort. We know Jim Walsh was the citizen sponsor of the initiatives. We know Peter Abbarno and Joel McEntire publicly supported the initiative agenda. We know Jeff Wilson, a Longview Republican, introduced legislation protecting initiative petition gatherers during the period when Let’s Go Washington was gathering signatures and continued pushing similar protections afterward.

We know the Washington State Republican Party provided $100,000 to Let’s Go Washington and that the PDC later found a campaign-finance violation involving that contribution. We know Let’s Go Washington has previously faced PDC enforcement involving campaign-finance reporting. We know Washingtonians for Ethical Government filed the current complaint alleging that Let’s Go Washington failed to report potentially substantial in-kind political advertising associated with Brandi Kruse. We know the PDC has now decided the complaint warrants a formal investigation.

What we don't know yet is whether the current allegations will ultimately result in a finding of wrongdoing. That part still has to be determined.

Transparency Isn't Optional

Here's the part that really shouldn't be controversial. If a political organization receives hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of political advertising, services or promotional assistance, voters have a legitimate interest in knowing about it.

That's the entire purpose of campaign-finance disclosure laws. Voters shouldn't have to play detective to figure out who is financing political campaigns, who is providing services, who is promoting ballot initiatives and what those relationships look like behind the scenes.

That standard should apply regardless of political party. If Democrats were accused of failing to disclose $1.25 million in political advertising, I'd expect the same scrutiny. If Republicans were accused of doing it, same answer. If an independent organization were accused of doing it, same answer.

The standard shouldn't change depending on which side of the political fence happens to be standing in the chicken coop.

Let the PDC Do Its Job

There is a tendency in modern politics to treat investigations as political weapons instead of what they actually are: fact-finding exercises.

That needs to stop.

The PDC is now going to gather evidence and determine whether Let’s Go Washington complied with Washington's campaign-finance laws. Maybe it did. Maybe it didn't. Maybe the complaint misunderstood the law. Maybe Washington's campaign-finance laws aren't particularly well equipped to deal with the increasingly blurry line between journalism, political commentary, podcasting and political promotion.

Those are all possibilities.

The only responsible conclusion right now is that we don't know yet.

What we do know is that the PDC has decided this complaint warrants a formal investigation. Let’s Go Washington can call the complaint baseless. Kruse can deny receiving money from the organization. The watchdog group can argue that the promotional activity should have been disclosed. All three things can exist while the evidence is still being examined.

That's what an investigation is for.

Let’s Go Washington isn't guilty simply because the PDC is investigating it. Jim Walsh, Peter Abbarno, Joel McEntire and Jeff Wilson aren't implicated in the current case simply because they supported, promoted or defended aspects of the initiative campaign. The Washington State Republican Party's separate PDC violation doesn't prove the current allegations against Let’s Go Washington, either.

What all of this does show is that Let’s Go Washington was a large, well-funded political operation with substantial connections throughout Washington's Republican political establishment and apparent support among portions of the local political establishment in Cowlitz County.

That makes questions about its financing and disclosure worth asking. It also makes the answers worth waiting for.

Campaign-finance transparency isn't supposed to protect political teams from embarrassment. It is supposed to protect voters from having to guess who's paying for the politics being sold to them.

In an election year when Washington voters are being asked to make decisions on major political issues, knowing who's behind the megaphone seems like a pretty reasonable thing to ask.

Especially when the megaphone is this damn loud.