John Dziedzic


This Comment argues that, in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in Society for Krishna Consciousness v. Lee, state and local regulations are more likely to pass federal constitutional muster if they regulate obnoxious fundraising practices defined with sufficient precision. The Riley trilogy and the continued existence of charitable solicitation scams have shown that attempting to prevent the "improper use of contributions intended for charitable purposes" by regulating how much charities pay for fundraising services has been not only unconstitutional but also ineffective. Part II is a brief review of the Riley trilogy, with an emphasis on the commercial speech analysis the Supreme Court employed. In Part III, Krishna is analyzed as an example of one situation where part of the solicitation was successfully extricated and regulated. In Part IV, this Comment examines whether and to what extent the Washington Constitution provides greater or different protection to charitable solicitations under the state constitutional freedom of speech provision."' Finally, in Part V, the elements of a regulatory scheme that passes both federal and state constitutional limitations are discussed.