OLYMPIA _ Permanent Offense, the voter initiative-spawning group founded by Tim Eyman, has given more than $100,000 in campaign contributions to a for-profit corporation consisting solely of Eyman and his wife.

Eyman says it's a pass-through, that the money flows on to various subcontractors who provide advertising, accounting and computer services for campaigns.

If so, state Public Disclosure Commission officials say, they want to know how much and to whom.

The private corporation is also being used as ammunition by Eyman's critics, who charge what he emphatically denies: that he's taken a Depression-era populist tool and turned it into a personal moneymaker.

"He's clearly making a profit running these initiatives," said Christian Sinderman, a union-backed political consultant hired to fight Eyman's latest tax-limit proposal, Initiative 747. "If he's not, then he's violating campaign finance law by not saying who the money's going to."

Not true, says Eyman, who says he's never made a dime off an initiative.

"We are following the law, and the spirit of the law," he said. "I feel really comfortable that we're doing everything above-board."

He called the charges a sign of desperation by I-747 foes.

"The No. 1 challenge of opponents is not to attack the initiative, it's to confuse the voter. Confused voters vote no," he said.

Eyman has authored and campaigned for four initiatives in the past three years, including Initiative 695, which knocked the cost of annual car license tabs back to $30. He's been widely praised by tax foes and fiscal conservatives, and vilified by local governments and public-employee unions.

For the last two campaigns, Eyman's used the name "Permanent Offense" for the political group, whose mailing list numbers more than 25,000 people.

Hundreds of thousands of Washingtonians have signed Permanent Offense petitions to put initiatives on the ballot.

"Never idle," promises the Web site.

In Washington, political campaigns are supposed to account precisely for how they spend campaign contributions. Permanent Offense, which raised nearly $500,000 from January through July, generally does.

A review of its forms since January shows that the political group paid $125,000 to a signature-gathering firm and about $8,321 in routine reimbursements to Eyman for travel, phone calls, office supplies and car costs. The records detail costs as small as a $5.81 bank fee on the group's Bank of America account in March.

But the campaign also paid more than $70,000 to the Eymans' private, for-profit corporation, which goes by almost the same name: Permanent Offense Incorporated.

The couple founded the company in February 2000. Eyman is president, his wife is treasurer. There are no other officers or staff.

Last year, people donated more than $620,000 to the campaign group Permanent Offense. Of that, $12,531 went to reimburse Eyman. Another $37,000 went to Permanent Offense Incorporated.

Eyman said that the corporation hires a variety of subcontractors, who provide computer database, record-keeping and advertising services.

"We're still working out of the garage and contracting out with these various companies to provide services," he said.

But the spending reports are vague about where the money goes once it's paid to Permanent Offense Incorporated.

"Management/consulting services, management expenses," reads a typical listing, for a $1,200 payment to Permanent Offense Inc. this February.

"Management/consulting services. Fundraising, advertising)," reads another, for a $12,264 payment in June.

That's too vague, says the state Public Disclosure Commission, which oversees campaign finance reporting in state races. If Eyman's private corporation is passing on the money to various subcontractors, the commission wants to know who they are, and what they were paid.

"We will ask them to clarify earlier reports ... so if need be there would be an audit trail," PDC executive director Vicki Rippie said Thursday.

But she cautioned against reading too much into that request.

"It is not in the least unusual for us to contact candidates or political committees and ask them to provide additional information on their reports," she said. "It is very standard."

In lengthy interviews this week, Eyman repeatedly denied that he's ever personally profited from running any initiative. He said he makes plenty of money selling fraternity and sorority watches, which cost $30 to $150 each. He declined to say how much.

"I don't need the money," he said. "The various people involved in the cause, none of us make money from the initiatives."

His critics scoff.

"Yeah, right. And I fell off the turnip truck in Oso this morning," said Bob Kraski, mayor of Arlington, Wash.

"I think he's making a mockery out of all the taxpayers," Kraski said. "He's found out there's money in it, and he figures up an initiative each year to keep it going."

Eyman's critics like to compare him to Oregon tax activist Bill Sizemore, who last year set a nationwide record by putting six initiatives on the fall ballot, while paying himself a $70,000-a-year salary. He also owns the company that's paid to gather signatures for his initiatives.

During last year's campaign, Sizemore hosted a daily two-hour talk show on an AM radio station he co-owns. A study last year by the Portland Oregonian newspaper found that his foundation and political action committee have brought in more than $3.4 million in campaign contributions since 1993.

Eyman's critics acknowledge that there's nothing illegal about citizens profiting from an initiative they launched.

"I'm not saying there's anything unethical about him taking that money for himself, except for the fact that he's lying to people about it," Sinderman said.

"He's making a profit on the ballot process, which really perverts the whole citizen initiative process," Sinderman said.

Eyman said it's absurd to hear such accusations from a paid political consultant. (Sinderman is being paid $5,000 a month to fight I-747.)

Eyman said his critics are ascribing Machiavellian motives to an innocuous campaign structure. He set up the for-profit corporation, he said, because nonprofit organizations face limits on political activity.

"We didn't want to lie that we weren't a political organization," he said.

He said he also didn't want his anti-tax group to benefit from the tax breaks that nonprofit groups get.

The corporation was needed, he said, because he wanted organizational continuity from one initiative to the next.

"We wanted to have an ongoing organization able to promote our initiatives," he said.

But even once the Permanent Offense political campaign was in full swing this spring and summer, hiring a signature-gathering firm, rallying donors with mass mailings and managing an army of volunteers, the campaign was still paying tens of thousands of dollars to Eyman's private corporation.

Pressed for an explanation of why the corporation would still act as middleman, hiring subcontractors for a mature, smooth-running campaign, Eyman said, "We're very comfortable that we're doing things properly and right."

He wouldn't say why the corporation isn't more specific about whom it's paying.

He said the allegations demonstrate that his critics are pathetic, desperate and hypocritical.

"This is totally predictable," he said. "If they throw mud, this thing's going to pass in a landslide.

"The average voter doesn't watch this kind of stuff," he said. "To them, it's a circus."