Matt Kuehn

Kuehn, Matt: Alleged violation of RCW 42.17A.320 & WAC 390-18 for failing to identify sponsor of political advertising; RCW 42.17A.235 & .240 for failing to accurately report expenditures; WAC 390-16-037 & -205 for lacking details. (EY '21; Jun '21).

Case Details

Case Number

93802

Respondent

Matt Kuehn

Complainant

Andrew Rheaume

Date Opened

June 22, 2021

Case Status

Case Closed with Reminder

PDC staff dismissed for no violation, but reminded the respondent of the applicable law and to exercise caution in the future.

Learn More

Area(s) of Law*

  • WAC 390-16-205
  • WAC 390-18-010
  • WAC 390-16-037
  • RCW 29B.30.050/42.17A.320
  • RCW 29B.25.090/42.17A.235
  • RCW 29B.25.100/42.17A.240

*On January 1, 2026, RCW 42.17A was recodified to RCW 29B

Subscribe for Updates


{{statusMessage}}

To subscribe to this case, enter your email address in the form below and click "Send confirmation link" button. You will be sent a secure link via email that will confirm your subscription.


An email containing a link to confirm your subscription to this case has been sent to {{ email }}.

If you do not receive an email within a few minutes, please check your junk mail or mail filters.

Send again

{{statusMessage}}

Description

The complaint alleged Matt Kuehn, a candidate for Bothell City Council Position 5, may have violated RCW 42.17A.320 and WAC 390-18 by failing to identify the sponsor of political advertising.

PDC staff reviewed the allegations; the applicable statutes, rules, and reporting requirements; the applicable PDC reports, the evidence provided in the complaint and a response from Matt Kuehn, to determine whether the record supports a finding of one or more violations. 

After reviewing Kuehn’s PDC reports, PDC staff added an allegation of RCW 42.17A.235 and .240 for failing to accurately report expenditures and WAC 390-16-037 and -205 for lacking expenditure detail on Full Summary Contributions and Expenditures (C-4) reports.

Based on PDC findings, and the fact that Kuehn is a first-time candidate, the advertising was sponsored by and candidate pictured in the advertising, with no intent to conceal sponsorship, and the candidate promptly took action to comply, PDC staff has determined that, in this instance, the failure to include sponsor identification and list expenditure detail does not amount to a violation warranting further investigation.

PDC staff is reminding about the importance of adding the required expenditure detail to C-4 reports and identifying the sponsor's name and address on political advertising, in accordance with PDC laws and rules. 

Based on this information, the PDC finds that no further action is warranted and has dismissed this matter in accordance with RCW 42.17A.755(1).

Penalties

None