January 26, 2026
PDC watching several bills pending at the state Legislature
The Public Disclosure Commission is watching several bills as they progress through the Washington state Legislature this session, particularly legislation requested by the agency to change how often candidates and committees are required to report campaign expenditures.
That bill, Senate Bill 5840, proposes that all candidates and PACs would file expenditure reports (C-4) by the 10th of each month, reporting on the previous month’s activity, regardless of the amount of that activity. From July to October, campaigns participating in the election that year, would be required to file an additional C-4 on the 25th of each month.
The bill has cleared its first hurdle, passing out of the Senate’s State Government, Tribal Affairs and Elections Committee on Jan. 16 with an amendment that would make monthly reporting easier for committees not participating in an election during a given year.
Currently, C-4 reports are due monthly if a campaign reaches a threshold of $750 raised or spent since the last report was filed. Mandatory reports are due 21 and 7 days before an election, and on the 10th of the month following the election. All reports would be mandatory under the new proposal.
The bill is intended to both improve transparency, and simplify the reporting calendar. It is sponsored by Sens. Jeff Wilson and Javier Valdez, the ranking Republican and Democrat chair of the committee that considered it.
Another Senate bill, SB5910, would amend a law outside of the PDC’s jurisdiction allowing school districts to potentially communicate about upcoming bond and levy measures without restricting the tone and tenor of that communication.
Staff reported concerns that the bill would conflict with the PDC’s RCW 29B.45.010, which prohibits school districts and other public agencies from spending public funds to support or oppose a ballot proposition. PDC staff currently consider the tone and tenor of communications to determine if a communication is promoting a ballot measure contrary to the law.
This bill currently is not scheduled for a hearing. PDC staff have been working with the bill’s sponsor to address his concerns.
A bill before the House of Representatives, HB2499, would require conservation district supervisors to file annual personal financial affairs statements with the Public Disclosure Commission. These officials, elected through a process outside the state’s current election process, are currently exempt.
The bill would also incentivize these districts to convert their elections to run through their local auditor’s office or the Office of the Secretary of State. The bill would add 250 to 300 filers to the PDC’s records, Deputy Director Kim Bradford. It is scheduled for a hearing in January.
House Bill 2123 relates to current law prohibiting campaigns from accepting contributions from foreign nationals.
Current law requires contributing entities, but not individuals, to certify that any contributions they make do not include any foreign national funding or involvement.
The bill originally sought to remove that requirement, but after revisions now would require certification over a contribution threshold. The PDC has not taken a formal position on the bill.
House Bill 2333 seeks to redact primary residential addresses of all elected officials from public records in Washington, including Public Disclosure Commission records.
The bill was proposed in response to concerns by elected officials regarding their personal safety in light of recent acts of political violence.
The bill had a hearing in January. While it received much testimony in support of the proposal, agencies including the Office of the Secretary of State, the PDC, and county offices raised some concerns about both the feasibility of the project and its impact to transparency in government.
The PDC currently has a process under which elected and appointed officials can seek to have their personal addresses redacted if they have received specific threats. The Secretary of State’s address confidentiality program also protects addresses of residents in specific circumstances.
Media organizations addressed concerns with a portion of the bill that would allow them to see address information through a records request, but which would prohibit them from publishing the address, which they say raises constitutional issues.
PDC Chair J Leach expressed concerns with the bill’s limited application and its effect on transparency, saying it could run counter to the statutory declaration of policy that was established by Initiative 276 and is the basis for the PDC’s laws. While other commissioners shared his concerns, the Commission decided to remain neutral on the bill.
Commission imposes $2,100 fine to 2024 Skagit County candidate’s campaign for late, incorrect reports, failure to report in-kind contribution
The Public Disclosure Commission voted unanimously to impose $2,100 in fines, with $700 suspended on certain conditions, on the committee to elect Rylee Fleury, who ran an unsuccessful campaign for the Skagit County Commission in 2024.
Fleury’s committee was found to have committed a number of violations, including late-filing of mandatory contribution and expenditure reports, incomplete filing of those reports, the omission of an in-kind donation of a large sign on Highway 20, and failure to include sponsor ID on a website sponsored by the committee.
The committee stipulated to filing the reports late. The campaign’s mandatory C-4 reports before the primary and general election – six reports – were all filed late, after the campaign was contacted by the PDC. The late reports were incomplete, omitting information about the number of signs purchased, as required by PDC rules.
The campaign disputed other allegations, including that the sign – placed on the side of a semi-trailer on Highway 20 – was an in-kind donation that should have been reported. Fleury, at Thursday’s meeting, initially told commissioners that he had no knowledge of the sponsor’s purchase or display of the sign until after the fact, but later admitted he was informed by the sponsor in advance. The Commission ruled this met the legal definition of coordination between the campaign and sponsor, and found the violation.
The Commission agreed to suspend $700 of the penalty as long as the campaign discloses the missing information, including the in-kind contribution, within 60 days of the written order.
Petition to eliminate mini reporting option denied by Commission
The Commission denied a rulemaking petition by Conner Edwards to phase out the PDC’s mini-reporting option for small candidates and committees.
Mini-reporting is allowed by RCW 29B and the program’s requirements are outlined in WAC 390-16-105.
Candidates and committees who chose the mini-reporting option must raise or spend no more than $7,000 and accept no more than $500 from any one contributor, aside from the candidate themselves. As long as they meet those requirements, they are not required to file regular contribution and expenditure reports, but must keep detailed records. Those records can be requested by a member of the public within 10 days of an election.
Edwards argued that the reporting option led to a lack of transparency in small campaigns, and was no longer necessary, since the PDC’s online filing systems, not in existence when the option was created, present few barriers to filers.
The Commission must review such petitions within 60 days of receipt. PDC staff gave a presentation on mini reporting at the Commission’s December meeting. The mini-reporting option is largely used by candidates for local offices, school districts, fire commissioners and other races not requiring a large campaign.
Commission Chair J Leach expressed concern that requiring more reporting from very small campaigns, even those that raise and spend no money, could discourage people from serving in elected positions in small, rural districts.
The Commission noted that an alternate to the petition could be to ask the state Legislature to remove the mini-reporting provision from the statute, rather than ask the PDC to eliminate the rule.
Enforcement report
Between Dec. 3 and January 14, the PDC received 43 new complaints. The agency has 231 open compliance cases, including 122 under initial review and 107 under formal investigation. One case was scheduled to go to hearing as of the end of this period – the case heard before the Commission earlier in the meeting – and another was pending deferred enforcement.
A total of 51 cases were closed during this period, including two with no evidence of a violation, 14 with reminders, one with a technical correction, 27 warnings and seven statements of understanding.
The Commission plans to have a brief enforcement hearing on Jan. 29 to hear the cases of 60 candidates on the 2025 general election ballot who allegedly failed to timely file mandatory expenditure reports.