• A description of the alleged violation(s) and the name of the person or entity responsible (“respondent”);
• A reference to the law(s) or rule(s) violated;
• All available documents and other documentary evidence or statements demonstrating a reason for believing that the violation(s) occurred;
• Contact information for the person submitting the complaint (“complainant”); and
• A certification under penalty of perjury oath that the complaint is complete, true, and correct.

• About activity that is not within the PDC’s legal authority to address (the PDC does not enforce federal campaign laws or rules, local ordinances, the Public Records Act in RCW 42.56 or the Ethics in Public Service Act in RCW 42.52).
• Lacking sufficient information (such as the identity of the complainant or the alleged violator) or sufficient allegations or evidence for staff to determine whether it alleges a potential violation of a law or rule within the commission’s jurisdiction.

• Dismissed as unfounded or frivolous;
• Deemed appropriate for resolution as a minor violation; 
• Addressed as remedial violation or technical correction;  
• Resolved by agreement through stipulation or statement of understanding;
• Stayed pending satisfaction of conditions of deferred enforcement; 
• Converted into a formal investigation; or
• Referred to the attorney general.

State law allows complainants to bring lawsuits in the name of the state if the PDC or Attorney General's Office doesn't act. If the PDC hasn’t resolved a complaint, referred the matter to the Attorney General’s Office, or opened a formal investigation and held an initial hearing within 90 days of a complaint being filed, complainants can file a 10-day notice signaling their intent to go to court.

Complaints may be dismissed as unfounded or frivolous when the evidence presented is insufficient to support the alleged violations. For example, a complaint may present the requisite evidence to suggest a potential allegation, but, after assessment of the facts, it is dismissed because no violation is found to have occurred.

Complaints and responses also may contain only circumstantial evidence, or hearsay, and are dismissed because neither party has presented sufficient evidence to support their case.

These complaints will be returned to the complainant with a complaint return letter, and the respondent will be notified of case closure without evidence of violations.

A minor violation is an actual violation that occurs when: (1) required campaign finance or lobbying information is not timely disclosed; or (2) incomplete information is disclosed, but a good faith effort to comply with disclosure is made. In both instances, the public is not deprived of critical information. 

The executive director may resolve any complaint that alleges minor violations of chapter 42.17A by issuing a reminder letter or formal written warning letter to a respondent depending on the aggravating or mitigating factors of a specific case. 

If the case resolution is conditioned upon the respondent reaching or maintaining compliance, those expectations and any deadlines will be clearly explained in the formal written warning letter. A respondent's failure to meet conditions may result in a complaint being reopened. If the resolution contains no conditions, the matter is resolved and the case closed without any further action or review.

Warning letters can be considered in subsequent enforcement actions as aggravating factors.

Changes to the law in 2018 created two new avenues to complaint resolution for certain less serious reporting errors.

Remedial violations

1. Involved expenditures totaling no more than the contribution limits set out under RCW 42.17A.405(2) per election, or $1,000 if there is no statutory limit.
2. Occurred more than 30 days before an election.
3. Did not materially affect the public interest, beyond the harm to the policy of RCW 42.17A inherent in any violation.
4. Involved a candidate, political committee or other person filing with the PDC who: (1) took corrective action within five business days after being notified by commission staff of the alleged noncompliance; or (2) where commission staff did not notify the respondent and the respondent filed an amended or corrected required report within 21 days after the report was due to be filed.  The candidate, political committee or other person filing substantially met the filing deadline(s) for all other required PDC reports within the last 12 months.
5. Involved a candidate who lost the election and did not receive contributions of more than one hundred times the contribution limits for that office being sought (i.e. most candidates are subject to contribution limits of $1,000 per election, so contributions of less than $100,000 would be eligible).

If the allegations in the complaint are determined by PDC staff to be remedial, and the respondent has complied with all the elements listed above, the PDC’s executive director will resolve the matter and close the complaint. 

Technical corrections

At times, complaints may be resolved prior to the completion of a formal investigation if the respondent agrees that a violation occurred and pays a fine. 

Stipulations prior to completion of formal investigation

PDC staff could offer a respondent the opportunity to enter into a stipulated agreement. As part of that process, the respondent acknowledges violations of RCW 42.17A or WAC 390, indicates that they are in compliance with the required reporting requirements, and pays a monetary penalty in accordance with a stipulation schedule adopted by the commission.

The proposed penalty amount must be within the dollar ranges listed in the stipulation schedule (WAC 390-37-062), and any stipulation must be reviewed by the commission at the regular or a special commission meeting, and approved or modified by the commission. If the stipulation is approved by the commission and the respondent, an order is entered and sent to the respondent, and the matter is resolved without any further action or review.

Statements of Understanding

For actual violations that carry a penalty of $1,000 or less, a respondent may sign a Statement of Understanding (SOU) to avoid the time and expense of a brief enforcement hearing before the presiding officer (the commission chair or designee).  

A respondent who has been notified of a brief enforcement hearing may waive the hearing by providing a signed SOU, filing any missing or amended reports, and paying a monetary penalty in accordance with WAC 390-37-143. By signing the SOU, a respondent is acknowledging violations of RCW 42.17A or WAC 390 and waiving the right to a hearing in this matter. The SOU must be approved by the executive director.

If the PDC initiates an investigation, a case status review (initial hearing) must be held within 90 days of the complaint being filed. For complaints requiring an investigation, both the complainant and respondent are notified that the matter has been elevated to a formal investigation, and that information is updated on the PDC’s enforcement page of the website.

The length of time required to investigate and resolve a complaint depends on many factors such as: (1) the nature and complexity of the allegations; (2) the amount and quality of evidence provided by the complainant; (3) the ease or difficulty of obtaining a response and any additional information; and (4) the availability of PDC staff given the number of other pending complaints already under investigation. 

During an investigation, if at any time PDC staff determines there is no evidence of an actual violation, the executive director or the commission may dismiss the complaint without any formal action taken by the commission.

During the course of the investigation, commission staff typically creates a report of investigation, and makes recommendations to the executive director for resolution of the case including what further action, if any, should be taken. The executive director makes a report to the commission at its monthly meeting concerning case status reviews.

Deferred enforcement

The chair or chair's designee commissioner may authorize deferred enforcement following: (1) an initial hearing (case status review); (2) an investigation but prior to staff issuing a notice of administrative charges for an adjudicative proceeding; or (3) after a notice of administrative charges have been issued, but prior to an adjudicative proceeding.  (WAC 390-37-075)

The executive director will recommend to the chair or the chair’s designee commissioner the conditions of a deferred enforcement, which will be clearly defined and agreed to by the respondent, along with the consequences for failure to meet any of the conditions of the deferral.  

Any negotiations between the parties concerning deferred enforcement will be informal and without prejudice to rights of the respondent in the negotiations. The executive director or designee (PDC staff), with the concurrence of the chair or the chair's designee commissioner, will document the facts and the conditions of the deferred enforcement in writing to the respondent, along with the consequences for the failure to meet any of the conditions of the deferral. 

The agreement will be signed by the executive director and the respondent, and the respondent will be notified that any administrative charges issued in the matter are stayed pending satisfaction of the deferral conditions. Once the conditions of the deferral have been met by the respondent, the complaint will be closed with no further investigation or action.

Complaints under formal investigation may lead to possible enforcement action. When and how that happens depends on the outcome of the investigation and if an investigation reveals evidence of a material violation of the laws or rules enforced by the PDC.  

Respondents may have an opportunity to stipulate to facts, violations and penalty. If PDC staff reaches a stipulation with the respondent, it will be presented to the commission for approval. 

If a stipulation or settlement is not reached, PDC staff may issue a notice of administrative charges and schedule the matter before the commission as an enforcement matter in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act.  PDC staff informs both complainants and respondents of the results of investigations.  

The enforcement action could be heard before the full commission hearing or a single presiding officer.  A full commission hearing involves all the commission members, with an assistant attorney general representing PDC staff, and the maximum civil penalty could be $10,000 per violation.  At a brief adjudicative hearing, the commission chair or designee hears cases involving alleged violations that are not material in nature, and the maximum civil penalty is $1,000.   

The commission has the authority to waive a penalty for a first-time actual violation.  A second actual violation of the same requirement by the same person will result in a civil penalty being assessed, and any additional violations of the same requirement shall result in progressive penalties (WAC 390-37-182). The commission may suspend any portion of an assessed penalty contingent on future compliance with this chapter.

The commission – or the executive director with concurrence of the commission chair or vice chair  – also may refer a matter to the Attorney General’s Office for prosecution in court.  In these circumstances, the respondent and complainant are provided notice of any open public hearing or proceeding scheduled before the commission to discuss such a referral.