Holce, Nicholas: Alleged Violation of RCW 42.17A.320 for failure to disclose complete and accurate sponsor id on political advertisements (EY22, Oct22)

Case

#113738

Respondent

Nicholas Holce

Complainant

Evan Crane

Description

The Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) has completed its review of the complaint filed on October 27, 2022. The complaint alleged that Nicholas Holce, a candidate for Walla Walla County Part Time District Court Judge, in the 2022 election, may have violated RCW 42.17A.320 for failure to include sponsor identification when sending out a political ad as well as on the campaign’s official website.

PDC staff reviewed the allegations; the applicable statutes, rules, and reporting requirements; the response provided by the Respondent; the applicable PDC reports filed by the Respondent; and other relevant information, to determine whether the record supports a finding of one or more violations.

Based on staff’s review, we found the following:

• On May 09, 2022, Nicholas Holce submitted a Candidate Registration Statement (C-1 report) declaring his candidacy for Walla Walla District Court Judge in the 2022 election, selecting the “Full Reporting” option and listing Kayla Zimmer as Treasurer.
• RCW 42.17A.320 states, in part, that all written political advertising shall include the sponsor's name and address. 
• The complaint included a copy of a mailed advertisement, referred to by the Respondent as a postcard, sent to residents of Walla Walla, and alleged the ad did not identify who paid for or sponsored the ad.
• The complaint also alleged the campaign failed to include sponsor identification on its official website.
• During the review of the advertisement and the website, PDC staff noted that although the language of the advertisement identified Nicholas Holce as the candidate the identification was in the third person and did not specifically identify the candidate as having paid for or sponsored the advertisement.  As well, the official website had identified the campaign office address as required but the sponsor identification was missing.
• In his response, Mr. Holce stated “because I paid for the postcard myself with personal funds, I did not realize I needed to indicate I paid for it on the card. My recollection when I was creating the postcard of the sponsor requirement was that it needed to state the sponsor if my committee paid for it, or if an unrelated third-party paid for it.” As well, he further clarified, “because the card was so small, and spaced was limited, I assumed a reasonable reader would recognize that a postcard that was about me, and which involved such a small, local race, would clearly be coming from me.”
• Mr. Holce reported the in-kind contribution, for the mailed advertisement costs, on the C4 report submitted October 18, 2022.
• Once notified by the PDC of the missing sponsor identification on the campaign website, Mr. Holce took immediate corrective action and as of November 3, 2022, the website was corrected.

Mr. Holce admitted the omission of the sponsor identification, on both the mailed advertisement and the website, was an oversight on his part. The omission was unintentional and not done to purposely conceal the sponsor from the public. Mr. Holce has fully cooperated with PDC staff during its review and took responsibility for the deficiencies.

Based on our findings staff has determined that, in this instance, failure to include sponsor identification on the postcard advertisement, paid for by the candidate, and failure to place the sponsor identification on the campaign website does not amount to a finding of a violation that warrants further investigation.

However, pursuant to WAC 390-37-060(1)(d), Mr. Holce will receive a formal written warning concerning the failure to include sponsor identification on political advertising. The formal written warning will include staff’s expectation that Mr. Holce review all written political advertisements done in the future and will maintain his campaign website to ensure these include applicable sponsor identification. The Commission will consider the formal written warning in deciding on further Commission action if there are future violations of PDC laws or 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).

Disposition

Case Closed with Written Warning

Date Opened

November 01, 2022

Areas of Law

RCW 42.17A.320

Documents

• 113738 Holce Nicholas Complaint.pdf
• 113738 Holce Nicholas Complaint Return Letter (combined).pdf
• 113738 Holce_Nicholas Response.pdf
• 113738 Holce Nicholas Supp Complaint.pdf