Tucker, Dana: Alleged violation of RCW 42.17A.335 for falsely claiming an endorsement that the candidate does not have (NOV'22 EY'22)

Case

#114172

Respondent

Dana Tucker

Complainant

Rebecca Fieken

Description

On November 7, 2022, the Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) received a complaint alleging that Dana Tucker, a candidate for the office of County Coroner in Cowlitz County in the 2022 election cycle, may have violated RCW 42.17A.335(1)(c) by falsely stating or implying the support of certain individuals listed on her campaign materials/websites by name and professional title(s). 

PDC staff reviewed the allegation(s) listed in the complaint to determine whether a formal investigation or enforcement action is warranted. Staff reviewed all attachments submitted with the complaint, the pertinent statute, and all other relevant information. 

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

On March 29, 2022, Dana Tucker filed a Candidate Registration (C-1) report with the PDC declaring her candidacy for election to the office of County Coroner in Cowlitz County, selecting the “Mini Reporting” option and listing herself as Treasurer.

On June 27, 2022, Dana Tucker requested and was granted permission to switch from Mini-to-Full reporting. On the same day, Dana Tucker submitted a new/amended C-1 report, selecting the “Full Reporting” option and listing Brandon Farrell and Ella Masters as Treasurer and Assistant Treasurer, respectively.

In her response to your complaint, received on Friday, January 13, 2023, Ms. Tucker stated: “During the election campaign, I obtained many endorsements from people all over. With that, either myself or my campaign manager personally spoke with each one of these people, obtaining either verbal consent or letters of endorsement. I have always taken people for their word, therefore the ones where I received a verbal confirmation, I did not feel I needed to obtain a signature from them. When I was alerted that Ms. Fieken was saying these things I went through my entire list of endorsers to see if there was someone that I even thought may have backed out and not informed me of. Yet I did not see any. I contacted the two names that were provided. I contacted the Yakima County Coroner Jim Curtis, who told me that he wasn’t going to endorse anyone this time because he has his own campaign to run. I said ok, and that I understood, but that we had discussed this at the conference and he said he would. I said I was sorry if I misunderstood him and that I would remove his name from my list immediately, which I did. The other one in question was Duane Dalgleish. I saw Duane at the Chaplains banquette where I spoke with him, telling him that I was running and asked for his endorsement. He had said yes and gave me his email contact. I emailed him later. My manager contacted Duane’s wife, Jerry, and told her the situation. She said that they were wanting to sit down with me first. When he said that Rebecca had stated that they said they had not endorsed me, Jerry told him to leave Duane’s name on the endorsement. So, his name was not removed. If there was anyone that backed out on an endorsement after I spoke with them, I had no knowledge of it until these two names were brought up. This is my first endeavor in running for office. With that being said, I have followed all the rules of the PDC to the best of my knowledge. I will make sure that next time I will obtain signatures from all my endorsers so that this is never questioned again.”

Ms. Tucker listed in her advertising the names of endorsers who had stated orally or in writing their endorsement of her candidacy. No evidence was found that Ms. Tucker was aware anyone had withdrawn their endorsement at the time she sponsored the political advertising that is the subject of your complaint. Therefore, there is no evidence Ms. Tucker acted with actual malice when she listed one endorser who had decided to not endorse anyone in the campaign. 

Based on these findings, staff determined that in this instance, the alleged false endorsement did not amount to a violation of RCW 42.17A.335(1)(c) warranting further investigation.  

Accordingly, the PDC found that no further action was warranted and dismissed the complaint in accordance with RCW 42.17A.755(1). 

Disposition

Case Closed with No Evidence of Violations

Date Opened

November 14, 2022

Areas of Law

RCW 42.17A.335

Documents

• 114172 Tucker Dana Complaint Response.pdf
• 114172 Tucker Dana Complaint Return Letter.pdf
• 114172 Tucker Dana Complaint.pdf