Washington State Republican Party

Washington State Republican Party: Alleged violation of RCW 42.17A.335 for sponsoring political advertising containing a false statement of material fact about a candidate for public office (NOV24, EY24)

Case Details

Case Number

162582

Respondent

Washington State Republican Party

Complainant

Washington Democratic Party

Date Opened

November 20, 2024

Case Status

Case Closed with No Evidence of Violations

PDC staff found no evidence of violation.

Learn More

Area(s) of Law*

  • RCW 29B.30.070/42.17A.335

*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 Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) completed its review of the complaint filed by Washington State Democratic Central Committee on November 4, 2024. The complaint alleged violations of RCW 42.17A.335 for sponsoring political advertising containing a false statement of material fact about candidates for public office.

RCW 42.17A.335(1) states, in part, “It is a violation of this chapter for a person to sponsor with actual malice a statement constituting libel or defamation per se under the following circumstances: (a) Political advertising or an electioneering communication that contains a false statement of material fact about a candidate for public office...”

RCW 42.17A.005(1) states, "Actual malice" means to act with knowledge of falsity or with reckless disregard as to truth or falsity.

The statement at issue here does not meet the actual malice standard. The complaint asks the PDC to be the arbiter of whether a candidate’s lack of support for an initiative that supporters championed as an answer to concerns about gender-affirming care for minors is tantamount to support for allowing schools to provide that care without parents’ knowledge. That level of interpretation involves scrutiny of political debate, which invokes strong First Amendment protections. Such assessments are best left to the public and the political forum.

Based on these findings, PDC staff have determined the possible spuriousness of the text messages does not warrant further investigation by the PDC. The PDC has dismissed this matter in accordance with RCW 42.17A.755(1).

Documents

Penalties

None