Cobi Clark: Alleged violation of RCW 42.17A.235, .240, and .320 for failure to timely and accurately report expenditures and failure to provide complete sponsor identification on campaign advertising. (EY25 SEP25)

Case

#179149

Respondent

Cobi Clark

Complainant

Theodore Higgens

Description

The Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) completed its review of a complaint filed with the PDC. 

Applicable Laws and Rules
Pursuant to RCW 42.17A.240(7), expenditures are disclosed on C-4 reports, which must include, but are not limited to: 1) the name and address of each person to whom an expenditure was made in the aggregate of more than $750 during the period covered by the report; 2) the amount, date, and purpose of each expenditure; and 3) the total sum of all expenditures. Purpose details should state the goods or services provided by the vendor, including the number of items purchased, identify any candidates or ballot propositions supported or opposed by the expenditure, and the name & address of any sub-vendors used. For advertising expenditures, campaigns should describe the type and number of ads, where they appeared or were broadcast, and when (e.g. run dates). An in-kind contribution is disclosed like an expenditure on the PDC’s Online Reporting of Campaign Activity (ORCA) software. 

Per RCW 42.17A.320, all written political advertising, whether relating to candidates or ballot propositions, shall include the sponsor's name and address. The use of an assumed name for the sponsor of electioneering communications, independent expenditures, or political advertising shall be unlawful. For partisan office, if a candidate has expressed a party or independent preference on the declaration of candidacy, that party or independent designation shall be clearly identified in electioneering communications, independent expenditures, or political advertising.

RCW 42.17A.320 and WAC390-18-010, 020, 030, and 040 further outline requirements for sponsor identification on political advertising.
 
Background and Findings
  • On May 14, 2025, the Respondent registered under the Full Reporting option for the 2025 election for the position of Councilmember in the City of Auburn.
  • The campaign website was missing sponsor identification but once notified about the sponsor identification requirements the campaign addressed the issue promptly and the site has complete sponsor identification as of September 29, 2025.
  • The campaign failed to report the quantity of printed items, for 5000 postcards and 200 yard signs, on the 21-day C-4 and amended the report on September 29, 2025, following the complaint.  The original report was filed timely.
  • The campaign failed to report an in-kind contribution from the candidate, for a PO Box fee, on the 21-day C-4 and amended the report on September 29, 2025.  The original report was filed timely.
  • The campaign failed to report an in-kind contribution of $200 from the candidate for filing fees incurred on May 5, 2025. The original C-4 report was submitted timely and was amended on October 1, 2025, to report the in-kind contribution.
  • The POS fees were reported timely and correctly but because they are under the $200 threshold they are not itemized and are reported as "miscellaneous."
  • The Respondent has not received a warning, admitted to a violation, or been found in violation by the Commission in 2025.
Summary and Resolution
Having reviewed the complaint and the supporting evidence, PDC staff has determined that the Respondent appears to have violated RCW 42.17A. After consideration of all the circumstances, further proceedings would not serve the purposes of the Fair Campaign Practices Act. Under WAC 390-37-070, the executive director, at any time prior to consideration by the Commission, may dismiss a complaint which on its face, or as shown by investigation, provides reason to believe that a violation has occurred, but also shows that the respondent is in substantial compliance with the relevant statutes or rules, or shows that formal enforcement action is not warranted. 
 
Based on this, the PDC has dismissed this matter in accordance with RCW 42.17A.755(1) and WAC 390-37-060(1)(d). PDC staff has reminded the Respondent about the importance of timely and accurate reporting and also about providing complete sponsor identification on political advertising. They are expected to comply with PDC statutes and rules in the future.  For more information about PDC requirements, see the 'Political Advertising Guide' section of the PDC website.

Disposition

Case Closed with Reminder

Date Opened

September 23, 2025

Areas of Law

RCW 42.17A.235, RCW 42.17A.240, RCW 42.17A.320

Documents

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}}