The PDC is aware of an issue that is causing data on its website to load slowly. We have alerted the state’s Open Data vendor and are urging it to find the root cause. In the meantime, trying hitting the refresh button, or wait a few moments before trying your data query again.
Keep Edmonds Affordable: Alleged violation of RCW 42.17A.320 for failure to provide complete sponsor identification on campaign advertising (EY25 OCT25)
Keep Edmonds Affordable: Alleged violation of RCW 42.17A.320 for failure to provide complete sponsor identification on campaign advertising (EY25 OCT25)
Case
#180375
Respondent
Keep Edmonds Affordable
Complainant
ADEL SEFRIOUI, Amina Bakke
Description
The Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) completed its review of complaints filed with the PDC.
Applicable Laws and Rules
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
Keep Edmonds Affordable (the Committee) is a 2025 single election political action committee registered for the Full Reporting option.
On October 5, 2025, PDC Staff received a complaint alleging the committee's website was missing sponsor identification. Before PDC Staff notified the Committee about the complaint, the website was updated to include sponsor ID.
On September 22, 2025, PDC Staff received a secondary complaint alleging yard signs were missing complete sponsor identification. Staff contacted the Committee about the signs and a committee officer indicated the signs were not purchased by nor donated to the Committee. There is no evidence of a violation specific to the allegations made in the secondary complaint and it is dismissed.
The Committee has no warnings or violations of similar PDC laws or rules.
Summary and Resolution
Having reviewed the complaint and the supporting evidence, PDC staff has determined that the Committee appears to have violated RCW 42.17A when the website initially was missing sponsor identification and was presented to the public. 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 reminded the Committee about the importance of 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.
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.
