ECIElection Campaign-Finance Index

The section explicitly classifies loans as contributions subject to contribution limitations and codifies this treatment in statute. It establishes a clear statutory framework by defining how loans are treated under the jurisdiction's contribution-limit regime, thereby grounding the framework in law rather than administrative discretion. The section also identifies a statutory exception for commercial loans made in the regular course of business on ordinary terms, further demonstrating that the limits are set by statute.

“A loan is considered to be a contribution from the lender and any guarantor of the loan and is subject to the contribution limitations of this title. The full amount of the loan shall be attributed to the lender and to each guarantor.”

RCW 29B.25.120 provides a comprehensive statutory framework for independent expenditures, including a statutory definition with clear exclusions, filing thresholds ($100 trigger), specific reporting deadlines (within 5 days of hitting threshold, then 21 days and 7 days before election, 10 days after, and monthly), mandatory disclosure fields (filer identity, recipient, amount, date, purpose), and foreign-source verification requirements. The procedural elements are enumerated exhaustively in statute rather than delegated to administrative discretion.

“For the purposes of this section the term "independent expenditure" means any expenditure that is made in support of or in opposition to any candidate or ballot proposition and is not otherwise required to be reported pursuant to RCW 29B.25.070, 29B.25.090, and 29B.25.100.”

The statute statutorily prohibits anonymous contributions and concealment of source, providing clear procedural grounding for the rule. However, the section does not specify what happens to anonymous contributions that are received in violation of the prohibition—whether they must be returned, forfeited, deposited in a general fund, or otherwise disposed of. The statute also creates discretionary exemptions for the commission ('may issue categorical and specific exemptions'), which introduces administrative discretion not fully defined in statute. The procedural clarity on the *prohibition* is strong, but the procedural clarity on the *disposition* of anonymous funds is absent.

“No payment shall be made to any person required to report under RCW 29B.55.010 and no payment shall be accepted by any such person, directly or indirectly, in a fictitious name, anonymously, or by one person through an agent, relative, or other person in such a manner as to conceal the identity of the source of the payment or in any other manner so as to effect concealment.”

RCW 29B.25.100 explicitly defines disclosure thresholds in statute for multiple contributor classes: pledges under $100 need not be reported (subsection 2(a)); contributions of $25 or less in aggregate may be lumped (subsection 2(c)); incidental committee payments below $10,000 from non-top-10 sources need not be reported (subsection 2(d)). These thresholds are codified directly in the statute, not delegated to administrative rule, satisfying the procedural-clarity requirement.

“Contributions of no more than twenty-five dollars in the aggregate from any one person during the election campaign may be reported as one lump sum if the treasurer maintains a separate and private list of the name, address, and amount of each such contributor”

No matching sections in corpus.

RCW 29B.50.100(2)(b)(iii)(B) statutorily requires disclosure of contributor identity for special solicitations and other funds at the $25 threshold. The statute explicitly mandates name, address, occupation (for individuals), employer, and contribution amount—meeting the full-identity standard. This procedural requirement is enumerated in the statute itself, not delegated to agency discretion.

“The name, address, and, for individuals, occupation and employer, of a person whose funds were used to pay for the campaign, along with the amount;”

The statute mandates public inspection of books of account in-person (or by digital access at treasurer's discretion) during a defined window before elections, but does not statutorily require online publication of filings or define a timeline for posting them to a public database. The procedural clarity is strong for in-person access logistics but incomplete for statutory online-filing accessibility.

“the books of account must be open for public inspection by appointment at a place agreed upon by both the treasurer and the requestor, for inspections between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on any day from the 10th calendar day immediately before the election through the day immediately before the election”

The statute comprehensively codifies a civil penalty schedule (specified dollar amounts ranging from $10/day to $10,000 per violation, with enhanced amounts for contribution violations) and criminal penalties (misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor, and felony charges with cross-references to RCW criminal chapters). This satisfies both elements of the ordinal scale: civil penalties are explicit and statutory, and criminal grades are defined in law.

This section protects the commission's enforcement authority from delegation to the executive director, ensuring non-delegation of violation determination and penalty assessment. However, the section does not address how commission members are appointed, their removal protections, or multi-branch oversight—the core elements of ENF.2. The statute protects procedural independence through non-delegation but does not establish structural independence (appointment process, term length, removal standards).

“The commission shall not delegate its authority to adopt, amend, or rescind rules nor may it delegate authority to determine that a violation of this title has occurred or to assess penalties for such violations”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: RCW 29A.56.120 governs the procedural mechanics of filing recall petitions and serving charges on incumbent officers—it is a recall-election procedural statute unrelated to campaign finance. It does not address campaign-finance violations, private rights of action, or citizen enforcement mechanisms for any finance-related breaches. This section falls entirely outside the domain of campaign-finance regulation.

RCW 29B.40.050(1) explicitly prohibits foreign nationals from making contributions to candidates or political committees, grounding the prohibition directly in statute rather than regulation or administrative discretion. The statute provides clear enumeration of prohibited conduct (contributions, expenditures, political advertising, electioneering communications).

“A foreign national may not make a contribution to any candidate or political committee, make an expenditure in support of or in opposition to any candidate or ballot measure, or sponsor political advertising or an electioneering communication.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: RCW 29B.10.410 defines 'political advertising' by form and medium, addressing what constitutes political advertising for disclosure and regulatory purposes. It does not address foreign-source funding, indirect channels, pass-through entities, corporate-ownership tracing, or any mechanism to verify or prohibit foreign nationals' involvement in campaign finance. The section has no relevance to foreign-source rules.

The statute mandates that out-of-state political committees obtain a certification from contributors stating that contributions are not financed by foreign nationals and that foreign nationals are not involved in contribution decisions. However, the section requires only that committees receive a 'certification'—a passive receipt of attestation—rather than imposing affirmative verification duties (such as documentary review, identity checks, or beneficial-ownership investigation). The statute grounds the requirement in law but does not specify verification procedures, audit standards, or enforcement mechanisms beyond the filing requirement itself.

The section requires record maintenance for lost-earnings reimbursements and references RCW 29B.25.090 for record procedures, but it does not specify the retention period or scope of records beyond documentation of specific reimbursable expenses. The criterion requires a defined retention period for general campaign records (contributor lists, expenditure documentation, bank statements); this section addresses only narrow categories of reimbursement documentation, not comprehensive campaign-finance record retention.

“All lost earnings incurred shall be documented and a record shall be maintained by the candidate or the candidate's authorized committee in accordance with RCW 29B.25.090.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: RCW 29A.60.170 addresses ballot-counting equipment audits and election observation procedures, not campaign-committee records. The section governs post-election ballot audits and random checks of vote-counting machinery, which are distinct from campaign-finance record audits. TRACE.2 requires mandatory audit of campaign-committee records (contributions, expenditures, disclosures); this section contains no statutory mandate for such audits.