Mary LaFleur: Alleged violation of RCW 42.17A.320 for failure to provide sponsor identification on campaign advertising. (EY25 JUL25)

Case

#176429

Respondent

Mary Lee LaFleur

Complainant

Wilhelmus Houppermans

Description

The Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) completed its review of a complaint 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
• The Respondent registered with the PDC on May 5, 2025, as a candidate for Commissioner of the Port of Anacortes, Position 1, under the Full Reporting option.
• PDC staff reviewed the evidence and the Respondent's response to the complaint. Sponsor identification was missing from the Respondent's political advertising but they took quick action to remedy the issue.
• The Respondent has no related warnings or violations of similar PDC requirements within the Statute of Limitations.

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 reminded the Respondent about the importance of providing complete sponsor identification on political advertising. They are expected to comply with PDC statutes and rules in the future.

Disposition

Case Closed with Reminder

Date Opened

July 25, 2025

Areas of Law*

RCW 29B.30.050/42.17A.320

*On January 1, 2026, RCW 42.17A was recodified to RCW 29B