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

Case

#175838

Respondent

Dustin Stephan

Complainant

John Foster

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 is a first time candidate running for City of Yelm Mayor in the 2025 election.
  • On July 14, 2025, the PDC received a complaint that the Respondent's campaign yard signs did not include complete sponsor identification.  PDC staff notified the Respondent about the complaint and they took prompt action to address the issue.
  • The Respondent indicated that as of July 23, 2025, all known signs have had a label added to them identifying the campaign committee as the sponsor.
    The Respondent does not have prior Warnings or Violations from the PDC

Summary and Resolution

Having reviewed the complaint and the supporting evidence, PDC staff has determined that the Respondent did violate 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 17, 2025

Areas of Law

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}}