Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Campaign Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Treasurers and compliance experts back narrowing foreign-certification rule; PDC available for questions
Summary
House Bill 2,123’s proposed substitute would limit Washington’s foreign-certification requirement to larger activity; campaign treasurers urged eliminating or raising thresholds to reduce administrative burden, while staff and the PDC remained available to answer implementation questions.
OPR staff briefed House Bill 2,123 and the proposed substitute that would require candidates and committees to collect foreign-certification statements only when contributions or expenditures exceed an aggregate threshold (initially $5,500 in the substitute, with an amendment in the books changing the trigger to $6,000). Staff explained the substitute narrows the state requirement to match the practical risk tied to large independent expenditures and ballot measure advertising.
Majority Leader Joe Fitzgibbon, prime sponsor for the initial presentation, said he had originally proposed full repeal of the certification requirement but supported a threshold so that candidate campaigns — which are already subject to federal prohibitions — are not encumbered while larger ballot-measure spending remains subject to state oversight.
Professional treasurers and compliance officers testified in favor of removing the certification or adopting a threshold: Connor Edwards, Jason Michaud and Jason Bennett told the committee the current requirement created substantial paperwork and did not materially prevent foreign influence because federal law already prohibits foreign money in candidate campaigns. Several treasurers recommended thresholds aligned with other reporting limits (discussion suggested $6,000 or $7,500 as reasonable alternative numbers).
The Public Disclosure Commission’s general counsel said the PDC had not taken a position but made staff available for technical questions. Some compliance witnesses expressed concern that earlier draft language might unintentionally repeal key RCW provisions if not corrected; sponsors indicated intent to fix drafting issues.
No final action was taken during the hearing; committee members requested clarifying language and confirmation that the amended substitute removes only the intended obligations.
