State of Washington

Ethics Advisory Committee

Question

1. Is there a conflict between the campaign reporting requirements under RCW 42.17 and CJC Canon 2 and 7?

2. Are judicial candidates required to not view the names of contributors when they sign and certify public disclosure reports?

3. Are judicial candidates obliged to inspect the names of persons contributing to their campaign in order to comply with RCW 42.17, and indirectly, CJC Canon 2(A)?

All candidates, including judicial candidates, are required to comply with public disclosure requirements in RCW 42.17 and applicable WAC provisions. RCW 42.17.080(5) and 42.17.090(2) require both the campaign treasurer and candidate to certify the correctness of various periodic public disclosure campaign reports, which include the identity of contributors and amounts donated.

Some candidates take the position that the statutes and WACs conflict with the Code of Judicial Conduct and cover up the names of contributors before signing public disclosure reports. Other candidates believe they must be aware of contributor’s names in order to be aware of possible future conflicts of interest issues, and to comply with the law.

Answer

CJC Canon 7(B) was amended in 1995 to provide that judicial candidates shall comply with all laws requiring public disclosure of campaign finances, which may require knowledge of campaign contributions. The comment further provides that although campaign contributions of which a judge has knowledge are not prohibited, these contributions may be relevant to recusal. The Public Disclosure Commission (RCW chap. 42.17) is empowered to require candidates to sign and file campaign disclosure forms which may include identifying the names of contributors.

1. There is not a conflict between the campaign reporting requirements under RCW chap. 42.17 and Canon 2 and 7(B). Canon 7(B) recognizes that judicial candidates are required to comply with public disclosure of campaign finances, which may require knowledge of campaign contributions. The comment to that provision also provides that campaign contributions of which a judge has knowledge are not prohibited.

2. RCW 42.17.080(5) and 42.17.090(2) require both the campaign treasurer and candidate to certify the correctness of public disclosure campaign reports, which include the identity of contributors and the amounts contributed. Because CJC Canon 7(B) provides that candidates shall comply with reporting laws judicial candidates may view the names of contributors when they sign and certify public disclosure reports.

3. The answer to question 2 provides in part that the candidate must certify the correctness of the public disclosure campaign reports, which may include the identity of contributors and the amounts contributed. In order to comply with this requirement, the judicial candidate may be required to view the report; the judicial candidate is not required to inspect the names of persons contributing. Knowledge of the identity of a contributor or knowledge of the amount of a contribution made to a campaign may however, be relevant to the issue of recusal.

Opinion 98-10

12/18/1998