Opinion 98-10                                    Page 1 of 2
12/18/98

                     STATE OF WASHINGTON
                  ETHICS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                        OPINION 98-10
                              
                              
                              
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 now 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.