OLYMPIA—Washington State’s Public Disclosure Commission has suspended enforcement of a key restriction on large campaign contributions in the final 12 days before the Nov. 3 general election, removing the $75,000 and $7,500 caps that had applied to statewide and other races during that window.
The commission, which oversees campaign finance disclosure and enforcement in the state, adopted an interpretive statement on Oct. 22 directing staff not to enforce the pre-election limits under RCW 29B.40.070. The law had barred any person from giving—and any campaign or political committee from accepting—more than $75,000 for a statewide race or $7,500 for other campaigns within 21 days of the general election, with limited exceptions. Ordinary base contribution limits under a separate statute remain in effect.
In its statement, the PDC wrote it was acting “in recognition of significant concerns regarding enforceability” of the provision “as raised by US Supreme Court and other federal court authority, and in order to maintain fairness to all campaigns in the application of law.” It added that the move “does not declare or otherwise determine the constitutionality or legal status of this or any other law.” The agency has long held that it cannot itself rule on the constitutionality of the statutes it administers.
The timing has drawn sharp criticism from Brian Heywood, founder of the Let’s Go Washington, called the decision an example of corruption that favors public-sector unions seeking to influence competitive races for the state Supreme Court.
In a post on X, he asked which was more corrupt: “the public unions trying to buy Washington’s Supreme Court races” or the commission, which “suddenly changed the rules 12 days before the election so those unions can spend even more.”
What the Actual??? WA STATE CORRUPTION
WARNING TLDR
Who do you think seems more corrupt?
1) The public unions trying to buy Washington's Supreme Court races?
Or
2) The PDC, which suddenly changed the rules 12 days before the election so those unions can spend even more?… pic.twitter.com/JwPXPly2c2— Brian Heywood – That Damn Mormon (@bkheywood) October 24, 2026
Heywood argued that the 21-day late-money cap had taken effect Oct. 13. After the commission’s action, he wrote, “there’s no limit on what one donor can give a PAC. Checks of any size, right up to Election Day.” He pointed to contributions already made by unions including SEIU, the Washington Education Association and the Washington Federation of State Employees to a political action committee focused on the court races, arguing that those groups can now give far larger sums in the final days.
Criticism of the timing has not been limited to one political side. Stephen Paolini, a progressive political consultant who has worked on Democratic and Supreme Court campaigns, told The Seattle Times that the change came at a poor moment.
“I think it’s horrible timing,” Paolini said. “It’s like we’ve all been playing an entire football season under one set of rules and then the night before the Super Bowl,” a key rule is changed.
PDC Deputy Director Kim Bradford said in an interview with the Seattle Times that commissioners had been discussing the issue since June, when an enforcement case against Court of Appeals Judge Tam Bui. PDC staff found she appeared to have exceeded the pre-election limits under RCW 29B.40.070. Her attorney argued the statute was unconstitutional as applied to a candidate contributing large amounts of her own personal funds to her campaign in the final 21 days. Washington law generally allows candidates unlimited personal contributions to their own campaigns, but the 21-day cap applied even to those. The Commission dismissed the case without prejudice and requested further briefing on how case law affects time-bound contribution limits. Discussions continued into September and October before the suspension.
Uder U.S. Supreme Court precedent, most notably Buckley v. Valeo in 1976, candidates generally may spend unlimited personal funds on their own campaigns, even as contribution limits from outside donors can be upheld to prevent quid pro quo corruption. Washington law already permits unlimited personal contributions by candidates, creating a potential conflict with the late-window restriction.
Bradford said commissioners were concerned that some campaigns might be aware of the legal issues while others were not, and wanted to ensure consistent application during the election period.
The suspension applies only to the special pre-election large-contribution window. Standard contribution limits for candidates continue to apply, and the change does not affect ballot-measure campaigns, which have long operated without the same late-window restriction. Still, the decision opens the possibility of larger late contributions to independent groups and political committees that can spend freely in support of or against candidates.
In a year when five seats on the nine-member Supreme Court are on the ballot the change arrives as those races have already attracted significant outside spending and attention tied to pending legal challenges involving state tax policy.
“SEIU, WEA and WFSE have already given $450K directly to the ‘Beware the Attack on Our Courts’ PAC,” Heywood said. “In addition, SEIU, WEA and WFSE are also the largest donors to New Direction PAC, which has donated an additional $298K to the supreme court judicial ‘Beware’ PAC.”
Public Disclosure Commission data as of October 25 show substantial fundraising and outside activity in the five Supreme Court contests:
Position 1: Colleen Melody (incumbent) reported $273,906.07 raised and $110,500.72 spent, with $108,699.66 in independent expenditures for her and none against. Scott Edwards reported $190,658.68 raised and $154,240.59 spent, with $97,161.06 in independent expenditures for him and $97,770.57 against.
Position 3: Jaime Michelle Hawk reported $359,907.91 raised and $312,739.15 spent, with $40,929.08 in independent expenditures for her and none against. David Stevens reported $95,400.18 raised and $64,891.76 spent, with $52,415.45 in independent expenditures for him and $97,770.57 against.
Position 4: Ian Birk reported $597,901.79 raised and $281,988.42 spent, with $157,159.94 in independent expenditures for him and none against. Sean O’Donnell reported $498,745.34 raised and $89,877.68 spent, with $475,813.76 in independent expenditures for him and $81,770.58 against.
Position 5: Theo Angelis (incumbent) reported $476,928.30 raised and $455,042.53 spent, with $106,699.66 in independent expenditures for him and none against. Dave Larson reported $454,198.67 raised and $365,295.31 spent, with $178,751.59 in independent expenditures for him and $97,770.58 against.
Position 7: Debra L. Stephens (incumbent) reported $142,572.70 raised and $107,738.06 spent, with $106,592.82 in independent expenditures for her and none against. Todd A. Bloom reported $40,439.46 raised and $11,549.10 spent, with $7,196.15 in independent expenditures for him and $81,770.58 against.
Whether this PDC enforcement change produces a noticeable surge in late money—or simply formalizes activity that some campaigns already viewed as legally uncertain—will become clearer in the final stretch of the campaign.
Author: Mario Lotmore
