Wash. Rev. Code » Title 42 · Chapter 42.17A
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 42.17A.400 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) The people of the state of Washington find and declare that:
(a) The financial strength of certain individuals or organizations should not permit them to exercise a disproportionate or controlling influence on the election of candidates.
(b) Rapidly increasing political campaign costs have led many candidates to raise larger percentages of money from special interests with a specific financial stake in matters before state government. This has caused the public perception that decisions of elected officials are being improperly influenced by monetary contributions.
(c) Candidates are raising less money in small contributions from individuals and more money from special interests. This has created the public perception that individuals have an insignificant role to play in the political process.
(2) By limiting campaign contributions, the people intend to:
(a) Ensure that individuals and interest groups have fair and equal opportunity to influence elective and governmental processes;
(b) Reduce the influence of large organizational contributors; and
(c) Restore public trust in governmental institutions and the electoral process.
[ 2010 c 204 s 601; 1993 c 2 s 1 (Initiative Measure No. 134, approved November 3, 1992). Formerly RCW 42.17.610.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2013–2015 · leading case: Utter v. Bldg. Indus. Ass'n, 341 P.3d 953 (Wash. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Utter v. Bldg. Indus. Ass'n, 341 P.3d 953 (Wash. 2015). · cites it 3× “Further, BIAW argues that the legislation contains a statement of the voters’ intent (which also appeared in the language of the initiative): (2) By limiting campaign contributions, the people intend to: (a) Ensure that individuals and interest groups have fair and equal…”
Utter v. Bldg. Indus. Ass'n, 310 P.3d 829 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “RCW 42.17A.400(2). The Washington Supreme Court observed that this legislation “sought to accomplish the initiative’s purpose by establishing campaign contribution limits.”
Robert F. Utter & Faith Ireland, App./x-resp. v. Bldg. Indus. Assoc. Of Wa, Resp./x-app. (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “RCW 42.17A.400(2). The Washington Supreme Court observed that this legislation "sought to accomplish the initiative's purpose by establishing campaign contribution limits.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.17A.400(2) — 3 cases
Utter v. Bldg. Indus. Ass'n, 341 P.3d 953 (Wash. 2015). “Further, BIAW argues that the legislation contains a statement of the voters’ intent (which also appeared in the language of the initiative): (2) By limiting campaign contributions, the people intend to: (a) Ensure that individuals and interest groups have fair and equal…”
Utter v. Bldg. Indus. Ass'n, 310 P.3d 829 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “RCW 42.17A.400(2). The Washington Supreme Court observed that this legislation “sought to accomplish the initiative’s purpose by establishing campaign contribution limits.”
Robert F. Utter & Faith Ireland, App./x-resp. v. Bldg. Indus. Assoc. Of Wa, Resp./x-app. (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “RCW 42.17A.400(2). The Washington Supreme Court observed that this legislation "sought to accomplish the initiative's purpose by establishing campaign contribution limits.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.