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

Wash. Rev. Code § 42.17A.435 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
No contribution shall be made and no expenditure shall be incurred, directly or indirectly, in a fictitious name, anonymously, or by one person through an agent, relative, or other person in such a manner as to conceal the identity of the source of the contribution or in any other manner so as to effect concealment.
[ 1975 1st ex.s. c 294 s 8; 1973 c 1 s 12 (Initiative Measure No. 276, approved November 7, 1972). Formerly RCW 42.17.120.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2013–2023 · leading case: State v. Grocery Mfrs. Ass'n, 461 P.3d 334 (Wash. 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Grocery Mfrs. Ass'n, 461 P.3d 334 (Wash. 2020). · cites it 15× “We need not decide whether the FCPA’s prohibition on concealment requires independent acts intended to conceal because GMA did engage in such acts GMA next challenges the Court of Appeals’ affirmance of the trial court’s ruling that GMA violated the FCPA’s prohibition on…”
State Of Washington v. Grocery Mfrs. Ass'n, 425 P.3d 927 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 17× “The court also ruled that GMA violated various FCPA reporting and disclosure requirements for political committees and violated RCW 42.17A.435 by concealing the source of the contributions it made to oppose I-522.”
State Pub. Disclosure Comm, V Food Democracy Action, 427 P.3d 699 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 14× “Food Democracy opposed the State’s motion and argued that its actions did not amount to concealment under former RCW 42.17A.435. The trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the State.”
State v. Grocery Mfrs. Ass'n, 502 P.3d 806 (Wash. 2022). “Failing to timely and regularly disclose expenditures it made from the Defense of Brands Account in violation of RCW 42.”
Utter v. Bldg. Indus. Ass'n, 310 P.3d 829 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “The AG alleged that BIAW-MSC conducted an illegal fundraising campaign and violated RCW 42.17A.435 by concealing its solicitation and receipt of $584,527.”
State Of Washington, V. Tim Eyman (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 11× “56653-2-II of ballot propositions, (4) had failed to file monthly contribution and expenditure reports, and (5) had concealed $766,447 in contributions in violation of RCW 42.17A.435. The trial court subsequently rejected several attempts by Eyman to vacate the nonmonetary…”
State Of Washington v. Grocery Mfrs. Ass'n (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 3× “49768-9-II / 50188-1-II committees, and that GMA violated RCW 42.17A.435 by concealing the source of the contributions it made to oppose I-522.”
Robert F. Utter & Faith Ireland, App./x-resp. v. Bldg. Indus. Assoc. Of Wa, Resp./x-app. (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “The AG alleged that BIAW-MSC conducted an illegal fundraising campaign and violated RCW 42.17A.435 by concealing its solicitation and receipt of $584,527.”
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.