Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 42.17A.460 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
All contributions made by a person or entity, either directly or indirectly, to a candidate, to a state official against whom recall charges have been filed, or to a political committee, are considered to be contributions from that person or entity to the candidate, state official, or political committee, as are contributions that are in any way earmarked or otherwise directed through an intermediary or conduit to the candidate, state official, or political committee. For the purposes of this section, "earmarked" means a designation, instruction, or encumbrance, whether direct or indirect, expressed or implied, or oral or written, that is intended to result in or does result in all or any part of a contribution being made to a certain candidate or state official. If a conduit or intermediary exercises any direction or control over the choice of the recipient candidate or state official, the contribution is considered to be by both the original contributor and the conduit or intermediary.
[ 1993 c 2 s 7 (Initiative Measure No. 134, approved November 3, 1992). Formerly RCW 42.17.670.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2013–2015 · leading case: Utter v. Bldg. Indus. Ass'n, 341 P.3d 953 (Wash. 2015).
Utter v. Bldg. Indus. Ass'n, 341 P.3d 953 (Wash. 2015). “Plaintiffs briefly make the same argument about another “[a]ttribution” statute, RCW 42.17A.460. (Boldface omitted.) But that statute does not include the language “for the purposes of this chapter.”
Utter v. Bldg. Indus. Ass'n, 310 P.3d 829 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “In addition, Utter and Ireland contend that RCW 42.17A.460 makes BIAW responsible even if it carried out the contribution through BIAW-MSC.”
Robert F. Utter & Faith Ireland, App./x-resp. v. Bldg. Indus. Assoc. Of Wa, Resp./x-app. (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “455 provides: 6 In addition, Utter and Ireland contend that RCW 42.17A.460 makes BIAW responsible even if it carried out the contribution through BIAW-MSC.”
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.