## Facts

- Marilou Rickert, a Green Party candidate for Washington State Senate in 2002, sponsored a campaign mailer comparing her positions to those of incumbent Senator Tim Sheldon.
- Sheldon filed a complaint with the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) alleging the mailer violated RCW 42.17.530(1)(a), which prohibited sponsoring, with actual malice, a political advertisement containing a false statement of material fact about a candidate.
- After an administrative hearing, the PDC found the mailer contained two false statements of material fact and that Rickert acted with actual malice.
- The PDC imposed a $1,000 civil penalty.
- A superior court affirmed the agency action.
- The Washington Court of Appeals reversed on constitutional grounds.
- The Washington Supreme Court granted review and addressed the statute’s facial constitutionality under the First Amendment and article I, section 5 of the Washington Constitution.

## Issues

1. Whether RCW 42.17.530(1)(a), which authorizes civil penalties for materially false campaign statements about a candidate made with actual malice, violates the First Amendment and article I, section 5 by assigning the government the role of determining truth in political debate.
2. Whether the statute is unconstitutional on its face, requiring invalidation of the PDC’s enforcement order and fine.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals.
- The court held RCW 42.17.530(1)(a) unconstitutional on its face.
- The court concluded the statute impermissibly empowers a government agency to decide truth and falsity in campaign discourse, chilling core political speech.
- Because the statute was facially invalid, the PDC’s enforcement action and $1,000 penalty against Rickert could not stand.
- A concurrence agreed the statute was unconstitutional but disagreed with any suggestion that all regulation of political speech is necessarily invalid.
- A dissent would have upheld the statute as a narrow restriction limited to materially false statements made with actual malice.

## Legal Principles

- Political speech receives the highest constitutional protection under the First Amendment and article I, section 5 of the Washington Constitution.
- A law that authorizes the state, through an administrative agency, to adjudicate the truth or falsity of campaign statements is incompatible with constitutional free-speech protections because it amounts to governmental control over political debate.
- Narrowing a false-advertising prohibition to statements about candidates does not cure the constitutional defect where enforcement still requires the government to decide truth, materiality, and sanctionable falsity in political discourse.
- Facial invalidation is appropriate where a statute’s structure assigns to the government the role of regulating political speech by determining truth and falsity.

## Conclusion

The Washington Supreme Court invalidated RCW 42.17.530(1)(a) on its face, holding that the state may not punish allegedly false campaign statements through an administrative truth-determination process, and it set aside the PDC’s penalty imposed on a candidate for campaign mailer statements.


Rickert v. State Pub. Disclosure Comm’n, 168 P.3d 826 (Wash. 2007)