The legislature finds that:

     (1) Timely disclosure to voters of the identity and sources of funding for electioneering communications is vitally important to the integrity of state, local, and judicial elections.

     (2) Electioneering communications that identify political candidates for state, local, or judicial office and that are distributed sixty days before an election for those offices are intended to influence voters and the outcome of those elections.

     (3) The state has a compelling interest in providing voters information about electioneering communications in political campaigns concerning candidates for state, local, or judicial office so that voters can be fully informed as to the: (a) Source of support or opposition to those candidates; and (b) identity of persons attempting to influence the outcome of state, local, and judicial candidate elections.

     (4) Nondisclosure of financial information about advertising that masquerades as relating only to issues and not to candidate campaigns fosters corruption or the appearance of corruption. These consequences can be substantially avoided by full disclosure of the identity and funding of those persons paying for such advertising.

     (5) The United States supreme court held in McConnell et al. v. Federal Elections Commission, 540 U.S. 93, 124 S.Ct. 619, 157 L.Ed.2d 491 (2003) that speakers seeking to influence elections do not possess an inviolable free speech right to engage in electioneering communications regarding elections, including when issue advocacy is the functional equivalent of express advocacy. Therefore, such election campaign communications can be regulated and the source of funding disclosed.

     (6) The state also has a sufficiently compelling interest in preventing corruption in political campaigns to justify and restore contribution limits and restrictions on the use of soft money in RCW 42.17.640. Those interests include restoring restrictions on the use of such funds for electioneering communications, as well as the laws preventing circumvention of those limits and restrictions.

[2005 c 445 § 1.]