This bill adds a new section to chapter 42.52 RCW that generally prohibits an elected official, and the spouse of an elected official, from being employed by, entering into a contract with, being paid for services by, or having any other direct or indirect beneficial interest in a private entity when that private entity receives state funding. The prohibition expressly does not apply to employment at a public agency. The text supplies its own definitions that govern regardless of RCW 42.52.010: "agency" (including all state and local agencies), "state agency" and "local agency," "beneficial interest" (a financial interest or the right to enjoy profit, benefit, or advantage), "elected official" (elected persons and appointees filling vacancies), and "private entity" (nonpublic firms, corporations, associations, nonprofits, and similar entities). Affected parties are elected officials and their spouses, private entities that receive state funding, and public agencies (employment there is allowed). The bill was read for the first time on 03/25/25 and referred to the State Government & Tribal Relations committee. The text does not specify the exact new section number, any enforcement mechanism, penalties, remedies, compliance deadlines, effective date, or what counts as "receiving state funding" (for example grants, contracts, amounts, or timing).

If enacted, elected officials and their spouses would generally no longer be able to work for, sign contracts with, be paid by, or hold financial interests in private organizations that receive any state funding, though they could still be employed by public agencies. Practically, that will reduce career and income options for those officials and their spouses, could force resignations or divestment of private contracts or investments, and will narrow the pool of private-sector hires or contractors for organizations that depend on state funding. Who is most affected are elected officials and their spouses and private entities that get state money; public agencies are explicitly allowed and so are less affected. Key details are missing that create real uncertainty — the bill text here does not define what counts as “receiving state funding,” sets no effective date, and gives no enforcement or penalty rules — so it is unclear which existing relationships would be prohibited or how the rule would be applied.