This bill adds a new definition of "personal security measures" in chapter 29B.10 RCW and amends existing campaign finance provisions. It allows surplus campaign funds to be held in a separate account for nonreimbursed public office–related expenses, including certain personal security measures, and permits direct out‑of‑pocket reimbursement from campaign or committee funds for personal security measures for candidates and elected officials when those measures are necessary because of risks tied to their status or duties and are reasonably proportional to the threat. The bill bars use of surplus funds or contributions to reimburse a candidate or elected official for payments to specified family members or to entities in which those family members have a personal beneficial interest, requires disbursements to be at the "usual and normal charge," and reiterates that transfers to other candidates or political committees are not allowed. It also clarifies that disposing of surplus funds under these rules is not considered a contribution and retains other enumerated options for surplus funds (return to contributors, reimburse verifiable lost earnings, transfer to party/caucus, donate to registered charities, remit to specified state accounts, or hold for future campaigns). The bill specifies what counts as "personal security measures," including certain nonstructural and structural security devices, licensed security personnel and services, and cybersecurity services, and defines "usual and normal charge" for goods and services. It imposes reporting and recordkeeping requirements: reimbursements and lost earnings must be documented and reported in accordance with existing RCW reporting sections (including RCW 29B.25.090 and 29B.25.100), committees must include written documentation for direct out‑of‑pocket reimbursements, and the new separate account must be reported. A cap is noted that contribution funds may not be used to reimburse a candidate for loans to their own committee totaling more than $4,700. The facts provided do not include text implementing nondisclosure of primary residential addresses even though the bill title and preamble mention authorizing nondisclosure for various officials, and the operative provisions here address candidates and elected officials but do not specify executive state officers, election officials, or criminal justice participants. The commission referenced for reporting is not identified in these facts, and the exact new section number in chapter 29B.10 RCW is not specified.

If enacted, candidates and elected officials would be able to use campaign or committee funds more clearly to pay for reasonable, documented personal security measures or to place surplus campaign funds in a separate account for future public office–related expenses. That would likely lower out-of-pocket costs for people facing security risks and increase demand for licensed security and cybersecurity services, but committees will need to collect written receipts, document necessity and market-rate charges, and include these items in regular campaign reports; reimbursements to family members or entities that benefit them would be barred and loans to one’s own committee are limited in how much can be repaid from contributions. The groups most affected are candidates and their authorized committees (more funding flexibility but greater reporting and recordkeeping obligations), licensed security providers (potentially more business), and the agencies that receive continued allowable surplus dispositions. The bill text provided does not show how the nondisclosure of residential addresses or protections for executive state officers, election officials, or criminal justice participants would be implemented, and it does not identify the specific “commission” that must receive the required reports, so those details remain unclear.