HB 2672
In CommitteeHouse
State funds/private entities
Requiring certain disclosures from private entities that receive state funding.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill requires private entities receiving state-funded grants to publicly disclose information about their leadership, compensation, political activity, and budget plans. It also mandates that state and local agencies collect and submit this information to a new public database maintained by the Office of Financial Management.
- Private entities applying for state-funded grants must disclose names and total compensation of employees earning over $100,000/year.
- Entities must identify any employee who has held public office in Washington State within the past five years, regardless of compensation.
- Names and compensation of board members must be disclosed.
- Entities must report political contributions made in the past four election cycles that are reportable under Title 29B RCW.
- Entities must provide a detailed budget plan explaining how grant funds will be spent.
- Agencies must collect, verify, and submit all disclosure forms—including from unsuccessful applicants—to the Office of Financial Management, which will create a publicly searchable database.
Who is affected
- Private entities receiving state grants — Nonprofit organizations, charities, and other private entities that apply for or renew state-funded grants must disclose detailed information about their leadership, compensation, political activity, and budget plans.
- State and local agencies — State and local agencies that award or manage state-funded grants must provide disclosure forms, verify compliance, and submit completed forms to the Office of Financial Management.
- General public — The public gains access to previously unavailable information about how state funds are used and who is involved in organizations receiving those funds through a new publicly searchable database.
- Noncompliant private entities — Private entities that fail to submit required disclosures risk losing their grant funding and must repay any funds already received.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Public access to compensation and leadership data for entities spending taxpayer dollars increases transparency and accountability, helping prevent misuse of funds and enabling watchdog groups and journalists to identify conflicts of interest or excessive executive pay in publicly funded programs.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(a), Sec. 1(1)(c), Sec. 4Disclosing political contributions made over four election cycles allows voters and oversight bodies to assess whether state-funded organizations are using public resources to influence elections or policy in ways that may conflict with their public mission.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(d), Sec. 4Mandating detailed budget plans and making them publicly searchable enables citizens to verify that grant funds are being used as intended—e.g., for food banks, housing assistance, or job training—reducing opportunities for misallocation or fraud.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(e), Sec. 4Revealing recent public office holders on nonprofit leadership teams helps identify potential revolving-door arrangements or conflicts of interest, especially when organizations receive contracts or grants from agencies the individual recently led or regulated.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(b), Sec. 4The requirement that noncompliant entities repay all funds deters fraud and ensures accountability—particularly important for high-risk programs like behavioral health or homelessness services where misuse of funds can directly endanger vulnerable populations.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3), Sec. 4
Potential Concerns (5)
Private entities—especially small and mid-sized nonprofits—will face new administrative burdens to track and report compensation data for all employees earning over $100,000/year, which may strain limited staff and resources, particularly for organizations without dedicated HR or compliance teams.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(a)Mandating disclosure of past public office holders—even those in low-level or volunteer roles—may chill civic engagement by discouraging former public servants from accepting leadership roles at nonprofits due to fear of public scrutiny or political targeting.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(b)Requiring disclosure of political contributions made over the past four election cycles may expose organizations to retaliatory funding cuts or donor backlash, especially in polarized policy areas (e.g., abortion, education), potentially chilling legitimate political participation.
Rights & LibertiesLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(d)The requirement to submit a detailed budget plan *and* the penalty of full repayment for noncompliance creates significant legal and financial risk for grant recipients—especially smaller nonprofits—whose operations may hinge on flexible use of funds in response to changing community needs.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(e) and Sec. 1(3)State and local agencies must divert staff time and resources to collect, verify, and transmit disclosure forms—including from unsuccessful applicants—adding administrative overhead to already-constrained grant management workflows.
Local GovernmentRef: Fiscal Impact
Who Is Most Affected
Nonprofits and charities providing social services (e.g., food banks, shelters, job training) will face new compliance costs and may be deterred from applying for grants due to fear of political scrutiny or administrative burden—especially smaller orgs without legal/compliance staff.
While subject to disclosure, these groups benefit from increased public trust and accountability, and may gain competitive advantage if their transparency distinguishes them from less transparent competitors—especially in competitive grant cycles.
State and local agencies will face added workload to collect, verify, and submit disclosures—including from applicants who did not receive grants—potentially straining grant management staff and delaying award timelines.
The general public gains unprecedented visibility into how taxpayer dollars are spent and who leads organizations receiving public funds—empowering oversight and reducing opportunities for corruption or waste.
Politically active nonprofits (e.g., advocacy groups, PAC-affiliated orgs) may face increased scrutiny or retaliatory funding cuts if their political contributions become publicly visible, potentially chilling legitimate civic engagement.