ITS ORDINARY USAGE THE WORD "KNOWINGLY", WHEN APPLIED TO AN ACT OR THING DONE, IMPORTS KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACT OR THING SO DONE, AS WELL AS AN EVIL INTENT OR A BAD PURPOSE IN DOING SUCH THING. THUS, AS THE FORGOING CASE LAW SUGGESTS, TO ACT "KNOWINGLY" MEANS TO ACT VOLUNTARILY AND PURPOSELY, AND NOT MERELY BECAUSE OF MISTAKE OR INADVERTENCE.
THEREFORE, YOUR SECOND INQUIRY CANNOT BE ANSWERED PURELY AS A MATTER OF LAW BECAUSE THE ANSWER WOULD HAVE TO BE DETERMINED BY THE SPECIFIC PHRASING AND EXTENT OF THE DISCLAIMER INVOLVED AND OTHER FACTS SURROUNDING EACH PARTICULAR CONTRIBUTION. HOWEVER, THERE CAN BE LITTLE QUESTION THAT THE USE OF AN APPROPRIATE DISCLAIMER WOULD PROVIDE SOME EVIDENCE OF THE CANDIDATE'S ENDEAVOR TO AVOID A VIOLATION OF 17 O.S. 177, AS AMENDED. THUS, IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE USE OF A DISCLAIMER ON MAILOUT FUNDRAISING MATERIAL WOULD PROVIDE SOME EVIDENCE OF A CANDIDATE'S EFFORTS TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF 177, AS AMENDED, AND WOULD THUS VITIATE THE "KNOWINGLY" ELEMENT OF A 177 VIOLATION.
(ROBERT T. RALEY)