Idaho Senate debates House Bill 398 on lobbying transparency reforms

The Senate of Idaho convened on April 2, 2025, for Legislative Session Day 87, focusing on significant legislative matters, including House Bill 398, which addresses the registration and regulation of lobbyists in the state. The session began with a request from Senator Hartog to leave debate open on House Bill 356, allowing for further discussion on the matter before moving on to the next agenda item.

The Senate then proceeded to consider House Bill 398, which aims to enhance transparency in lobbying activities by reorganizing existing laws and introducing new reporting requirements. Senator Anthem, the bill's sponsor, emphasized that the legislation is primarily a recodification of current laws, moving lobbying regulations from Title 67 to Title 74, which pertains to transparent and ethical governance. This change is intended to clarify the distinction between lobbying and campaign finance laws, making it easier for citizens and lobbyists to navigate the regulations.

Key provisions of House Bill 398 include the introduction of a definition for "indirect lobbying," which encompasses efforts to influence public opinion regarding legislation. The bill mandates that registered lobbyists report their expenditures monthly and requires immediate reporting for indirect lobbying activities exceeding $100. Additionally, the legislation extends reporting requirements to state entities, such as universities, that engage in lobbying efforts.

During the debate, several senators expressed concerns about the potential implications of the bill on citizens' First Amendment rights. Senator Semleroff highlighted that Idaho is one of the few states without a state ethics commission for lobbyists and called for further consideration of lobbyist ethics. Senator Cajal raised questions about whether the bill could inadvertently classify citizen activists as lobbyists, while Senator Cole argued that the expanded definition of lobbying could create barriers for grassroots movements.

Senator Felderfeld and others voiced concerns that the increased regulatory burden could disadvantage smaller campaigns and grassroots efforts, potentially stifling participation in the political process. The debate underscored the tension between the need for transparency in lobbying and the importance of protecting citizens' rights to engage in political discourse without excessive regulation.

As the session progressed, the Senate continued to deliberate on the bill, with various senators weighing in on its potential impact on both lobbying practices and citizen engagement in the legislative process. The outcome of this legislation remains to be seen as the session approaches its conclusion.