Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Campaign Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sen. Raybould proposes $1,000 cap on outside contributions to candidate committees
Summary
LB672 would limit outside contributions to a candidate committee to $1,000 during the election period, with required return and reporting of amounts over the cap; testimony split between supporters who said limits curb outsized influence and opponents who warned of constitutional and practical problems.
Senator Jane Raybould introduced LB672 to limit contributions to a candidate committee to $1,000 during the election period. Under the bill language presented, if a candidate committee receives more than $1,000 from any source during that election period, the committee must return the excess within 10 days and report the transaction on campaign statements.
Raybould said the universal cap would apply to individuals, corporations and PACs but would not limit a candidate’s personal funds contributed to their own campaign. “The thought is you depress the cost and you don't have this tremendous escalation to keep going out and getting more funds,” she said, framing the bill as a first step toward reducing the outsized role of wealth in state and local races.
Supporters, including Common Cause Nebraska, urged the committee to adopt measures to reduce the influence of big contributors and cited comparative data about high spending in recent statewide and local contests. Gavin Geis of Common Cause presented preliminary figures from 2024 campaign filings showing roughly $23 million in donations last year, an average of about $200,000 per legislative race and 36 candidates who received more than $100,000.
Opponents including the ACLU of Nebraska and the Nebraska Chamber of Commerce argued the proposal raises constitutional free‑speech concerns, would disadvantage candidates who rely on grassroots support, and could increase the use of outside independent expenditure groups or out‑of‑state spending that avoids state reporting. Spike Eichol of the ACLU said limits on contributions to candidates do not address wealthy candidates’ ability to self‑fund and warned that “the answer for speech that you don't like or for money that's being spent by a particular candidate is to have alternative speech.” Kent Rogert of the Nebraska Chamber emphasized disclosure rules currently in Nebraska law and warned the limits would push more money into independent expenditure groups that disclose later or not at all.
David Hunter, executive director of the Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission, testified in a neutral capacity and advised the committee that under Nebraska statute the “election period” is defined for reporting as the calendar year of the election and recommended clarifying language if drafters intend limits tied to the election cycle rather than calendar‑year reporting. The committee discussed enforcement, possible circumvention (straw donors, PAC proliferation, off‑year fundraising), and constitutional constraints shaped by U.S. Supreme Court precedents.
No committee action on LB672 was recorded at the hearing; the sponsor said she would consider refinements and follow up legislation.
