Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Privacy And Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would remove home addresses from online campaign finance records unless individual opts in
Summary
Sen. James Manning and others supported Senate Bill 224 to prohibit publishing home addresses of individuals associated with campaign committees on the electronic campaign finance filing system; proponents cited doxxing and safety concerns and suggested public-records requests would still allow access.
Senate Bill 224 was presented to the House Rules Committee on June 4, 2025. Committee staff summarized the measure as prohibiting the Secretary of State from publishing on the electronic campaign finance filing system the residential address of any individual associated with a candidate—9s principal campaign committee, political committee, or petition committee unless the individual directs the Secretary of State to publish their address. The summary further said those addresses would remain subject to public records requests and the operative date in the bill text is Jan. 2, 2027.
Sen. James Ivory Manning Jr. testified in support and described personal experience with doxxing and threats after his home address was posted online. "There was an incident that occurred with 1 of the previous DAs in Multnomah County where people went over his house at night with weapons," Manning said, arguing the bill is a practical, safety-focused fix and noting prior protections for police officers and first responders.
Sen. Robinson (District 2) said he agreed with safety concerns but raised a different issue: access to residency information for vetting whether candidates meet residency requirements. He suggested a guarded public-records process that identifies the requester might balance safety and verification needs.
Other witnesses included an OSBA representative and a school board member who supported the bill as protecting people engaged in public service. Committee testimony closed without a committee vote during this session; the item was heard as a public hearing.
Sponsors and supporters framed the measure as balancing privacy and transparency by removing easily accessible online addresses while retaining access through formal public records requests.
