Conference committee adds AG, governor's-residence language and sets late-filing fines in campaign-reporting bill

The conference committee on House Bill 1377 on Thursday afternoon approved adding two amendments — language referencing an Attorney General opinion and provisions related to the governor’s residence — and set a tiered fine schedule for late campaign finance filings, while also approving a provision to make late fees and the identity of the fined person publicly available in a Secretary of State–prescribed format.

The changes came during a multi-member House-Senate meeting that combined policy discussion with three formal votes. “Let's call this conference committee to order on House Bill 13 77,” the committee chair said at the start of the session.

Committee members said they were trying to strike a balance between enforcement and fairness. Representative Schauer said the House preferred smaller initial penalties: “I would still rather have the 25.” Chair Steiner described the compromise that emerged on fines as reasonable: “50 is reasonable to me.”

Why it matters: The language and votes affect how the state enforces campaign reporting deadlines, how much money late filers pay, and what information is shown to voters on the Secretary of State’s public campaign-finance pages. The committee discussed system capabilities, who the rules should cover, and how itemization and beginning/ending balance disclosures differ for statewide and legislative candidates.

Most important facts

- The committee voted to add the Attorney General–opinion language and the governor’s-residence language to HB 1377 and approved the amendment by roll call.

- The committee approved a tiered late-filing fine schedule that the members described as a compromise: $50 for the first late interval, $100 for the next interval and $500 for later delinquencies.

- The committee approved language directing the Secretary of State to make “any late fees levied by the Secretary of State under this section and the identity of the person subject to a late fee” publicly available “through the format prescribed by the Secretary of State.” A committee member read that text aloud before the vote.

Discussion details

Members from both chambers described prior tensions over process and said they came to the session to negotiate policy. Senate members said some changes were rewrites and reorganizations of current statute; House members repeatedly said they wanted to defend existing transparency standards and avoid appearing to reduce public access.

Senators and representatives also debated whether legislative candidates should be treated the same as statewide officeholders. Several senators argued statewide campaigns have full-time staff and compliance resources; several House members said most legislators are part-time and would rely on simpler reporting tools.

Committee members discussed the new campaign-finance software the Secretary of State plans to deploy. Several speakers said the new system will show late filings and fines on a front-page dashboard and will use deposit dates rather than receipt dates for contributions. Sarah Roark, identified in the meeting as a caucus leader, described the office’s reminder practice, saying candidates receive numerous prompts before a fine is imposed.

Procedure and votes

- Motion to include the Attorney General opinion and the governor’s-residence language: motion moved and seconded; roll-call vote approved (committee recorded affirmative votes by members present).

- Motion on fines: a motion adopting the compromise fine schedule ($50/$100/$500) was moved and seconded and approved by roll call.

- Motion to require public posting of late fees and the identity of the person subject to a late fee (page 27, lines 1–3 in the House bill text as read into the record): moved, seconded and approved by roll call.

Points of contention

House members repeatedly said they did not want to cede transparency and expressed discomfort with any language or process that could be described as a rollback. Senate members urged that reorganizing and rewriting statutory text was intended to clarify rather than to eliminate transparency. Members also debated whether to preserve itemized transaction disclosure for all candidates or allow categories/aggregation for certain candidate classes.

Other clarifications and context

Committee members discussed several technical changes that are in the package or under consideration: hard calendar dates for filing, use of deposit date rather than receipt date for contributions, and whether campaign committees may use campaign funds to pay fines (members said that question became legally complicated for committees and was not finalized in the meeting).

What’s next

The committee recessed with plans to reconvene later; members said they intended to continue negotiating the remaining differences on itemization, beginning/ending balances, and categories for statewide versus legislative candidates.

Ending

The committee voted on several amendments and left remaining issues — particularly whether and how to require beginning-and-ending balances and how to treat itemization versus categories — for further negotiation.