Conference committee reviews differences in HB1377 on campaign reporting, fines and IT checkbook

The conference committee on House Bill 1377 met to compare the House and Senate versions and to isolate significant differences before reconvening later the same day.

Representative Schauer, the House member walking the committee through its amendments, outlined 21 differences between the chambers and highlighted four areas of priority: whether expenditures should be itemized or reported by category, reporting of beginning and ending fund balances, the schedule and disclosure of late‑filing fines, and whether the Secretary of State will publicly display certain data or offer an opt‑in digital “checkbook.”

The session opened with Chairman Porter noting a quorum. Schauer told the panel that the House added two reporting categories—"political donations" and "volunteer appreciation"—and that one basic difference is who chooses the drop‑down categories (the House versus the Secretary of State). Schauer said the House version uses itemization in some lines that the Senate did not and that some dollar amounts appear in the House text but not in the Senate text.

On ending and beginning balances, Schauer said the House was sensitive to requiring legislators, as largely part‑time or "citizen" officeholders, to disclose detailed cash totals. "If I look on yours and you end with $25,000, I don't know if I'm gonna give you any money. But if I end up $500, oh, you know, I'm gonna give you some money," he said, explaining the committee's privacy concern for non‑statewide candidates. Other members pushed back that much of the same information can be derived from reported expenditures, and some senators argued public transparency reduces voter suspicion.

The committee compared late‑filing fine schedules discussed in each version. Schauer summarized the House approach as lower initial fines with a graduated increase (discussed in the meeting as $25, then $50, then $500) and described the Senate approach discussed in the meeting as larger early fines (discussed as $100, $250, then $500). The panel also discussed a House addition that would require the Secretary of State to make late fees and the identity of fee payers publicly available; Schauer described that provision as intended to "incentivize people to pay up" and said, "I don't wanna say public shaming, but public information." Several senators said the fees are penalties for breaking state law and supported disclosure.

Committee members noted a recently released attorney general opinion that affected how one code citation should read; the committee referred to updating the statutory citation to align with the attorney general's guidance and to replace the transcript wording "North Coast Entry Code" with the correct statutory reference to the North Dakota Century Code.

Members also discussed practical implementation. Several speakers said the new Secretary of State IT platform (the "digital checkbook" or checkbook-style reporting) is being developed and that requiring separate reporting rules for statewide and non‑statewide candidates would complicate programming and raise long‑term costs to taxpayers. One senator urged making the programming consistent across candidate types so only one software path must be maintained.

The meeting produced no formal votes. The committee set a follow‑up session for the afternoon to proceed line‑by‑line through the bill and to bring the Secretary of State's subject matter expert, Vicky Steiner, and staff (identified in the meeting as Dustin) for technical clarifications. Chairman Porter closed the meeting after directing members to return prepared to work the punch list item by item.

The committee discussion combined statutory wording, penalty schedules and software implementation concerns; members said they expected many of the remaining differences would be technical and resolvable but that itemization, fund balances and the public disclosure of fines were the highest‑priority negotiable items.