Committee recommends ‘do not pass’ on bill that would require non‑interest campaign accounts

House Bill 1157, which would add the phrase "non interest bearing" to statutory requirements for campaign accounts, drew sustained questions from lawmakers and opposition from at least one party official before the committee approved a motion to recommend the bill "do not pass." Secretary of State Michael Howe told the committee his office supports the bill as a clarification to campaign finance law.

"For the record, Michael Howe, North Dakota secretary of state, and we are in support of house bill 1157. This is a minor change. It's a clarification change," Howe said, explaining his office had received repeated inquiries from candidates and staff about whether campaign funds could be placed in interest‑bearing accounts and how any interest should be reported.

The bill's stated effect is to require that campaign contributions be deposited in a non‑interest bearing bank account. "You must put your campaign finance, contributions into a non interest bearing bank account," Howe said. He and other witnesses said the change is meant to resolve ambiguity in current law about how bank interest on campaign funds should be characterized for reporting and whether it would be treated as a contribution or other category.

Several committee members voiced practical concerns. Representative Clameen and Representative Killeen questioned the burden on small candidates and whether banks would be prepared to set up non‑interest accounts on request. Representative Tholman described past confusion when he first tried to open a campaign account and said some local bankers did not recognize the product.

Representative Killeen and others proposed alternatives during debate. One frequently discussed option was adding a reporting requirement — for example, to require reporting of interest earned only if it exceeded $200 in a reporting period — rather than banning interest entirely. Secretary Howe said his office would be willing to work with the committee on language if the committee preferred an amendment.

Travis Zablotney, identified as "Minot, district 5 chairman of the republican party and the northwest regional chairman," spoke in opposition on behalf of his district, saying his group had deliberately moved district funds into an interest‑bearing account to be "good stewards" of donor money and did not see a problem the bill corrected. "Without an identified problem that we're trying to prevent, I would, most likely, you know, definitely be, against this change," Zablotney said.

After extended discussion and offers to draft an amendment (including an offer from Representative Killeen to prepare language to require reporting of interest over a threshold), Representative Moshenbacher moved that the committee recommend "do not pass" on House Bill 1157. The motion was seconded by Representative Hileman and carried on a roll call: tally 11 yes, 0 no, 2 absent. Representative Heilman was later listed as the bill carrier to the floor.

The committee record shows the secretary of state's office raised the issue in response to calls from candidates and noted a small number of statewide campaigns may hold large balances; Howe cited past gubernatorial contests that together raised "over $7,000,000" as an example of accounts that could accrue non‑trivial interest if placed in higher‑yield accounts. Committee members repeatedly emphasized the legislature — not the secretary of state's office — sets reporting categories and thresholds.

Votes at a glance

- House Bill 1157 — Motion: "Do not pass" (moved by Representative Moshenbacher; seconded by Representative Hileman). Committee recommendation: do not pass approved; tally 11 yes, 0 no, 2 absent.

Why it matters: The bill would change how campaign funds are held and reported statewide, affecting candidates, party committees and political action committees. Opponents argued the change could prevent organizations from earning modest interest on held funds, while supporters and the secretary of state's office said the amendment would clarify reporting requirements and avoid ambiguity about how interest should be labeled and spent.

What’s next: The committee voted to recommend "do not pass." Representative Heilman was named carrier to the floor.