Committee on Elections signals agreement to lower party donation caps and reinstate $200 cash limit in draft of House Bill 2054

Members of the Committee on Elections discussed proposed amendments to House Bill 2054 on campaign finance, with members signaling agreement to lower party donation caps, tighten district limits and reinstate a cash contribution cap.

The chair of the meeting said the committee’s draft would reduce statewide party committee donation limits from $50,000 to $30,000 (later adjusted in discussion toward $35,000) and cut district and county caps to $10,000. “We would like to suggest ... we reduce the maximum from 50,000 to 30,000,” the chair said. Another committee member said, “I think we could live with 35,” when asked about using an inflation-based calculation to set the higher limit.

The committee also addressed the statute’s cash contribution limit, which had been removed earlier in drafting. The chair proposed reinstating a cash limit and raising it from $100 to $200. “We would reinstitute the cash limit, but raise it from a hundred dollars to $200,” the chair said, noting that restoring a cash cap would increase support for the measure in both chambers.

Committee members discussed an existing adjustment affecting district attorney races: the committee referenced a change that increases contribution limits for DA contests in less-populous jurisdictions (doubling lower-tier limits from $500 to $1,000 where population is under 50,000) while aligning higher-tier districts with senate-level limits in more populous counties. A member explained the change was intended to account for the higher costs of campaigning in large counties such as Johnson County.

On accounting and reporting, the committee’s revisor (staff) explained the bill’s language was not prescribing two mandatory accounting systems. Rather, the draft lists two suggested methods a campaign could use to segregate funds intended for a general election so such funds are not spent during the primary. The revisor said campaigns may choose one of the methods or another acceptable method so long as they ensure funds raised for a general election are not spent before the primary concludes. “You could do one of those two options, or you could choose some other method,” the revisor said.

Committee discussion also addressed how party committees’ support for candidates is treated in law. The revisor said the draft clarifies current practice by limiting monetary contributions but not limiting expenditures a party committee makes on behalf of a candidate. “It limits monetary contributions, but there is no limit on expenditures that are made by a party committee on behalf of a candidate,” the revisor said, adding the change was intended to make explicit what party committees already do.

Committee members asked for a written summary of the agreed changes. One member asked staff to circulate the revisions and the committee asked a meeting advisor to prepare and distribute a summary to treasurers and other interested parties. The chair noted that the Public Disclosure Commission (formerly the Governmental Ethics Commission) would publish new guidance for treasurers once legislation is finalized.

There was no recorded roll-call vote on the substance of House Bill 2054 during the discussion. At the start of the meeting the chair said, if members were in agreement, the committee would “move to concur in both chambers” on House Bill 2,056; the transcript records the proposed concurrence but does not record a formal vote or tally.

What was discussed but not decided: the committee’s remarks reflect negotiated, draft language and members’ agreement in the meeting. Committeemembers referred repeatedly to the text as drafted and to earlier versions that had moved through each chamber; the transcript does not record a final, adopted amendment or a formal committee vote on House Bill 2054 during this session.

Votes and formal actions recorded in the transcript

- Motion to move to concur in both chambers on House Bill 2,056 (as raised at the start of the session). Motion noted on the record; no mover/second or recorded tally in the transcript.

- Request/direction: an advisor or staff member was asked to prepare and email a summary of the committee’s changes and guidance for treasurers; this was requested by members but not recorded as a formal, binding committee order.