Lawmakers Hear Broad Opposition to Proposal to Bar Municipal Dues from Funding Lobbying

Representative Len Turcotte opened a public hearing on a non-germane amendment to House Bill 456 that would restrict how municipal membership dues may be used and require some dues to be appropriated by separate warrant article.

The change proposed by Turcotte would prohibit using annual membership dues "to pay a lobbyist or an organization that pays part of or all of the salary of a lobbyist," require financial separation of lobbying funds, and — for payments the sponsor identified as going to the New Hampshire Municipal Association (NHMA) — move those charges out of general budget line items and onto separate warrant articles to increase transparency.

The amendment drew questions from several committee members about how such a restriction could be administered in practice, how an organization would segregate funds for lobbying, and whether the change would prevent local officials from testifying in front of the Legislature.

Representative Turcotte said the core intent was to prevent taxpayer money from directly funding lobbying while preserving municipalities' ability to receive legal advice and other services. He told the committee that separating payments for lobbying into a warrant article would make the cost more visible to local voters: "That's the issue I'm trying to change and that would require, in your town as with mine ... a separate warrant article," he said.

Margaret Burns, executive director of NHMA, testified in opposition. She told the committee the amendment would "prohibit 3 specific statewide organizations representing local officials from taking positions on legislation" and would place sweeping new restrictions on many associations that receive most of their revenue from public dues. "If we can come here and provide the information as we already do on behalf of our members, then why the ban on speech?" she asked, warning that unclear limits could chill speech. "When we pass legislation that is unclear to the extent at which speech is prohibited or allowed, we chill speech," Burns said.

NHMA and other municipal organizations stressed three recurring points: (1) many local governments rely on associations for legal research and to track the large volume of bills the Legislature considers; (2) most associations receive the majority of their revenue from member dues, so requiring segregation could functionally bar them from advocacy; and (3) the associations use a member-driven process to set legislative priorities and therefore represent municipal interests, not private interests.

Kathy Stacy, president of the New Hampshire Association of Counties, said the association represents 10 counties and that an outright ban on using dues for lobbying would force dozens of local officials to travel and testify individually on bills — a less efficient and more costly approach. "This bill would not permit us to do that. We would not be able to have a lobbyist," Stacy said.

City and county officials — including Dennis Shenahan of Dover and Dave Curran, town administrator of Derry — described practical limits on local officials' ability to appear at hearings for the thousands of bills introduced each session. Shenahan said NHMA's policy development is a deliberative, multi-step process that produces a clear mandate; Curran said NHMA's weekly legal bulletin and other services are central to how municipalities keep current.

Committee members pressed for operational detail. Representative Wade asked whether segregating funds would simply prohibit an organization such as NHMA from paying a lobbyist even if lobbying were funded from a separate account. Turcotte replied that funds specifically raised for lobbying would be allowed, but not taxpayer-derived membership dues unless appropriated separately.

Burns told the committee that NHMA already makes public lobbying reports to the secretary of state and that a recently enacted digital lobbyist reporting requirement will improve transparency further. She also warned that some small associations that rely almost entirely on public dues might be unable to continue advocacy at all if the amendment's segregation requirement were enforced.

Opponents argued the amendment would create an uneven regulatory landscape: private firms and nonprofit contractors that receive taxpayer funds would not face the same restriction on advocacy that would apply to member associations, Burns said.

Supporters framed the amendment as a transparency measure to give local voters a direct say on whether tax dollars support lobbying. Turcotte noted anecdotal examples of towns paying roughly $9,500 a year to NHMA and argued that voters should have clear visibility into those amounts.

The committee heard about the existing statutory context. Several lawmakers referenced RSA 31:8 and related RSAs that govern town officers associations and other local bodies; Representative Boyd and others noted RSA 4:13(h) provides for gubernatorial proclamations (discussed in a separate bill earlier in the hearing). Burns said the amendment would override associations' member-adopted policy processes by forbidding organizations from "taking a position." She urged the committee to consider the practical effect on member services and noted that NHMA's budget is roughly in the range of $2.3 million, with about 70% derived from dues.

The hearing included multiple minutes of back-and-forth about how the associations' internal policymaking works, how members vote at NHMA's biennial policy conference, and how local appropriation processes already allow warrant articles for dues. Several testifiers said municipalities already may vote to separate dues on local warrants if they desire.

At the close of the hearing, the committee did not take an immediate vote on the amendment or on HB 456. The chair indicated no more "pink cards" (requests to testify) were pending and closed the public hearing.

Why it matters: the amendment would change how taxpayer-funded municipal dues can be spent across New Hampshire's 234 cities and towns. If enacted, it would shift the mechanics of funding advocacy and potentially alter whether statewide municipal organizations can continue in their current form without creating separate revenue sources for lobbying.

Next steps: no final committee action on that amendment was recorded in the transcript; the bill remained under committee consideration.