Senate committee approves bill to require refunds and clearer handling when candidates switch races

Sen. Jonathan Dismang (sponsor) told the Senate State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs Committee that SB138 aims to clear up what happens to campaign money when a candidate withdraws or changes the office they seek. "What happens to those campaign funds?" he said, arguing the bill would require return of funds from the original campaign with the option to resolicit those donors.

The bill responds to a recent court decision that struck down a two‑year fundraising limitation and implements recommendations from the Ethics Commission, Director Graham Sloane said. Sloane told the committee the commission "keeps a file" of needed clarifications and that the proposed language follows the commission's guidance on refunds and reporting.

Why it matters: SB138 creates a statutory procedure for returning or re‑allocating contributions when a candidate withdraws so contributors are not unintentionally over‑committed and regulators have a predictable mechanism for enforcement. Dismang said the measure also clarifies when candidates must file statements of financial interest (SFI) after primary‑date shifts.

Members spent most of the discussion probing the mechanics and unintended consequences. Senator English asked whether existing carryover rules—allowing a candidate to keep an amount equal to the office’s annual salary—would be affected. Dismang and Sloane replied that the carryover rule is in a different statute and "those can be used for any other nonfederal office," and that SB138 targets funds raised specifically for a later‑withdrawn campaign.

Several senators pressed on the logistics of refunds. On the bill's pro‑rata approach, Sloane said, "Pro rata, I mean, it's pretty well understood," explaining the campaign would calculate net remaining funds and return each contributor's proportional share. Senators suggested clarifying the formula in statute or guidance so smaller campaigns that file reports without accountants can comply.

Privacy and disclosure debate: A contested provision would require candidates and committees to list the financial institution (name and address) where campaign funds are deposited. Several members raised security and harassment concerns, citing past incidents in which political figures said they were targeted. One senator warned the requirement could enable campaigns' banks to be "targeted" on social media. Director Sloane said the information helps investigations and noted PAC registration already requires bank information; he said investigators can subpoena records but that the listing would speed oversight.

Procedure and outcome: A motion to pass SB138 was made by Senator English and seconded by Senator Hester. After voice votes were taken, the chair announced the bill passes.

What comes next: The committee passed SB138 and returned it to the Senate process. The record shows members asked staff to consider clearer statutory language on pro‑rata calculations and whether the bank‑disclosure line can be made confidential while remaining available to investigators.