Committee hears competing proposals on campaign security, disclosure and public financing
Loading...
Summary
Lawmakers reviewed bills to allow campaign funds for candidate security (HB 10‑31), require certification for low‑activity committees (HB 10‑81), increase transparency for large outside donors (HB 10‑83 / HB 12‑01), and pilot voter‑funded elections for Executive Council (HB 18‑38). Proponents cited protection from threats and reducing big‑money influence; opponents raised fiscal and practical concerns.
CONCORD — The House Election Law Committee took testimony Thursday on multiple campaign‑finance proposals, touching on candidate safety, small‑committee reporting, donor transparency and a pilot public‑financing plan for Executive Council races.
Representative Wendy Thomas, sponsor of HB 10‑31, said the bill simply allows candidates to use campaign funds for ‘‘reasonable’’ security measures — cameras, alarms, security personnel and cybersecurity — and that the change reflects rising threats to public servants. ‘‘These are not isolated incidents,’’ she told the committee, citing recent national acts of violence and threats she said she has personally received. The bill mirrors federal language that permits similar expenditures in federal campaigns and would cap campaign spending on security at $3,000 in the current draft; Thomas said limits and guardrails are negotiable.
Representative Connie Lane and Representative Keith Howard described HB 10‑81 requiring political committees with low or no activity to electronically certify whether they exceeded $1,000 in receipts or expenditures so the public record can distinguish inactive committees from non‑filers. Supporters said the certification would be a low‑burden way to improve transparency and reduce unnecessary enforcement work.
Representative Muirhead and others introduced HB 18‑38, a narrowly targeted pilot to fund Executive Council campaigns through a small fee on vehicle registrations and vanity plates and by providing participating candidates with small‑dollar certificates. Supporters and advocates including Open Democracy and campaign‑finance reform groups argued such voter‑funded models (similar to Seattle’s vouchers or Maine’s public financing) reduce dependence on large donors, diversify candidate pools and encourage grassroots outreach. Citizens and opponents questioned the fiscal offsets and postal costs for distribution of certificates; one witness said mandatory fees could be regressive if the design is poor.
Representative Muirhead framed HB 12‑01 and HB 10‑83 as close to the same transparency goal: requiring tax‑exempt organizations or pass‑through entities that give large amounts to gubernatorial or executive‑council efforts to disclose original sources of funding above thresholds. Proponents argued the bills close a common “dark‑money” pathway used by national groups and PACs; critics raised questions about administrative complexity and thresholds.
The committee did not vote on any of the measures and asked for follow‑up fiscal estimates and draft language clarifying definitions and thresholds.
