Panel weighs LB986 to let campaign funds pay for candidates' security; NADC urges guardrails

Elliot Bossar introduced LB986 to the Executive Board, saying the bill would permit candidates and officeholders to use campaign funds for security services and systems — from electronic equipment to personnel — and include an amendment request that would allow county officials to withhold residential addresses from public property records similar to protections available to judges and law enforcement.

"LB 986 does just that," Bossar said, describing the bill as a tool to keep candidates and public servants safe without relying on taxpayer dollars.

Supporters cited rising threats. Col. Bryan (Bryan) Waugh, superintendent of law enforcement and public safety for the Nebraska State Patrol, described the Patrol's Capitol Security Division, its staffing, and 24/7 monitoring across state facilities, and said LB986 would strengthen the state's ability to provide safety at the Capitol and other state office buildings.

Local election officials and watchdogs also gave testimony. Todd Wiltschen, the Lancaster County election commissioner, told senators he had increased security at his office and home after threats and cited a recent Institute for Strategic Dialogue report documenting increased violent rhetoric targeting public officials.

The Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission, represented by executive director Scott Danigole, took a neutral position and urged the committee to add limiting language. Danigole asked, "At what point does the campaign need to stop paying for the ongoing expense and have that expense fall to the individual?" and recommended clarifying permissible expenditures, defining duration, and granting the commission rulemaking authority to address edge cases and prevent personal spending disguised as campaign expenses.

Committee members asked whether campaign funds could be used for long‑term contracts, home security systems, bodyguards or even purchases that resemble private benefit. Bossar said the bill keeps expenditures private (campaign) dollars rather than public funds, and that existing disclosure and NADC enforcement mechanisms would provide oversight; Danigole and others warned that explicit parameters, caps or regulatory authority could reduce abuse.

What the hearing did not do: The committee took testimony but did not vote on LB986. The record included one in‑person proponent, one online proponent, and one opponent noted for the record; committee discussion closed the hearing without action.

Next steps: Sponsors indicated willingness to refine language, consider caps or clearer definitions of allowable security‑related expenses, and possibly add explicit rulemaking authority for the NADC before the bill advances.