Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Campaign Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears support for bill to let campaign funds cover reasonable security costs
Summary
Witnesses at the House Rules Committee hearing urged passage of HB 4,017, saying it would clarify that campaign funds may pay for reasonable security-related expenses (alarms, cameras, monitoring) when those costs arise from candidacy or holding office; proponents said the Secretary of State would provide implementing guidance.
House Committee on Rules Chair Nathan Bowman opened a public hearing on House Bill 4,017 on Feb. 5, 2026, a proposal to clarify that campaign contributions may be used to pay for reasonable security-related expenses when those expenses stem from being a candidate or holding public office.
Witnesses representing the electronic security industry and ADT Home Security framed the bill as a narrow clarification of existing campaign-finance law. "This bill simply clarifies that when safety risks arise because of public service and running for office, candidates and elected officials may take reasonable steps to address them," said Rang Lisonbee, representing ADT and the Electronic Security Association. Holly Borgman, vice president of government affairs for ADT, told the committee she receives frequent calls from officials seeking security assistance and said, "No one should have to choose between the safety of their family and the right to engage in the political process."
Taylor Criddle of the Electronic Security Association described the bill's statutory language and said HB 4,017 amends section 1 of ORS 260.407 to make clear that reasonable professionally installed security — alarm systems, cameras, access control and monitoring services — may be charged to campaign funds when the need is connected to public service. Criddle also said the proposal aligns with ORS 244.02 by specifying that conversion of equipment to personal use after leaving office would not be treated as a prohibited gift.
Committee members asked practical questions about what qualifies as "reasonable" and whether consumer devices such as Ring cameras or hiring private security would be covered. Supporters replied the measure is intentionally not overly prescriptive and that the Secretary of State has broad rulemaking authority to update the campaign finance manual and election guidelines to define reasonable items and reporting requirements.
The hearing record includes industry witnesses urging a favorable vote; no formal committee action on HB 4,017 was taken at the meeting. Chair Bowman closed the public hearing after members had time for questions, and the committee moved on to other items on the agenda.
What happens next: HB 4,017 remains under consideration by the House Rules Committee; if the committee files a report it could send the bill to later floor action and would rely on the Secretary of State for implementation guidance if enacted.
