Bill Description: House Bill 379 would impose new reporting requirements on statewide elected officials and candidates for statewide elected office when they engage in private travel paid for by another individual or entity.
Rating: -4
NOTE: House Bill 379 is related to House Bill 378 (2025) and House Bill 320 (2025).
Does it violate the spirit or the letter of either the United States Constitution or the Idaho Constitution? Examples include restrictions on speech, public assembly, the press, privacy, private property, or firearms. Conversely, does it restore or uphold the protections guaranteed in the US Constitution or the Idaho Constitution?
House Bill 379 would create Chapter 8, Title 74, Idaho Code, to impose new reporting requirements on "a candidate for statewide office who will appear on a general election ballot, a statewide elected official, and an officer-elect of any statewide office who has prevailed in a general election but has not yet received the oath of office."
These people would be required to "report to the secretary of state all travel outside of Idaho reasonably related to a governmental purpose or to an issue of state, national, or international public policy paid for by another individual or entity."
These required reports would have to include "the travel destination; the dates of travel; the purpose of the travel; and the name and address of the person or entity that paid for the travel, including whether the travel was a campaign contribution and, in the case of currently serving state officials, whether the travel was made in such state official's capacity as a state official."
These reporting requirements violate the privacy of both the person required to file the reports and the person or entity who paid for the travel. It is worth noting that any travel that was a campaign contribution is already reported through normal campaign finance disclosures. Requiring reporting of personal travel outside the realm of campaign finance is government overreach.
(-1)
Does it increase government spending (for objectionable purposes) or debt? Conversely, does it decrease government spending or debt?
The bill's fiscal note estimates that adding a filing portal to the Secretary of State's website reporting system will cost $5,000. (House Bill 320 estimated the cost of a similar filing portal at $10,000, and it is unclear why that estimate was changed for this bill.)
(-1)
Does it violate the principle of equal protection under the law? Examples include laws that discriminate or differentiate based on age, gender, or religion or which apply laws, regulations, rules, or penalties differently based on such characteristics. Conversely, does it restore or protect the principle of equal protection under the law?
The bill only applies to statewide elected officials and candidates for statewide elected office, not to other candidates, elected officials, or government employees. It is worth considering why this enhanced scrutiny of travel expenses would be carved out separately from normal campaign finance reporting and applied only to some candidates and elected officials.
NOTE: A separate bill (House Bill 378) would apply similar requirements to legislators and legislative candidates. Neither bill would apply to other elected or appointed officials or to government employees, more broadly.
(-1)
Does it directly or indirectly create or increase penalties for victimless crimes or non-restorative penalties for non-violent crimes? Conversely, does it eliminate or decrease penalties for victimless crimes or non-restorative penalties for non-violent crimes?
The bill says any legislator or legislative candidate who "fails to file the report required pursuant to subsection (2) of this section within thirty (30) days shall be subject to a late fee in the amount of twenty-five dollars ($25.00) each day until the report is filed, which fee shall be deposited in the public school income fund."
Of note, most fees for violations of campaign finance reporting requirements are capped at $1,000. This fee (which exists outside of normal campaign finance reporting), however, is uncapped. This means a statewide elected official or candidate for statewide elected office (including an unsuccessful candidate whose campaign had concluded) who failed to file a report would accrue fees at a rate of more than $9,000 per year.
(-1)
