Bill Description: House Bill 398 would repeal and replace Idaho's laws related to lobbying, expand the definition of lobbying, and add new reporting requirements.
Rating: -3
NOTE: House Bill 399 is related to House Bill 309 (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?
Lobbying can be viewed as constitutionally protected free speech as well as an activity within the free market. From either perspective, House Bill 398 expands government by limiting free speech and increasing regulations for lobbyists operating within the market.
House Bill 309 would repeal seven sections of Idaho code (67-6617, 67-6618, 67-6619, 67-6619A, 67-6620, 67-6621, and 67-6622) and remove a number of definitions from Section 67-6602, Idaho Code. In their place, the bill would create Chapter 7, Title 74, Idaho Code, titled "Lobbying Disclosure."
This new chapter would make many significant changes to Idaho code.
Perhaps the most notable change — and the one most offensive to the right of free speech — is to expand the definition of "lobby" and "lobbying." Those terms would include "indirect lobbying," which is a new term created by this bill.
It would be defined as "attempting to influence the opinion of the public with respect to legislation, members of the legislature, or executive officials and encouraging the members of the public to take action with respect to such legislation or individuals and shall include but shall not be limited to attempts to influence the opinion of the public through email, text messaging, direct messaging, door-to-door solicitation, billboards, television broadcasts, radio broadcasts, online advertising, and social media messaging or solicitation."
This definition greatly expands the scope of activities that could be considered lobbying because it removes the nexus of direct contact with lawmakers or elected officials. It replaces that nexus with a wide variety of methods used to communicate with the general public about legislation.
(-1)
The new chapter would also increase the burden of reporting by increasing its frequency. Under current law, monthly reports are only required during the legislative session, and an annual report is also required. Under the provisions of this bill, monthly reports would be required year-round.
There is also a new requirement that "any expenditure" of $100 or more "that is related to any indirect lobbying efforts" be reported to the Secretary of State within 48 hours.
"Expenditures for food, refreshment, and entertainment" would be excluded from the 48-hour reporting requirement and instead be "reported as a part of the lobbyist's monthly report."
Given the expansive and problematic definition of indirect lobbying in the bill, this requirement would apply to a wide variety of communications that have nothing to do with directly lobbying an elected official.
(-1)
Another new regulation that would be imposed by this proposed law requires that any public communication that is reportable as a lobbying expense "clearly state," "Paid for by [the name of the filing entity, lobbyist's client, or lobbyist's employer]."
As with the reporting requirement above, this disclosure mandate would apply not just to direct lobbying but also to communication with the public that falls under the bill's definition of "indirect lobbying."
It would further say that "if the communication is made for the purpose of soliciting funds, the disclosure shall also clearly state 'This is an attempt to solicit funds.'" This requirement is particularly troubling because there is not always a bright line defining when communication is primarily intended to solicit funds (e.g. a "hard ask") and when the communication is primarily informational or educational but also includes an opportunity to donate (e.g. a "soft ask".)
(-1)
