Bill Description: House Bill 399 would repeal and replace Idaho's campaign finance laws in a manner that grows government and limits free speech.
Rating: -6
NOTE: House Bill 399 is related to House Bill 308 (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 399 would repeal sections 67-6603 through 67-6616 and 67-6626 through 67-6628A, Idaho Code, and remove a number of definitions from Section 67-6602, Idaho Code.
In their place, the bill would create Chapter 3, Title 74, Idaho Code, titled Campaign Finance Transparency. This new chapter would change state law in significant ways.
Among the changes are increases in the amount each person could contribute to candidates. The limit for "aggregate contributions by any person to a candidate for the state legislature, judicial office, or local government office" would be $2,500 for the primary election and another $2,500 for the general election.
These maximums would increase to $7,500 per contributor per election for a candidate for statewide office.
The current limits are $1,000 per contributor per election for a candidate for the state legislature, judicial offices, or local government offices. The limit is $5,000 per contributor per election for a candidate for statewide office.
The current limits for contributions from a political party's county or state central committee are higher: $2,000 per contributor per election for a candidate for the state legislature, judicial offices, or local government offices, and $10,000 per contributor per election for a candidate for statewide office. These limits would be increased to $10,000 and $20,000 respectively under this bill.
This bill would consider a county or legislative district central committee of a recognized political party as "a political action committee for the purposes of filing reports under this chapter" if its spending exceeds $5,000 in a calendar year.
In general, increased contribution limits provide greater freedom for candidates and political donors. [74-3-206, 74-3-402]
(+1)
A concerning element of this bill would allow a candidate to accept contributions in excess of normal contribution limits and be exempt from the prohibition on coordination with "another person to benefit from an independent expenditure" under specific conditions.
This would happen when "independent expenditures are made in opposition to the candidate in the aggregate amount of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) per election for a candidate for the state legislature, judicial office, or local government office, two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) per election for a candidate for governor, or one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) per election for a candidate for any other statewide office."
The bill says, "The candidate is permitted to accept further contributions up to twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000), notwithstanding the provisions of section 74-3-206, Idaho Code, in order to respond to the independent expenditures." No limits are referenced in regard to the suspension of the prohibition on coordination.
It is unclear if this process could happen more than once per election cycle. If aggregate "independent expenditures are made in opposition to the candidate" beyond the trigger point, and the candidate raised contributions up to $25,000 (presumably per donor) in excess of normal contribution limits, would a second round of independent expenditures beyond the trigger point allow the candidate to raise an additional $25,000 per donor?
These provisions seem ripe for abuse and political gamesmanship. [74-3-209]
(-1)
One of the sections being repealed and replaced is Section, 67-6628A, Idaho Code, which regulates the use of "synthetic media" in electioneering communication. This law was created by House Bill 664 in 2024, and it violates free speech and the principle of equal protection under the law.
While this code is already bad, the new law created by this bill would be worse because it expands the regulations and prohibitions of the current law. It would change "electioneering communication" to "electioneering communication, expenditure by a candidate, or independent expenditure." This means a wider variety of communication would be subject to infringements on free speech. [74-3-211]
(-1)
The bill adds an onerous new reporting requirement for PACs or others that make an independent expenditure of $1,000 or more on or before the 16th day before a primary or general election. The expenditure would have to be reported within 48 hours of it being made.
Additionally, "for electioneering communications made after the sixteenth day before an election, but more than twenty-four (24) hours before any primary or general election, the report shall be filed within twenty-four (24) hours after the expenditure." [74-3-308, 74-3-404]
(-1)
Does it create, expand, or enlarge any agency, board, program, function, or activity of government? Conversely, does it eliminate or curtail the size or scope of government?
One of the more objectionable elements of this bill would require any person or political action committee treasurer filing a report for an independent expenditure to provide the Secretary of State "a digital copy of the communication that the expenditure was used to purchase or disseminate."
This requirement imposes a regulatory burden, compromises privacy, and expands the scope of the Secretary of State's office. The bill's fiscal note says the bill will require the office to "create a digital Ad Library that is available to the public through its campaign finance disclosure application. The Ad Library will require one-time funding of $144,600 for the software build, with ongoing annual costs of $25,200 for storage and bandwidth from the General Fund." [74-3-309, 74-3-404]
(-1)
Does it in any way restrict public access to information related to government activity or otherwise compromise government transparency, accountability, or election integrity? Conversely, does it increase public access to information related to government activity or increase government transparency, accountability, or election integrity?
Current Idaho election law contains a section on "commercial reporting" that says, "Each newspaper, periodical, broadcasting station, direct mailing company, printer and advertising agency which accepts expenditures from a political treasurer shall keep a current record (available to the public) listing the amounts paid and the obligations incurred by each candidate, political committee or political treasurer to such newspaper, periodical, broadcasting station, direct mailing company, printer or advertising agency."
The new law created by this bill would say, "Each newspaper, periodical, broadcasting station, direct mailing company, printer, and advertising agency shall keep a current record of any and all obligations incurred by a candidate or political action committee and payments made by a candidate or political action committee. Such records shall be made available for inspection upon request by the secretary of state."
To the extent that there is mandated reporting or recordkeeping of election-related expenditures, the purpose should be to provide transparency for the public's benefit, not for the government's. [74-3-104]
(-1)
Does it increase government spending (for objectionable purposes) or debt? Conversely, does it decrease government spending or debt?
The bill's fiscal note calls for a new, full-time investigator within the Secretary of State’s office at an annual cost of $94,300. It also calls for a one-time capital outlay of $5,000.
The fiscal note also includes the one-time funding of $144,600 plus ongoing annual costs of $25,200 for the Secretary of State’s office to create and maintain a digital ad library.
(-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 includes a variety of fines and penalties for late, missed, or inaccurate filings.
Any person who is late in filing a report required by this law will be fined $50 plus $10 per day until the report is filed. This fine can accrue up to $1,000 and higher under specific circumstances. [74-3-504]
Any person who "fails to file a report of contributions, expenditures, independent expenditures, or any other report required by this chapter shall be liable to the secretary of state for a civil fine in the amount of fifty dollars ($50.00) plus five percent (5%) of the monetary value of the amount not reported, rounded up to the nearest whole number. The secretary of state shall deposit any civil fines collected pursuant to this section in the general fund." [74-3-503(1)]
Additionally, "any person who knowingly and willfully fails to file a report required by this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, may be imprisoned for up to six (6) months." [74-3-503(2)]
Another penalty section says, "Any person who violates a provision of this chapter that does not pertain to the failure to file a report or the late filing of a report shall be liable to the secretary of state for a civil fine in the amount of two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), plus five percent (5%) of the monetary value of the amount of the expenditure related to the violation, if applicable, rounded up to the nearest whole number. The secretary of state shall deposit any civil fines collected pursuant to this section in the general fund." [74-3-505(1)]
Additionally, "any person who knowingly and willfully commits a violation of a provision of this chapter that does not pertain to the failure to file a report or the late filing of a report is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, may be imprisoned for up to six (6) months." [74-3-505(2)]
Any civil fines or late fees outstanding after 60 days "may be referred to the office of the attorney general or to the appropriate prosecuting attorney for collection." The bill adds an element of public shaming, saying the Secretary of State "may publish the delinquent accounts on the public campaign finance website." [74-3-506]
(-1)
