Bill Description: House Bill 414 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. It would also require state agencies to fill or forfeit vacant positions and report reimbursed travel costs.

Rating: -3

NOTE: House Bill 414 essentially combines House Bill 413 (+1 Freedom Index) and House Bill 379 (-4 Freedom Index). 

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?

House Bill 414 would create sections 67-3520 and 67-3520A, Idaho Code. The purpose, according to the bill, is to discover and eliminate government waste. 

Under this bill, each state department and agency would be required to "identify the number of currently vacant appropriated FTP, including portions of FTP, within such department that were vacant for more than one hundred eighty (180) calendar days as of the end of the previous fiscal year."

It further says that vacant full-time positions (FTPs) "shall be eliminated, and the amount budgeted for the payment of salaries and wages, including associated fringe benefits, of such eliminated FTP shall be reduced in the department's annual budget submission."

Alternatively, the department or agency may, "if the vacant FTP, or portion of FTP, has been vacant for less than one (1) year," request to retain the vacant FTP, or portion of the FTP. In such cases, the department or agency "shall fully fund the vacant FTP, or portion of FTP, from its existing funds and shall fill the vacancy as soon as practicable."

While these provisions could lead to less government hiring and spending, they could also push state departments and agencies to fill vacant but unnecessary FTPs in order to avoid budget reductions. 

The bill would also require state departments and agencies to report to the Legislature "all travel expenses from the preceding fiscal year," which means "costs associated with reimbursement of travel or subsistence pursuant to the standard travel pay and allowance act of 1949, chapter 20, title 67, Idaho Code."

(+1)

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 414 would create Chapter 8, Title 74, Idaho Code, to impose new reporting requirements on "candidates for statewide offices, statewide elected officials, and officers-elect of statewide offices."

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 $10,000.

(-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 reporting requirements in this bill for travel not funded by government only apply to statewide elected officials and candidates for statewide elected office, not to other candidates, elected officials, or government employees. 

The reporting requirement only applies to "costs associated with reimbursement of travel or subsistence" by the state. It does not apply to travel funded by outside entities. 

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. 

(-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 statewide elected official or candidate for statewide elected office who fails to report his or her travel within 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 violating 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)