Bill Description: House Bill 463 would prohibit state agencies and departments from donating to nongovernmental organizations or sponsoring their events without written permission from the governor or an agency head.
NOTE: House Bill 463 is similar to the original version of House Bill 170 from the 2023 session, which passed the House 55-14-1, but did not receive a vote on the Senate floor.
Does it increase government spending (for objectionable purposes) or debt? Conversely, does it decrease government spending or debt?
In recent years, various state agencies, including the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, have made significant financial payments to nongovernmental organizations for events featuring contentious issues and viewpoints.
House Bill 463 would create Section 67-2360, Idaho Code, to say, "No donation or sponsorship to any nongovernmental event or organization shall be made by or in the name of any of the twenty (20) departments of the state government unless the department is required to do so by law or has received prior written permission from the governor."
It also says, "Any donation or sponsorship to any nongovernmental event or organization made by any board or commission of state government, including but not limited to those entities within the department of self-governing agencies set forth in section 67-2601, Idaho Code, shall be approved by the chief executive officer of such board or commission."
Using public money to donate to or sponsor nongovernmental events or organizations is not the proper role of government. This bill could reduce such objectionable spending, but it would depend on the governor or the respective chief executive officers of the state's many boards and commissions refusing to authorize it.
An additional problem with these provisions is that they apply only to a "donation or sponsorship," but not to other ways public money might be funneled to nongovernmental events or organizations, such as paying them for advertising or paying a registration fee to have an information booth at an event.
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 463 would require the Division of Financial Management to "provide a report that lists all sponsorships and donations made by any department, board, commission, or other entity of state government to the chairs of the joint finance-appropriations committee, the house revenue and taxation committee, and the senate local government and taxation committee." This report would be due no later than Feb. 1 of each year.
While the financial impact of this bill would depend entirely on the decisions made by various politicians and bureaucrats, these annual reports would provide increased accountability. The primary purpose of these reports would be to provide information to relevant legislative committees. The reports would also be a matter of public record. A public record lets individuals and watchdog organizations have a much clearer picture of how public money is used — and misused — to subsidize the missions and priorities of various nongovernmental events and organizations.
STAY CONNECTED with the latest news, research and opinions from the Gem State.