Bill Description: House Bill 603 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.
Rating: +1
NOTE: House Bill 603 is similar to House Bill 463, introduced earlier this session. It is also 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.
NOTE: The Senate Amendment to House Bill 603 has made this already weak bill even weaker, stripping out the enforcement mechanism altogether and exempting "any board, commission, or other organization of this state that obtains its funding from dues, fees, or tax assessments paid by its members."
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 to sponsor events promoting specific events on contentious issues.
House Bill 603 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, as set forth in section 67-2402(1), Idaho Code, unless the department is required to do so by law or has received prior written permission from the governor director of such department."
The bill creates two substantial exceptions, however. The first is for "any donation or sponsorship to any nongovernmental event or organization made by the state board of education, the industrial commission, or any board or commission within the department of self-governing agencies set forth in section 67-2601(2), Idaho Code." For these organizations, donations or sponsorships "shall be approved by the chief executive officer of such board or commission, unless the donation or sponsorship is required by law."
The next exception is for "any donation or sponsorship to any nongovernmental event or organization made by any state educational institution, as set forth in section 33-101, Idaho Code." For these institutions, donations or sponsorships "shall be approved by the president of the respective state educational institution, unless the donation or sponsorship is required by law."
This exception is particularly troubling as it removes accountability from Idaho's public universities, which are some of the worst offenders when it comes to funneling money to radical events and organizations.
Using public money to donate to or sponsor nongovernmental events or organizations is never the proper role of government.
This bill could reduce such objectionable spending to some degree, but any reduction would depend on the whims of the governor, the respective chief executive officers of the state's many boards and commissions, and the presidents of Idaho's universities.
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 a booth or table at an event.
(0)
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 603 would require the Division of Financial Management to "provide a report that lists all sponsorships and donations made by any department, board, commission, state educational institution, 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 by Feb. 1 of each year.
While the financial impact of this bill would depend on the decisions made by various politicians, bureaucrats, and university presidents, these annual reports should provide increased accountability. The primary purpose of these reports would be to provide information to relevant legislative committees, which 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.
(+1)
