Requires candidates to attest that they have not spent more than $1,000 on their election campaign.
requiring candidates to attest they have not spent more than $1,000 in an election.
I believe that both the online and handwritten forms for reporting receipts and expenditures to the campaign finance system should include this checkbox indicating that a candidate's receipts and expenditures do not exceed $1,000. This reporting is essential campaign finance transparency.
HB 389 – requiring candidates to attest they have not spent more than $1,000 in an election. House Election Law Committee Tuesday, January 28, 2025, 1:50 PM Time to read: 2mts. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: I am out of state. Please do not construe my non-appearance as a lack of interest in this bill. My experience while serving on the election law committee years ago informs me that describing any bill as simple is folly. However, I’m willing to say the intent behind the bill is a simple one: It is to minimize the cynicism and speculation over why such a high percentage of candidates do not file financial reports, as required by statute. I am aware that as of 12.16.24, 313 house candidates did not file financial reports for the 2024 General Election; nor did 6 senate candidates; nor did 1 executive council candidate. It is reasonable to ask why. While I strongly disagree with the SCOTUS decision in Citizens United, I strongly agree with its observation that disclosure of political spending is crucial to the public interest, and in the preservation of Democracy. Indeed, courts since Buckley have upheld the legality and importance of transparency in the political realm. The bill would require the placement of a checkbox be added to existing reporting forms, both online and handwritten, by which candidates would affirm that their spending was under the applicable threshold during each reporting period. This affirmation would negate the reasonable skepticism and concerns over why such a high percentage of reports are not being filed – is it really because they are exempt from filing, or is it an intentional disregard for the law, an attempt to hide, or other considerations. The Supreme Court gave us few checks on Wild West political spending, other than to allow spending be disclosed. With the stakes as high as they are, the unprecedented amounts of money flowing into presidential and even to local elections, it becomes more important each election cycle that candidates explain why detailed reports are not required of them. A simple check of the box provides the public with a degree of confidence the law is being followed. I urge OTP on HB 389. Bob Perry Strafford
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.