Welcome to The Disclosure Digest! Keep an eye out for new editions published on Tuesdays through June 2022.
Oklahoma House passes ballot measure disclosure bill
The Oklahoma House of Representatives passed a bill establishing disclosure requirements for committees supporting or opposing ballot questions on March 21. HB3147 would broaden existing definitions of certain political committees to include groups advocating for or against a ballot question. The bill was introduced on Feb. 7 and sponsored by State Reps. Rob Standridge (R), Kevin West (R), and Kevin McDugle (R).
What the bill would do
Oklahoma law defines local political committees as “composed of one or more persons the purpose of which is to support the election of a specific candidate.” This definition applies to committees involved in municipal, county, and school board district elections. The law requires committees to file statements of financial interests according to the Oklahoma Ethics Commission’s established rules. The commission’s website says “County, Municipal and Independent School District or Career Technology District Committees receiving in excess of $1,000 or with expenditures in excess of $1,000 will file reports with the County Election Board, Municipal Clerk or School District Clerk.” These reports must contain the names, addresses, occupations, and employers of donors to the committee.
HB3147 would expand the definition of municipal, county, and school board district committees to include committees who support or oppose “questions submitted to a vote of the people.” These committees would be subject to the same disclosure requirements as those mandated for committees supporting or opposing a candidate for public office. The bill also directs the Oklahoma Ethics Commission to “develop online reporting processes for the reporting of information required by the County Campaign Finance and Financial Disclosure Act, the Municipal Campaign Finance and Financial Disclosure Act, and the Technology Center District and Independent School District Campaign Finance and Financial Disclosure Act, as funds are available, to develop and maintain online reporting.”
Legislators have introduced bills in at least four states that deal in some way with ballot measure contributions. Illinois HB3541, Maine LD1754, and Missouri HB1505 and HB2891 would implement or increase disclosure requirements for committees promoting or opposing a ballot measure. Illinois HB4927 and Nebraska LB733 would prohibit contributions from foreign nationals to ballot question committees, while Maine LD1782 and Nebraska LB1139 would prohibit contributions from certain corporations and businesses.
Oklahoma is one of 23 Republican trifectas. The Republican Party controls the office of governor and both chambers of the state legislature.
Legislative actions
After its introduction on Feb. 7, the bill was referred to the House Elections and Ethics Committee. The committee voted unanimously to advance the bill on March 1, and the full House voted 88-4 to approve it on March 21. The bill was referred to the Senate Rules Committee on March 29. The Rules Committee advanced an amended version of the bill in a unanimous vote and referred it to the Senate Appropriations Committee on April 6. The amendments restored the existing definition of a committee as “one or more persons” rather than “two or more persons” and removed proposed changes to notarization requirements for committee statements of organization.
Reactions
Bill sponsor Rep. Kevin West (R), said the bill’s focus was transparency. “It’s a level of transparency and I think most Oklahomans appreciate the transparency,” West said, adding, “You never really know. You see a lot of advertising, but you never really know who’s really for or against it and it just gives the citizens one more level to help them determine if they are for or against it.” House Elections and Ethics Committee Chairman Jim Olson (R), who voted for the bill, said “we should always be looking for ways to strengthen our most sacred democratic process by enhancing overall election integrity and transparency to ensure our elections are not victims of the concerning activity we’re seeing in other states.” At the time of this writing, there were no statements available from opponents of the bill.
What we’ve been reading
- Alaska’s News Source, “Alaska lawsuit challenges new donor disclosure requirements,” April 7, 2022
- The New York Times, “Wealthy GOP Donors Form Secret Coalitions to Wield More Influence,” April 6, 2022
- Bitcoin Magazine, “How The Freedom Convoy Could Have Protected Donation Privacy With Whirlpool,” March 31, 2022
The big picture
Number of relevant bills by state: We’re currently tracking 138 pieces of legislation dealing with donor disclosure and privacy. Of these bills, 112 are primarily focused on disclosure, and 26 are primarily focused on privacy. To reflect this distinction, the charts in this section and the recent legislative actions below are divided between disclosure legislation and privacy legislation. On the maps below, a darker shade of green indicates a greater number of relevant bills. Click here for a complete list of all the bills we’re tracking.
Donor disclosure legislation
Number of relevant bills by current legislative status:
Number of relevant bills by partisan status of sponsor(s):
Donor privacy legislation
Number of relevant bills by current legislative status:
Number of relevant bills by partisan status of sponsor(s):
Recent legislative actions
For complete information on all of the bills we are tracking, click here.
Donor disclosure legislation
-
California SB1352: This bill would require elected officials and campaign committees to report contributions of more than $1,000 digitally to the secretary of state within 72 hours of receiving the contribution.
- Democratic sponsorship
- This bill was referred to committee on April 6.
-
California SB1360: This bill would require certain political advertisements to identify the top contributors to the campaign committee paying for the advertisement with no minimum contribution threshold.
- Democratic sponsorship
- This bill was referred to committee on April 4
-
Colorado HB1060: This bill would prohibit a donor from making a contribution under any name but their own.
- Democratic sponsorship
- This bill passed both chambers on April 8.
-
Connecticut HB05455: This bill would require committees to report referendum spending as an independent expenditure. It would also require committees to disclose donors for certain types of referendum spending.
- Unknown sponsorship
- This bill was referred to committee on April 5.
-
Connecticut SB00431: This bill would require committees to report referendum spending as an independent expenditure. It would also require committees to disclose donors for certain types of referendum spending.
- Democratic sponsorship
- This bill was referred to committee on April 8.
-
Florida H0921: This bill would prohibit a foreign national from making or offering to make contributions or expenditures in connection with any election held in the state.
- Republican sponsorship
- This bill was enacted on April 6.
-
Kentucky HB740: This bill would require a candidate exempt from filing a campaign finance report to file a 30 day post-election report of receipts and disbursements. It would also require a candidate who is exempt from filing for the primary who advances to the regular election to refile for the filing exemption.
- Republican sponsorship
- This bill was vetoed on April 8.
-
Louisiana SB473: This bill would require postsecondary education institutions to disclose the source of any foreign gifts.
- Republican sponsorship
- This bill was referred to committee on April 6.
-
Maryland HB340: This bill would prohibit a person from running for public office or being the treasurer of a campaign committee if that person has violated campaign disclosure regulations and failed to pay the penalty. The bill would modify penalties for these violations and require prosecution to be instituted within four years of the offense.
- Democratic sponsorship
- This bill was referred to committee on April 7.
-
Maryland SB15: This bill would allow the state board of elections to impose a civil penalty for failure to report and maintain a record of campaign contributions. It would also prohibit an individual from running for office or becoming the treasurer of a campaign committee if they fail to pay a civil penalty under this section.
- Democratic sponsorship
- This bill passed both chambers on April 7.
-
Oklahoma HB3147: This bill would amend the definition of municipal, county, and school board district committees to include committees who support or oppose ballot measures.
- Republican sponsorship
- This bill was referred to committee on April 6.
-
South Carolina H5194: This bill would prohibit lobbyists from making contributions to candidates for public office.
- Bipartisan sponsorship
- This bill was referred to committee on April 5.
-
Virginia HB492: This bill would require campaign committee treasurers to keep accounts of campaign contributions and expenditures and authorizes the Department of Elections to conduct reviews of a percentage of campaign committees. The Department of Elections would report the results of the reviews to the State Board of Elections, the Governor, and the General Assembly and make them available on the Department’s website.
- Democratic sponsorship
- This bill was enacted on April 8.
Donor privacy legislation
-
Kansas HB2109: This bill would prohibit a state agency from requesting or releasing the personal information of donors to 501(c) organizations.
- Unknown sponsorship
- This bill passed both chambers on April 8.
-
Colorado HB1156: This bill would exempt candidates from having to file an annual personal disclosure statement if they file their personal disclosure statement within 180 days of Jan. 10.
- Bipartisan sponsorship
- This bill passed both chambers on April 4.
Thank you for reading! Let us know what you think! Reply to this email with any feedback or recommendations.
Learn More
