A BILL for an Act to create and enact chapter 16.1-08.2 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to campaign disclosure statements; to amend and reenact sections 15.1-09-08, 15.1-09-19, and 16.1-01-12, subdivision b of subsection 2 of section 16.1-10-02, section 16.1-10-04.1, subdivision f of subsection 8 of section 51-28-01, subsection 11 of section 54-66-01, and section 54-66-02 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to campaign disclosure statements, authorized use of state property for political purposes, and inflationary adjustments for campaign finance reporting thresholds; to repeal chapter 16.1-08.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to campaign disclosure statements; to provide a penalty; to provide for application; and to provide an effective date.
HB 1377 would substantially rewrite North Dakota’s campaign finance disclosure laws by repealing chapter 16.1-08.1 and replacing it with a new chapter 16.1-08.2. The bill sets out new definitions and reporting rules for candidates, candidate committees, political committees, political parties, measure committees, conduits, corporations, associations, and federal committees that engage in state-level political activity. It requires electronic registration and filing, establishes pre-election, supplemental, and year-end disclosure schedules, and expands the information that must be reported about contributions, expenditures, and certain large donors.
The bill also adds or revises rules for special categories of political activity. It creates separate requirements for state political parties, ballot-measure committees, federal committees making state-related independent expenditures, and conduits that pass through contributions. It includes detailed disclosure of the “ultimate and true source” of funds in some circumstances, prohibits foreign national contributions and expenditures, and imposes restrictions on the use of campaign funds for personal benefit, loans, and certain payments. In addition, it updates rules on political advertising disclaimers, the use of state property for political purposes, and inflation-based adjustments to reporting thresholds beginning in 2028.
If enacted, HB 1377 would replace the existing campaign disclosure framework with a more detailed and reorganized reporting system, affecting candidates for state, local, and school district offices, political parties, political committees, corporations, associations, and ballot-measure groups. It would shift filing to the secretary of state for many entities, require more frequent and more specific disclosures, and create new penalties, audit authority, and late-fee provisions. The bill also amends related statutes governing school district candidate filings, election offenses, political advertising, state property use, and lobbying disclosure thresholds, while preserving 2025 reporting under the repealed chapter for that year’s activity.
The bill appears to have received strong support at earlier stages, with unanimous or near-unanimous second-reading votes in both chambers before ultimately failing on May 2, 2025. The voting pattern suggests broad agreement with the general goal of updating and standardizing campaign finance disclosure rules, but not enough final support to enact the measure. No committee transcript was provided, so the available record shows legislative interest in the topic but no detailed recorded debate in the materials supplied.
The main points of contention likely centered on the bill’s breadth and the compliance burden it would place on political actors. The measure expands reporting obligations, shortens some filing timelines, adds audit and penalty provisions, and requires more detailed donor/source disclosure, including for measure committees and federal committees operating in state politics. Entities affected by the new rules—especially political committees, ballot-measure sponsors, corporations, associations, and smaller local candidates—would likely have been most sensitive to the increased administrative and legal exposure. The bill’s failure after earlier support suggests that, even if the overall transparency goals were broadly accepted, some legislators may have objected to the scope, complexity, or enforcement mechanisms of the rewrite.