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 replace North Dakota’s existing campaign disclosure chapter with a new chapter 16.1-08.2 and substantially reorganize the state’s campaign finance reporting rules. The bill defines key terms such as contribution, expenditure, political committee, political purpose, conduit, foreign national, and ultimate and true source, and it sets out registration and filing requirements for candidates, candidate committees, political parties, multicandidate committees, measure committees, and certain federal committees that engage in North Dakota political activity. It also establishes detailed reporting schedules for pre-election, supplemental, year-end, and special reports, with separate rules for statewide and local candidates, state political parties, and ballot-measure committees.
The bill would also tighten and clarify several related election-law provisions. It updates election-offense language, preserves and expands disclosure requirements for political advertising, and revises rules governing the use of public property for political purposes. It adds or revises restrictions on foreign nationals, personal use of campaign funds, conduit reporting, and corporate/association political activity, while creating audit authority, late fees, and criminal and civil penalties for violations. The bill also directs the secretary of state to provide training and to adjust reporting thresholds for inflation over time.
In practical terms, HB 1377 would have replaced chapter 16.1-08.1 with a new, more detailed disclosure framework and would have affected candidates, political committees, political parties, corporations, associations, lobbyists, and ballot-measure groups. It would have changed filing thresholds and timing, required more granular contributor and expenditure information in many cases, and updated cross-references throughout the Century Code to the new chapter. It also includes an application clause for 2025 reports and an effective date of January 1, 2026 for most provisions.
The overall sentiment in the available record is limited because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes attached, but the bill’s final status was failed. That suggests it did not advance to enactment despite its broad scope. Based on the text alone, the bill appears to have been aimed at modernizing and consolidating campaign finance disclosure rules, but it also imposed significant new compliance obligations and enforcement mechanisms.
The main points of contention likely would have centered on the breadth of the new disclosure requirements, the treatment of nonprofit and corporate political activity, the reporting of “ultimate and true source” information, and the expanded audit and penalty provisions. The bill also appears to have raised policy questions about administrative burden on smaller candidates and committees, the scope of public disclosure for donors and expenditures, and the extent to which political spending by associations, corporations, and measure committees should be regulated.
HB 1377 would have repealed chapter 16.1-08.1 and replaced it with a new campaign disclosure chapter, chapter 16.1-08.2, thereby restructuring North Dakota’s campaign finance reporting law. It would have amended multiple related statutes governing school district elections, election offenses, political advertising disclaimers, state property use for political purposes, and lobbying disclosure thresholds, while also creating new registration, reporting, audit, and penalty provisions for candidates, committees, parties, corporations, associations, conduits, and ballot-measure groups. The bill would have required the secretary of state to administer the new system, including electronic filing, public access, training, and inflation-based threshold adjustments.
The available record shows no committee discussion or vote detail, so sentiment cannot be measured from debate. The bill’s final status was failed, indicating it did not secure enough support to become law. From the structure of the proposal, it appears to have been a comprehensive campaign-finance overhaul intended to increase transparency and standardize reporting, but one that likely drew mixed reactions because it also expanded compliance obligations and enforcement tools.
Likely areas of contention included the bill’s expanded disclosure requirements, especially the detailed reporting of contributors, subcontractors, and ultimate source information; the treatment of nonprofit entities, corporations, associations, and federal committees; and the new audit and penalty regime. Smaller local candidates and committees may have objected to the administrative burden of the new filing rules, while supporters of stronger transparency may have favored the tighter reporting, anti-foreign-national restrictions, and broader enforcement authority. The bill’s repeal-and-replace approach to campaign disclosure law also likely raised concerns about implementation and transition.