Ohio House Bill HB60

Ohio 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/4/25

Caption

To amend section 3517.13 of the Revised Code to allow a candidate to use campaign funds to pay certain child care costs.

Summary

HB60 would amend Ohio’s campaign finance law, Revised Code section 3517.13, to expressly allow a candidate or campaign beneficiary to use campaign funds to pay certain child care expenses. The bill adds child care provided by a licensed provider to the list of “ordinary and necessary” expenses that may be reimbursed from campaign funds when the cost is incurred directly because the candidate is performing campaign-related or office-related activities. In practical terms, it would treat qualifying child care costs similarly to other reimbursable expenses such as travel or event-related costs. The bill is narrowly drafted and does not otherwise overhaul the state’s campaign finance framework. It leaves in place the existing prohibitions on personal use of campaign funds, reimbursement rules, and restrictions on contributions, reporting, and contract-related campaign contributions. The new language is limited to clarifying that licensed child care costs can be reimbursed when they are directly tied to campaign or official duties and would not otherwise have been incurred.

Impact

HB60 would amend section 3517.13 of the Revised Code, the main statute governing permissible and impermissible uses of campaign funds, by creating a specific exception for certain child care expenses. It would affect candidates, officeholders, campaign committees, and anyone reimbursed from campaign funds by allowing those funds to cover licensed child care costs under defined conditions. The bill would not change the broader reporting, contribution, or contracting restrictions in Ohio election law, but it would expand the category of reimbursable campaign-related expenses and potentially reduce the personal financial burden on candidates with caregiving responsibilities.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have a generally supportive and practical framing, as reflected by its introduction with multiple bipartisan cosponsors and its stated purpose of helping candidates pay child care costs while campaigning or performing public duties. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes in the provided material, there is no documented floor or committee debate to indicate formal opposition or support beyond the bill’s sponsorship pattern. The available context suggests the measure is presented as a modest, targeted reform rather than a controversial change to election law.

Contention

The main point of potential contention is whether campaign funds should be used for what some may view as a personal family expense, even when tied to campaign activity. Supporters are likely to argue that child care is a necessary cost of participation in politics and that the bill improves access and equity for candidates with caregiving responsibilities. Opponents, if any, would likely focus on the risk of blurring the line between campaign and personal expenses, though the bill attempts to limit that concern by requiring that the cost be incurred only as a direct result of campaign or official duties and by restricting reimbursement to licensed child care providers.