Use of campaign funds for security purposes advanced

A proposal to allow candidates and officeholders to expend campaign funds for security purposes was amended and advanced from general file March 23.

LB986, introduced by Sen. Eliot Bostar of Lincoln, would add security measures to the list of allowable expenditures of campaign funds under the Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Act.

Under the bill, security personnel, hardware, software, electronic security equipment, installation, maintenance, monitoring and other physical and structural security measures and improvements would be considered allowable expenditures.

The measure also would require disclosure of security-related campaign expenditures in campaign finance reports.

Bostar said the bill is a response to a “well-documented and growing reality” of increased threats, harassment and intimidation against candidates and officeholders across the country. For example, he said, more than 40% of state legislators in the U.S. have experienced direct threats to their safety.

“The bill allows candidates and officeholders flexibility to react quickly to safety and security concerns without having to rely solely on personal savings to do so,” Bostar said. “This bill is about safeguarding participation in the democratic process by protecting the people who serve our communities.”

An Executive Board amendment, adopted 40-0, would insert the word “reasonable” in the description of allowable security measures to create a standard for the types of security expenses that would be allowed under LB986.

Blair Sen. Ben Hansen, committee chairperson, said the amendment would help prevent potential abuse of security spending by officeholders. The Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission would determine what qualifies as a reasonable security measure, he said.

Several senators expressed support for the bill’s intention, but also concern regarding what they characterized as the lack of sufficient guardrails.

Sen. Glen Meyer of Pender opposed the bill, raising concerns about “ambiguous” language and a lack of specificity as to what would constitute a security threat, which he said could be abused by officeholders.

“I don’t necessarily disagree with the concept, but I think this bill needs a great deal more work before we can move forward,” Meyer said.

Those concerns were echoed by Central City Sen. Loren Lippincott, who asked what would prevent a candidate from raising money for desired home improvements in the name of security measures.

He suggested possibly adding a cap on the dollar amount that a candidate or officeholder could spend on security from their campaign funds.

Sen. Megan Hunt of Omaha suggested adding her LB74 to the proposal, which she introduced last session. That measure would provide that public officeholders could use campaign funds to cover the costs of child care and travel expenses for a minor child if incurred as part of their official duties.

Hunt added that threats of violence do not concern her. What does, she said, is the reality that many officeholders with young children cannot partake of opportunities related to their office because of child care issues.

Sen. Danielle Conrad of Lincoln also questioned the bill’s necessity. She said that she has not felt unsafe in her time in the public spotlight, which has included 12 years in the Legislature and almost a decade in a high-profile career working on controversial issues.

She suggested several possible changes to the bill, among them including a way to verify the credibility of a perceived security threat before an expenditure of funds would be authorized.

Bostar said he was willing to work with senators before the next round of debate to tighten up the bill, but only if that could be accomplished without compromising the ability to provide adequate security for officeholders.

After adoption of the committee amendment, senators advanced LB986 to select file on a vote of 37-3.