Secure Act advances to clarify allowable campaign security expenses

Floor Leader Seebaugh presented House Bill 1130, the "Secure Act," saying the measure would align state law with prior State Ethics Commission guidance to ensure candidates and officeholders may use campaign funds for legitimate security expenses and not be discouraged from public service. Seebaugh said the bill limits allowable uses (professionally installed security equipment and monitoring services), prohibits structural home improvements and weapons, and requires equipment bought with campaign funds be returned to the campaign or reimbursed at fair market value at the end of a campaign or term.

Committee members asked ethics staff about triggers for requesting bank records and how long records must be kept. Staff replied there is no single numerical trigger; requests are issued when complaints arise or specific concerns need documentation. Statutory retention varies by term length (examples cited: offices with two‑year terms maintain records for the previous three calendar years; four‑year offices five calendar years).

Members also raised whether campaign funds may be used to pay family members for security work or to hire cohabitants; ethics staff explained the code defines "family member" narrowly and that paying an off‑duty officer or a professional security firm for legitimate security services has precedent. The committee had no outside registered opponents and voted to advance the bill.