Senate committee weighs late amendment to S 298 that would narrow PAC definition; members warn of "dark money" gap

The Senate Committee on Government Operations on May 8 heard a briefing and wide-ranging questions about a late amendment to S 298, the voter-protection bill, that would alter the statutory definition of a political committee (PAC) and, members warned, could allow large sums to avoid disclosure.

For the record, Tim Dublin, legislative counsel, told the panel the two-page amendment would replace a subsection of the bill and change the definition so an entity would be a PAC only if it both accepted contributions and made expenditures within the same two-year general election cycle. "The effect of this change is that the entity can either accept or expend large sums without being considered a PAC so long as it does not do both," Dublin said, explaining the language and the examples he had prepared for the committee.

Committee members pressed counsel on practical scenarios. One senator asked whether a wealthy individual who set aside $300,000 in one cycle but did not spend it until a later cycle would have to report the fundraising or the spending; counsel replied that under the amendment the two events could fall in different two-year cycles and therefore escape registration and reporting. "If I raise all my money in year one and don't spend until year four, nobody has any idea where that money came from," one member said, framing the transparency concern that motivated the earlier change from an "and" to an "or" test.

Paul Burns, identified in the record as executive director of Be Herd, told the committee he was not aware of the amendment's origin but expressed concern that the statutory language—particularly broad definitions that sweep individual spending and certain organizational activity into PAC regulation—was already difficult to parse. "I'm not sure that that was the intent," Burns said, adding that he would want a single individual who spends to be classified as a PAC. He offered to bring others with practical experience to testify as the committee explores whether the amendment has unintended consequences for nonprofits and other organizations that engage in political activity.

Members recalled that the committee had revised this portion of law a few years earlier precisely to prevent so-called dark-money activity—funds raised in one election cycle and spent in another without disclosure. Several members said they were reluctant to accept a late-stage change that appeared to reverse that decision without additional testimony and time to consider the House's reasons for proposing the amendment. The committee discussed procedural options — inserting the amendment (which would send the bill back to the House), requesting a conference committee, or deferring further action — and several members signaled they did not want to accept the amendment immediately.

The chair said the panel would seek clarification from the House sponsor and planned to revisit the amendment at the committee's next meeting on Tuesday. No vote was taken on the amendment during the May 8 hearing.

The committee also noted other House changes to S 298, including adjustments made by the House Judiciary Committee to criminal penalties and removal of a private right of action; members said those matters and an ethics-commission form provision would require separate consideration. The committee adjourned with staff directed to circulate the amendment text and related materials before reconvening.