H.B. 112 Political Advertising Amendments: transcript

All right. Hello. Hello, hello, hello, committee, thank you for letting me take a second stab at this bill. Um, so we've worked with Lieutenant Governor's office and with members of this committee, which I thank all of them for, to hopefully address all of the questions and concerns that were brought up last time. Um, I am presenting to the second substitute. Um, so since you guys have heard the basis of this bill before, if it's all right with you, I'm just going to go through the changes and where the bill is now rather than, um, opining on the original. So what the second substitute does is it took, it completely takes out the whole, if two entities have paid for the advertisement bit, it seemed like that's where a lot of the, um, headache and heartache around it was. So we decided that could be a headache and heartache for later days. So that has been completely removed. Um, we specified that the advertisement is paid, so we, we put that word in. Um, we looked at the fine structure. There were questions brought up about if this is a standard structure, and the answer is, it is these are fines that are, um, imposed by Lieutenant Governor's office in other situations where they want to send a, a firm message of please don't do this again. Um, so it's pretty standard in that way. However, we did update the language, um, in response to a question from Representative Cutler, um, to say that they may only be imposed once per advertisement. So just to make it extra clear that this is, so for example, if you print, um, a thousand mailers, you're not gonna get fined for each one of those thousand mailers. It's just for that advertisement. Um, and then the final major change that we made is we added language, um, based on Mr. Davidson's comments, just to say that, um, if somebody's being accused of this, I guess that they have opportunity to be heard. Those are the changes to the bill. Um, I can speak to the underlying one a bit if you'd like. Again, this originated with political advertising, move to, um, adding a fine structure as well, because currently the default, again, if we don't have this fine structure, the default is you get a misdemeanor. Um, and I don't know about you guys, but I personally like to avoid those. Um, so that's what the bill does. I am open to questions.

Wonderful. My name is Lanny Chapman. I'm the Salt Lake County Clerk. I'm here, uh, speaking on behalf of the Clerks Association. Uh, we are in support of this bill, uh, from an election administration perspective. This bill provides clarity and modernization in political advertising law. It explicitly includes social media within the definition of political advertisements, which reflects how campaigns communicate today and ensures consistent disclosure across platforms. The bill also clarifies disclaimer requirements when more than one person pays for the advertisement, it doesn't anymore. Oh, it does not anymore apologies. Um, uh, house Bill one 12 sub 1 2 2, uh, provides clear enforcement authorities with defined monetary penalties. As clerks having a workable and consistent enforcement mechanism allows us to address violations fairly and efficiently, uh, at the local level. At its core, the bill strengthens transparency and supports voter confidence. So we support this. Thank you for your consideration.

Alright. Yeah. Thank you. Uh, yeah, my name is Seth Stewart from American Fork. I'm representing myself. And, um, I have run into some sticky issues with this kind of thing before where I have tried to boost a post on social media before and because it was within the election window was declined, saying I'm not allowed to comment on this because it is a social issue, even though it was very relevant, very worthwhile, um, points worth raising for people's consideration. And currently I am running a, a campaign for the state legislature and I am concerned about the effect that this can have on campaign advertising. Um, if the concern is that we're going to use, uh, money to try to promote, uh, a certain topic or or campaign issue close to the timing of the election, um, obviously we want to prevent undue interference at the polling location. But I see this bill as overly restrictive in that we're trying to basically thought police the people, um, as to what we fear they might believe prior to the election. And I would note that this does disadvantage smaller campaigns because there are still levers available such as, uh, various scandalous allegations that are raised to the news media, whereas those who don't have those kinds of connections can't make that happen. I will cite the 2022 with, uh, David Levitt and so on, sheriff Mike Smith and those allegations. So this doesn't really protect the, the grassroots campaigns and so I would urge opposition to it for that reason. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Chair. Um, I like to make a motion that we adopt, uh, the second sub of HB one 12.

Alright, thank you. I like to make a motion that we favorably recommend HB one 12 second sub to the house floor.

Thank you Mr. Chair. And actually it is, yeah, just a little question if I could because, um, just really quickly, on the effective date of May 6th, how would this affect, um, any advertising that's done before that effective date? Going into the effective date?

It, it would be what is currently in code. So we, we currently have political advertising law, so it would be the law that as it currently stands,

So if you were to, if you were to put a, a two month campaign in effect in, uh, the end of April and that runs through this effective date, but you created it prior to, would this only apply to those advertisements that were created before This date or That are running through this state? I just wanna make sure I understand.

You know, I don't actually fully know the answer to that question, but it is a great question and I'd love to, something to look at. You figure it out after.

I'm, I'm still happy to support this bill. I missed maybe some to look at. I think it's a

I would, I would like to some. Thank you. Um, I do wanna express appreciation for the committee because I genuinely believe that one of the strengths of the legislature is that it's not, we're not individual fiefdoms. We have our ideas and we bring them to the table and then we make them better. And it's the fact that we have so many other people that are willing to take a look at these issues. This is something that I was interested in and I'm really glad that we're getting it to a point where other people can be interested and support it too. 'cause I think it's a policy change that's needed, but I think we're going to end up with a better policy change today than we did when I first presented this because of the feedback and the work that was done by committee members. And so I wanna express my appreciation for that. So thank you.

Lue? No, thanks. I wave.

Thank you. I'll try to use it judiciously. Thank you. Um, so this bill does two things that deal in political advertising. The first is it adds social media to the definition. Um, it's currently not in code. Um, so that would include, um, both if you are, if you're paying to run an ad so that you're, you're paying to target it. But that would also include, um, influencer marketing. So more and more we're seeing marketing happen where you pay someone with a large social media following to promote your product. Um, in this case it would be your candidacy. So it would include that in the definition as well. Um, and just to iterate, this is only for paid marketing. So if your family member was to say, yay, we love representative so-and-so, or Senator so-and-so that, that's not marketing, that's not paid. We don't need to disclose that other thing. It does. Um, I brought this idea to the Lieutenant Governor's office and they, um, asked that I include, um, other things as well. So this includes a fine schedule for if you violate, um, political advertising rule. And the reason we're doing that, I'm, I promise I'm not just giving fines out to us for fun, um, because it's not currently specified in code. If someone were to violate this section of code for anything, so not just social media, but for mailers, for billboards, um, that's actually a Class B misdemeanor, which I didn't know before I ran this bill. And I don't know about you guys, but I would personally prefer a fine to a misdemeanor. Um, so we included that here as well. Um, something to note, we did clarify that this is, um, a standard fine schedule for both Lieutenant Governor's office as well as, uh, local governments. A thousand dollars fines are, um, I wouldn't say frequently opposed, but they are a, a tool to deter people currently in the LGS office for things that they really would like us to not to do again. And then the other thing is that it is specified that the fine can only be implemented once per advertisement regardless of how many times it's disseminated. So if you pay for a thousand mailers to go out and you don't include paid for by committee to elect X, Y, Z, you're not gonna get fined for that a thousand times. You're gonna get fined for it once. That's what the bill does. Uh, I'm open to questions.

Yeah, I'm, I'm trying to understand what the bill does that is not already done by the statute here, other than the fines, the fine schedule that I'm, I'm trying to understand exactly what you're getting at. What, can you gimme an example of the problem mm-hmm. And what you're trying to address?

Absolutely. So a couple years ago during the election cycle, we saw some influencer marketing. So, um, there was an account that was being paid and I, I know I was being paid 'cause it was in the person's disclosures, um, by a candidate to say nasty things about their opponent. Um, and then it wasn't disclosed at all. So then there were comments on this account saying, I didn't know you guys did endorsements, things like that. So we just wanna make sure that any time you're paying to promote candidacy or to disparage an opponent or things like that, that it's being disclosed like other political advertising since so much advertising is happening on social media now.

But in this instance, I, I'm trying to understand how a campaign paying for something, didn't they disclose it?

No. 'cause it's not in code. Well, I, I, I apologize. So it was on their financial disclosures. It's not, it wasn't in the advertisement. So they're paying for advertising that we don't currently re require to have like a paid for buy on. So the same way that if you send out a flyer or a mailer, you need to say paid for by, um, committee to elect or whatever your campaign's name is. Um, that doesn't currently apply to any social media advertising.

Okay. Now, in another context, during the session, we said that signs that are obviously put out by a campaign don't need to say paid for by this campaign. So for example, you know, reelect Sahara Hayes. Mm-hmm. You don't have to put paid for by committee to elect Sarah Hayes or Friends of Sahara Hayes. I don't have one that says Friends of Brady Brown. I don't have any, mine is just a committee. 'cause I don't have any friends that would be part of that tro. But the, you know, if it's the campaign, what, what I'm worried about is are we now going to require all digital advertising that the campaign itself is putting out to have paid for by that campaign on the digital advertising as well? Let me look at this really fast. I mean, we already had it through internet, I believe. Let me see what's being crossed out though, Because, 'cause I don't wanna have to add a little tagline every time my own website or my own Facebook page or whatever runs an, you know, an ad.

You don't. I do not.

Okay. Yeah. Like, so I'm like, it's pretty obvious that mine is running it, you know, it probably has my campaign logo at the beginning or at the end, you know. And if, for example, if I do a constituent update, maybe that doesn't qualify, but something similar to that that I put online, that I put online, you know, I don't wanna have to put paid for, we're not like, uh, we're not that big of a deal. We're not that professional. Like in, in this, on this level of politics, I guess is the concern. I think that's fair. And I think that's, uh, just a, a, a taste difference. I think that we live in a time where, I mean, I don't know about, I sit on government operations and so I hear so much about how we want more transparency and we want more transparency in elections and things like that. And with so much advertising moving that direction. And, and like I said, this might be just a, a taste difference in policy because I, I personally would like to know who is paying for what advertisement. And I guess I'm, I'm drawing a distinction between the influencer mm-hmm. Who is trying to appear organic, but they're being paid versus the campaign itself that's doing stuff and putting out its own content. And whether its own content that already has all the names and everything on it now has to say also paid for by which we just took off the signs 'cause it was so redundant and stupid. I don't wanna put it on the digital advertising now, just after we took it off the signs.

Sure. So this would be included in paid digital advertising. So again, if you're just posting and saying, this is what happened in my committee this week. Um, my understanding too, 'cause I, when I've presented this before, people have been confused saying, isn't it already required that we put in like Boost to post? If you're, if you're paying, if you're exchanging money to advertise yourself through a digital platform, yes it would require disclosure.

Those are my questions. Okay.

I just, I mean, I think to be clear, one, one of the things that's important about this bill is actually talking about advertisement from that digital perspective, which we have not updated our code. So I think that's a one piece of the bill that's needed and very important. Um, and the, the part about which we had like a lengthy debate on the floor about the political science. It has, you know, like the senator's face and his large name, I'm guessing he's paying for it, right? Um, I don't, I don't use my face on the science, but I do use billboards over there. But, um, I think the biggest concern is in, in social media. I mean we are regulating heavily AI and AI is a big problem on this part. 'cause they are gonna be utilizing unfortunately, some AI stuff and they are doing it. It's hard to catch 'cause you don't even know where it's coming from. They should be a disclosure to own it. If you're gonna be playing games in, in this digital world and social media that at least it makes it easier to figure out who, who they are coming from and if, um, you know, if that's what's gonna happen. This I think gets us closer to that. And it's an issue of transparency and, and openness. Uh, I don't know that, you know, it will impact, for example, and, and maybe think about something like if it's gonna be my face and it says Esca for Senate, which is the name, it's not Friends of Lu, but you know, Scilla for Senate, if that's the name, you will know that is, you know, okay, that's her to the point of the good senator. But if it's a third party that I am paying to push this whatever it is and attacks potentially or using AI on my opponent, there should be some level of transparency to at least know that. And I think that Bill is getting us closer. There may be chances maybe for some clarification, but I think it's very needed to make sure we have this level of transparency. Thank you Mr. Chair.

Alright. Thank you very much for the opportunity. My name is Seth Stewart, I'm representing myself. I'm from American Fork and this, this ad was brought to you by my own time and effort as well as the blood, sweat and tears of my ancestors and the founding fathers of our nation. So, uh, with that disclosure, um, I do have a very significant concern, concern with the bill. And that is that right towards the beginning of the text, uh, line 40 says advertisement includes a marketing campaign disseminated on a medium described in subsection two ai. Um, if it were the intention of this bill that every kind of advertisement necessarily had to be paid, then this would be entirely redundant with subsection two A. And so I would submit that this opens a lot of wiggle room for selective enforcement and interpretation. And uh, so that's, that's my primary concern. And so I, I would just like to call that out. Two A is distinct from two B two A says is what says that an advertisement means a paid communication and B includes marketing campaign marketing campaigns can be unpaid. So I'm just wondering, does this include, does this apply to, uh, you know, organic grassroots and volunteer efforts? Uh, I would, I would delete that provision B there, because otherwise that's just way too nebulous. I would also submit that the founding fathers understood from the Magna Carta that no person may be immersed by the government without the consent of his peers. That is a trial by jury and this would be an immersement. So I would submit that that right attaches here. So with that, I would urge opposition to this bill. Thank you.

Chair, make a motion that we favorably recommend third substitute a 3 1 12 to the Senate floor.

Um, thank you first of all for your consideration in the questions. I, I wanna clarify if you are, uh, disseminating an ad on something like Instagram, it currently already asks who pays for it. This is, this is adding clarity to code. Um, this is already a question that's being asked. We're just trying to update it in code. Um, and it also as, um, center NU is pointing out it, it does add a layer of protection, um, against attacks against you as well. So if for some reason if, um, I wanted to say that um, my opponent smelled funny and had never showered, I would need to disclose that that was paid for by me, um, if I was paying for it. Um, and I just in regards to, um, Mr. Stewart's comment, this is an and or an and not an or. So we already defined advertisement. This is, this is also what advertisement includes. Um, and I would love your support. Thank you. Oh, and the county clerk support it and they promised they said nice things earlier, even if they're not here today.

Thank you. Thank you for having me tonight. Committee, um, in the 2024 election, I noticed people, uh, using influencer marketing and it wasn't disclosed as to who paid for that marketing. And so I went and I looked in the code and it turns out social media is not in our list of political advertising. It's not currently included in code. So, um, I did what we always do and I opened a bill file about it and then I took it to Lieutenant Governor's office and they had some other ideas. And so that's why this bill has more than just, um, advertising. It's specifically social media. So this build us three things. I'm gonna talk you through them. First again, is the social media piece. So we updated, um, the definition for advertisement to make it a little more clear and also to include social media. And just to be clear on that, that includes not just if you, if you're running an Instagram ad, that also includes, um, if I, if I were to pay Chair Burton here to say mean things about my opponent, um, I would have to disclose in that post that it was paid for. So that's the first thing. Um, next, and this is, um, recommendations from Lieutenant Governor's office. Uh, they had an issue this year, this past year in 2025, um, when political parties were paying for the postage on mailers and how that should be disclosed. So this updates so that if more than one entity is paying for a piece of political advertising that you have to disclose both of those entities. You don't have to disclose, um, the amount. You don't have to be like so and so party paid for 30% and this and this. It just says you have to pay, you have to say like both the committee to elect so and so and X, y, Z party both paid for this finally. And at the end you're gonna be like, wow, haze, why are you trying to give us fines? I'm really not doing that to give you fines. I'm doing it to save people for misdemeanors. So currently, um, because it a, the penalty for if you fail to comply with political advertising isn't listed in code, it defaults to a misdemeanor. So this fine schedule was at the recommendation of Lieutenant Governor's office. Um, so that if, you know, you forget to put your paid for by committee to elect at the bottom of your thing, you're not getting a misdemeanor, you're getting a fine. So those are the three things that this bill does. I am open to all questions. Alright, thank you.

Thank you. I just had a couple of questions. I am, 'cause I've looked through your bill and I understand what you're trying to, to hit on. I, here's my question. So like boosting posts, anyone can boost a post. So we could post something and then some third party could boost that post and it might help increase your viewers or it might try and influence people. But how, I mean, under this bill, would you have to report if someone's boosting your post? No, reposting is fine. That's, that's, that's one person that's not being paid for. So this is if there's an exchange of money. So if I paid you, But like if a C four paid that person to boost that post, I think under your bill it would trip that wire Potentially. I'd have to phone a friend on that one. Yeah. Okay. Because I, I just wonder if, I worry that this might end up being an unintended Gotcha. Bill that's just not enforceable. Mm-hmm. If so, like a, so like a political C four, right. Um, we have those occasionally jump into races and we'll have candidates that are asked about it and they'll say I'm not coordinating with them. Right. But they're jumping in. But say if they were to drop, this happened in one of our Senate races, a C four from DC came in and dropped a hit piece on their opponent and that was not coordinated at all with the candidate, but it probably helped them. So under this bill, would they have to report that even though they didn't coordinate it? It it's whoever is paying. So if, if the candidate is not paying for that to be boosted, no, I don't think it would. Okay. But if they, if they're putting money into it, if the C four is then yes, they would need to disclose that C four would be the one disclosing that Yes. Not the candidate. Mm-hmm. Okay. Okay. Okay. Very, very good question. Legal counsel just texted us and said if the if isn't paid for Yeah, you were correct then, then there wouldn't be. Uh, it is follow the money is what Michael Cipriano is saying, but, but I like the question because I was gonna ask it. I'm glad you did. I have one more. Oh yes ma'am. Go, go ahead. One more follow up. So parties, when they're working with their nominated candidates, a lot of times they'll get a reduced rate for party indicia. I'm pretty sure the Democrat party and the Republican party both do that. You can correct me if I'm wrong. Mm-hmm. Um, and generally it's like you pay the postage, but because it's coming through them, they say the paid for, are you saying move moving forward, it need to say paid for by the Democratic Party and paid for by Sahara Hayes for Utah House?

Yes. Okay. Okay. Alright.

I just wanna clarify that. Thank you.

Oh, sorry about that. You're On. Thank you Mr. I I had the same question. Where, where, could you point out the line where that requires a, a, a change if you're using the party or another nonprofit to pay the postage for you? Yes. So it's in two spots. So it's 4 37 through 4 46 and then it's in 4 63 through 4 72. The reason it's in two places is because we wanted to include, um, that for ballot propositions as well as campaigns so that the language is consistent across code. And just to make sure we're completely clear, clear on that. So if, if I have, uh, my political party, if I pay them their nonprofit rate to send out the mail, what do I have to put on the, on the mailer? So if you are just paying and like they're, if they're not paying more, then you just has to be you. However, if like as a donation to your campaign, somebody is paying for the, for the postage for your mailer, Then I have to report that anyway because I have to report donations. Yes. To all donations and expenditures on My campaign you have put that on what it's paid for by, we just want, we, we don't care who it's not paid for by, we just want what is being paid for by people to be clear. So if there's two parties paying for a specific advertisement, it would just list both parties. So, so thank you for that clarification. So my understanding, if I can just restate this as if I use the party's cheaper mail rate to mail something that's paid for by my campaign friends of Paul Cutler up up till now, I've just said paid for by Friends of Paul Cutler, and I may or may not have to list the party because I'm, uh, even though it, well, actually on the stamp, it, it always says the party, because that's how you get the cheaper mail rate. Right. So would that satisfy the requirements? I might have to phone a friend on that one Friendship. I have more friends than representative of color, it turns out.

Um, hello, my name is Brin Mock. I'm with the Lieutenant Governor's office. Um, could you repeat the question?

Sorry, sorry. No, you're good Mr. Chairman.

I think I know the answer, but I want, I want to hear it. Go ahead. If, If a candidate uses their parties or another nonprofit's, uh, privilege to, to send email at a cheaper rate, for example, uh, if, if I, using example of my campaign, if I send out a postcard that says, from Paul, uh, from Paid for by Friends of Paul Cutler and has in the corner, instead of a stamp, it has the inertia of the, of, of the party that's saying they paid for, this is my understanding, does that satisfy the requirements?

Um, I think one second. I'm getting messages here that are helping me. Um, yeah, uh, just, I, I think that the requirement clearly states that it has to be who paid for it. So I think there would have to be a written statement that the Republican party is paying for this postage. So that's already there today that I think this is just In, in the stamp. But yeah, I think this is saying that I have to, if I paid for it from my campaign funds, if the campaign fee for it, you have to say that if somebody else is doing it on my behalf, then that has to identify that per that entity who's doing it on yes Behalf. Yes, it's, yes.

Correct? Yes. That That is correct. All right. As far as I'm aware, Yeah. Yeah. And that's clear. Alright. Did, you're off your mic's off, so you're fine. That concludes my questions. Did we answer your question? That's what I wanna, yes. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, I think there's some confusion or concern here that, um, so I, I get what you're saying. Whoever paid for it needs to list it. Mm-hmm. So if a candidate pays for it, the candidate has to list it. Is this in any way going to change any political groups, any c fours, any pacs or anything? And they're gonna have to disclose more than they're already doing?

You're asking? No. Like, Like they're not gonna have to list their donors or anything if they don't Already. No, no, no, no. This is just if they paid for something. Yes. It's only if they're paying for something, it just has to be listed. We just want it to be really clear and transparent. Who is paying to advertise to you politically. So if more than one party is paying, if you, if you're putting money behind a statement about a candidate, we just want to know who the money is coming from.

So if, so if my committee, the committee to elect Andrew Stoddard wanted to put out a mailer in Representative Cutler's district on his behalf, it would just have

to say from my committee Correct. If he didn't pay anything towards it. But if he, yes. If he's not paying, if we go halfsies, we list both. Yes.

Okay. Thank you.

I'm sorry for the second bite of the apple because I love apples. I'm still trying to understand the flow of this. So let's say there's a group, Anthony and Paul, who get together and say, we're gonna start a C four for reading, and they start a C four and they intentionally give a million dollars to the C four 'cause they're loaded and they take that money and give it to the C four and the C four boosts social media posts. Who discloses it?

The C four. The C four discloses, right. The boost. So it's like if you, if you pay for something as rep incentive Pucci, you're not saying paid for by these five donors who gave Correct. That donated to your campaign. Okay. And you're just saying it was paid for by this committee. Okay, so it's the same thing. It's whoever, whoever's writing the check and whoever their donors are, doesn't, I mean, that's on disclosure's website.

But, so using that same logic, going back to the party idea, technically you're giving the money to the party to send the mailer. Let's pretend they're the C four in this case. How is it not just the party that's being listed?

It's, it, it's when they're both paying directly. And so this is, I I don't know the mechanics of how that works. No,

No. And I'm not trying to, I actually just worry that this might be a lot stickier because in the case I just described with Paul and Anthony technically using the logic of who paid for it, technically they paid for it through a C four pack. So should it have said paid for by Anthony and Paul, even though they used the vehicle of the pack? That's why I'm just trying to understand.

Same, because if that logic applies, then when you go through the party, then it would just say the party because you technically gave the money to the party and the party paid for it.

So my understanding is this issue came up because parties were paying just for postage and candidates were mailing it out with only the disclosure of the party, the candidates?

No, only the disclosure of the candidates committee. Okay. And so there was issue specifically with political parties paying for postage and then it not being disclosed.

And my understanding is the clerks and Lieutenant Governor's office has got a ton of questions about it. Who's the Party? So, Okay. And in my experience, I've only ever seen paid for by the party, not the inverse of the candidate. And that's why maybe we're speaking past each other. I'm just trying to understand it. So thank you.

Thank you. Uh, I wonder if you could tell us about these, these fines, the thousand dollars fine, the $500 fine, and whatever else is there. If you could tell us why and how you came to those dollar amounts.

Yep, absolutely. I did not come to those dollar amounts. The Lieutenant Governor's office came to those dollar amounts and I put it in my bill. And the reason behind having this is so that, uh, you don't get a misdemeanor because right now, since it is not specified in code, what the penalty is for violating this section and for, um, not disclosing properly political advertising, uh, because it's in election code, that's automatically a misdemeanor. So if your graphic designer excludes it and you don't look at the proof properly, and then you've got these billboards that say you could be in trouble, this was a suggestion. And so we put it in to try to ease a little bit of that, of that pain for candidates.

I'm, I'm super complete, but I'm open for all the questions, so. Alright,

Okay. Aaron Davidson, Utah County Clerk. Um, I, this last election was really odd. We probably got at least 2000, or I'm sorry, two dozen complaints of people that did not include the paid for by in the literature that was mailed out and never had that before. But this last election, it was just like, maybe it was because we had three school boards being created with seven uh, positions in each of them, but we just received a ton. So I, I like the fact that there's more teeth in this. Um, the problem is, is I, I don't know where the due process is on it. I don't know if I am, you know, it says after it's investigated by the county attorney, the county clerk shall impose a fine. I don't know if where I get that power to impose that fine. And if I do impose that, fine, what's the due process of that person being able to contest it? So I don't know if that's laid out, uh, very well in here. So I still don't know if it has the teeth that it needs. Um, other than that, I, I, I like the fact that there is more teeth, uh, but not sure how sharp they are. Um, so yeah, I, I do like the, the overall intent of it. Thank you.

Yeah, my name is Braden Mock. I'm with the Lieutenant Governor's Office. Um, first of all, we'd just like to thank the sponsor for her work, um, on this bill. Um, and just to hopefully help further clarify, um, this is just updating the regulation of political advertising key changes, expand the definitions, clarify disclosure requirements, and establish penalties. Um, to clarify with the disclosure statement, um, the content of the statement is largely the same, but the bill expands on how the statement must be presented if the advertisement is paid for by more than one person. Um, this was previously unaddressed in the code, which created some confusion about the required disclosure statements and going to the party mailings that went out during this last election. That confusion largely arose because the municipal elections were nonpartisan. So there were a lot of questions about the payment of the mailers considering that it was a nonpartisan election. And so this would just kind of help clarify that a little bit. Um, the bill also outlines clear penalty structure for the noncompliant political advertisements. Um, a fine will now be imposed by the election officer with jurisdiction, which at the state level is the lieutenant governor and Elna county level would be the county clerk. And it even goes down to the, uh, municipal level with the city recorders. So that's where the, um, fine would come in. And who would be implementing it? It is outlined in the legislation in the bill that it would be from the, um, county, uh, uh, the elected officer with jurisdiction. So the county clerk would operate on the county level for the county offices. Um, that is all that we have for right now, so thank you.

Um, we are neutral on this one as of right now, but we are very, uh, thankful for the work, uh, that the sponsor has done on this bill.

I do to, uh, I just wanted to clarify. So as I understand it today, the lieutenant governor, if it's a state, if it's a federal office, a state office, legislative office, or state school board, then the Lieutenant Governor's office both investigates and, uh, issues the fine. Mm-hmm. If it's a county office in the county's jurisdiction, then the county attorney or district attorney does the investigation and, and the county clerk initiates the fine, it's, it's not clear. Does the county attorney have to make a finding of any kind or, I mean, it's, I think it's assumed that they would, the county attorney has to say, clerk go make this fine.

Yes, that was, um, that was put in there at the request of the clerks. Um, since they don't have the resources to investigate this and to investigate non-compliance, This is kinda, this is kinda unique. Hmm. Does that answer your question?

It, it, it does answer my question. I'm, uh, so thanks for the question. I, I agree with your intent. I think it's good. I think that more disclosure is, is a very good thing. Uh, and I can support it on the, uh, on, on the intent. Um, I'd love to make sure we work out the kinks on how this really works in practice and it's, I love that. So it's super clear to people how it's gonna work. Very open to that. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Chair. I make a motion that we hold house Bill one 12. Alright, that's in order. Do you wanna speak to that? I Would, um, I just gauging the, the tone of the questions here. I, I think everyone is on board with the spirit, but need a little bit of language clarification on how the process plays out. So I, I think based on what I'm hearing, everyone's open to working on it and would like to see it in some form. But the friends of Paul Cutler need a little help.

I would support that motion. I really appreciate being on this committee because I know it's a committee that's willing to sink its teeth in and work on things. And so I, I am hearing the questions. I'm like, those are good questions. Let's address them and make sure that this is the best piece of legislation that we can get it to be. Because I would love it. I don't wanna pass a bill that's not doing what we want it to do. So I, I would support that motion. Thank you.

Second substitute house bill one 12 Political advertising amendments by Representative Hayes. This bill was heard in government operations with the vote of 7 0 5.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Pro tem, uh, motion to adopt. Third substitute in my name

I would thank you. This includes a coordination clause and that's all the third substitute does. Earlier this session, we passed a bill that also deals with section of code. So it's, it's a little important. We coordinate for that.

Thank you. Um, this bill does two things. So first it updates the definition of paid political advertising to include social media. This does not include if you're just posting to posts. This is if you are exchanging money to have a political advertisement on social media. So this is, um, just ads that you run, but also includes influencer marketing. More and more we're seeing people market products, events, things like that by paying people with large product or platforms, um, to promote these. And so we wanna make sure that if that's happening in the political world, that we're just noting who is paying for that. Second thing that this bill does was at the request of Lieutenant Governor's office. And this updates to include a fine schedule for if, um, this section of code is violated. And I, I've gotten some pushback on why am I including fines. And the reason, and I feel like this is important, um, because right now if we don't pass this, if, if somebody violates this section of code coded is in fact a misdemeanor, and I don't know about you, Mr. Speaker pro tem, I would personally much prefer a fine to a misdemeanor. So these fines are in line with current fines that exist. Um, they can only be applied once per advertisement regardless of how much it's disseminated. And then, um, the other things to note is this bill gives people opportunity to be heard before these are imposed. And, um, lastly, there's no rulemaking ability in this bill.

Thank you. I really don't wanna misdemeanor and I don't think anybody else here does either.

I would thank you. This includes a coordination clause and that's all the third substitute does. Earlier this session, we passed a bill that also deals with section of code. So it's, it's a little important. We coordinate for that.

Thank you. Um, this bill does two things. So first it updates the definition of paid political advertising to include social media. This does not include if you're just posting to posts. This is if you are exchanging money to have a political advertisement on social media. So this is, um, just ads that you run, but also includes influencer marketing. More and more we're seeing people market products, events, things like that by paying people with large product or platforms, um, to promote these. And so we wanna make sure that if that's happening in the political world, that we're just noting who is paying for that. Second thing that this bill does was at the request of Lieutenant Governor's office. And this updates to include a fine schedule for if, um, this section of code is violated. And I, I've gotten some pushback on why am I including fines. And the reason, and I feel like this is important, um, because right now if we don't pass this, if, if somebody violates this section of code coded is in fact a misdemeanor, and I don't know about you, Mr. Speaker pro tem, I would personally much prefer a fine to a misdemeanor. So these fines are in line with current fines that exist. Um, they can only be applied once per advertisement regardless of how much it's disseminated. And then, um, the other things to note is this bill gives people opportunity to be heard before these are imposed. And, um, lastly, there's no rulemaking ability in this bill.

Thank you. I really don't wanna misdemeanor and I don't think anybody else here does either.