The North Dakota House Government and Veterans Affairs Committee convened on March 20, 2025, to discuss Senate Bill 2052, which aims to clarify the language regarding lobbying restrictions for public officials. The meeting highlighted significant concerns regarding the bill's implications for the definition of "public officials" as outlined in the state constitution.

The discussion began with Representative Bader expressing his opposition to the bill, arguing that adding the term "elected" before "public official" would limit the scope of the law. He emphasized that the constitution defines "public official" broadly, including both elected and appointed officials, and that the proposed change would exclude appointed officials from the lobbying restrictions. Bader stated that he could no longer support the bill as it would not align with the constitutional definition.

Logan Carpenter, General Counsel for the North Dakota Ethics Commission, responded to Bader's concerns by clarifying that the bill does not alter the law but aims to correct the caption of the existing statute to reflect the constitutional language accurately. He explained that the constitution specifically prohibits lobbying by elected public officials, which is why the term "elected" is crucial in the context of this bill. Carpenter noted that the current statute, which imposes penalties for violations, already aligns with this interpretation.

The committee also addressed questions regarding the penalties for violations of the lobbying restrictions. Representative Steiner inquired about the nature of the $1,000 fine, confirming that it would be a one-time penalty for each violation, which could apply to multiple instances of lobbying.

Further discussions included the confusion caused by the absence of the word "elected" in the statute's caption, which has led to inquiries from public officials about the applicability of lobbying restrictions. Carpenter indicated that the bill seeks to eliminate this confusion by ensuring that the caption accurately reflects the constitutional language.

The meeting concluded with a consensus on the need for clarity in the statute to prevent misunderstandings among public officials regarding their lobbying rights. The committee will continue to review the bill and its implications for public officials in North Dakota.