At a legislative committee meeting, members debated whether to aggregate campaign contributions across reporting periods for disclosure and voted down a motion to change the committee's reporting rules.

The discussion centered on whether separate contributions given in different reporting periods should be combined for the purpose of reaching the $250 reporting threshold and on whether ending account balances must be disclosed. "Is the intent that if you receive a contribution over $250 within a reporting period, that's the trigger?" said Mister Richard (role not specified). Committee members clarified they wanted the $250 threshold to apply across the year so multiple smaller donations given in separate reporting periods would count toward the threshold.

Committee members also discussed the treatment of expenditures. One member said expenditures do not require the same cutoff as contributions: "The expenditure side," the member said, arguing that contributions have a cutoff trigger while expenditures do not.

On the question of disclosure of balances, a committee member identified as Dustin asked, "Could I clarify one thing? Ending balances?" An unnamed committee speaker answered, "Yes. Ending balances will be disclosed. Ending or starting and ending, I don't. I think it" and then confirmed that ending balances would be disclosed to the public.

The committee proceeded to a roll-call vote on the motion under consideration. The record shows: Madam Chair Steiner — yes; Representative Schauer — yes; Representative Vetter — yes; Senator Barta — no; Senator Castaneda — yes; Senator Roars — no. The clerk announced, "The motion fails 4 2 0." After the vote, an unnamed committee member said the item would be returned to each chamber for further work: "I wouldn't say we're at an impasse. We'll take it back to our chamber and see what needs to be done."

Discussion points remained procedural: committee members sought a drafting amendment to make the aggregation intent explicit, and Mister Richard said he could incorporate the intent into an amendment if provided. The transcript did not include the exact text of the motion, who moved or seconded it, or a statutory citation directing the change.

Next steps described in the meeting were procedural: the topic will be returned to the members' respective chambers for additional consideration and drafting rather than moving forward with a committee-level enactment at this meeting.