Charles Lockwood

As a NH resident, I oppose this bill for the following reasons: The bill could silence important voices, particularly from municipalities, public schools, and nonprofits that rely on public funds to advocate for policies that directly affect their communities. This would disproportionately harm rural areas, small towns, and vulnerable populations with limited resources for private advocacy. Many public entities work with associations that engage in lobbying to advocate for shared interests (e.g., education funding, public safety policies). This bill would restrict partnerships that are critical for effective governance. The broad language may discourage public agencies from engaging in even routine informational activities out of fear of legal or criminal repercussions. This could limit open dialogue between government entities and lawmakers, undermining informed policymaking. Allowing any taxpayer to sue over perceived violations invites frivolous lawsuits, leading to costly legal battles for public agencies. The administrative costs of enforcing strict fund segregation could also strain small municipalities with limited resources. The provision allowing any resident to bring legal action could be weaponized for political purposes, creating an environment where public servants face harassment or retaliation based on subjective interpretations of their actions. The bill does not clearly define what constitutes “political activity,” risking overreach where activities like attending public hearings, submitting testimony, or educating policymakers could be misclassified as lobbying. In summary, while fiscal accountability is essential, HB 314-FN risks stifling democratic engagement, creating legal and financial burdens for public institutions, and limiting the ability of communities to advocate for their needs.