Paul Dargie

Paul Dargie - Opposed to HB314 These are comments about the bill from NHMA, the New Hampshire Municipal Association. I concur with these thoughts. The bill does three things: broadly prohibit a huge number of individuals from engaging in the legislative process, set unnecessarily burdensome segregation of funds requirements, and create criminal and other penalties for engaging in speech. First, the bill prohibits local officials acting in their official capacity from any form of speech related to legislation or politics. It broadly prohibits any public funds from being used to “to lobby, attempt to influence legislation, participate in political activity, or contribute funds to any entity for the purpose of engaging in the same.” “Public funds” are defined as a “grant or appropriation of a state, county, town, city, village district, unincorporated place, or school district.” An “appropriation” could be anything from the mileage paid to drive to the State House to the stipend paid to an elected or appointed official or the salary paid to an employee of a local government or of the state who testifies at a hearing or calls a legislator to express opinions or give input on how legislation would affect their community. So, what does it all mean? Well, because the speech prohibition is on any “political activity” or “attempt to influence legislation,” which goes well beyond the definition of lobbying in RSA chapter 15, HB 314 would prevent any local official, whether a paid employee or an elected official receiving a stipend, from any advocacy on behalf of a city or town. It is inconceivable that locally elected leaders would be barred from—even prosecuted or terminated for—speaking on legislation with local impacts in the Live Free or Die State. And yet, this type of bill has become a perennial effort of certain legislators in New Hampshire. But it doesn’t stop there. The bill would prohibit many others—who would qualify as recipients of public funds—from lobbying. Beyond NHMA, HB 314 affects every organization of municipal officials, such as building officials, assessing officials, firefighters, or the police chiefs; every state agency and department; and every nonprofit organization that receives state or local funds. In fact, the bill is so broad in its language, it appears to apply to any private corporation that receives payment from a public entity, since the purchase of goods or payment for services constitutes an “appropriation” of public funds. If the ban itself isn’t enough, the bill makes the prohibited speech a Class A misdemeanor, establishes personal liability “equal to 3 times the amount wrongfully paid or expended,” and makes a “knowing violation grounds for discharged of an employee.”