HB 280-FN – AS INTRODUCED
2009 SESSION
10/03
HOUSE BILL 280-FN
AN ACT requiring documents offered or disseminated by lobbyists to show the employer’s written authorization.
SPONSORS: Rep. J. Day, Rock 13
COMMITTEE: Legislative Administration
This bill requires documents, publications, and visual presentations of lobbyists to show written authorization of the lobbyist’s employer and who funded such documents, publications, and visual presentations.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.
Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]
Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.
09-0292
10/03
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Nine
AN ACT requiring documents offered or disseminated by lobbyists to show the employer’s written authorization.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
1 New Section; Lobbyists; Employer Authorization. Amend RSA 15 by inserting after section 5 the following new section:
15:5-a Employer Authorization. Any document, publication, or visual presentation offered or disseminated by a lobbyist for the purpose of lobbying shall show written authorization which shall contain the name of the employer by or in whose behalf the same is offered or disseminated and the name of the person or organization who funded such document, publication, or visual presentation.
2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2010.
LBAO
09-0292
01/07/09
HB 280-FN - FISCAL NOTE
AN ACT requiring documents offered or disseminated by lobbyists to show the employer’s written authorization.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Judicial Branch, Judicial Council, New Hampshire Association of Counties and Department of Justice state this bill will have an indeterminable impact on state expenditures in FY 2010 and each year thereafter. This bill will have no impact on county or local expenditures or state, county, and local revenues.
METHODOLOGY:
The Judicial Branch states this bill will require lobbyists to show written authorization of the lobbyist’s employer on documents, publications, and visual presentations and who funded the documents, publications, and visual presentations. The Judicial Branch states a violation of the bill would be an unspecified misdemeanor for a natural person and an unspecified felony for any other person under RSA 15:8. Also, anyone who files a false statement under chapter 15 is deemed guilty of perjury, a class B felony under RSA 641:1. To process an unspecified misdemeanor in the district court will be $35.75 in FY 2010 and beyond, without consideration of any salary increases. The cost to the Judicial Branch to process a routine felony case is $335.98 in FY 2010 and beyond, without consideration of salary increases. However, the Branch cannot estimate how many misdemeanor or felony charges will be pursued in the courts as a result of this bill. Judicial Branch statistics show in the decade ending June 30, 2008, there have been no prosecutions in the district or superior courts for any violation of Chapter 15. If these historic trends continue, the bill will have no fiscal impact on the Judicial Branch.
The Judicial Council cannot estimate the number of cases which may be brought under the proposed bill, but assumes few if any lobbyists would qualify as indigent. The Council states if a public defender or contract attorney is appointed to the case, the fixed fee is $275 per misdemeanor offense. If assigned counsel attorney must be used, the $60 per hour rate with a fee cap of $1,400. The Judicial Council assumes this offense is not likely to be committed by a juvenile. The Council states additional costs could be incurred if an appeal is filed. The public defender, contract attorney, and assigned counsel rates for Supreme Court appeals will be $2,000 per case, with many assigned counsel attorneys seeking permission to exceed the fee cap. However, such motions to exceed the fee cap are seldom granted. Finally, expenditures would increase if services other than counsel are requested and approved by the court during the defense of a case or during an appeal.
The New Hampshire Association of Counties states this bill will not impact county expenditures.
The Department of Justice states this bill will increase state expenditures in instances when an appeal is taken to the NH Supreme Court. However, the Department states it is difficult to estimate whether cases may be appealed, it is not possible to estimate fiscal impact at this time.