Independent Expenditures and Electioneering Communications

Most political money in Idaho goes to candidates, and the rules for that are in Who Can Give and How Much. This lesson covers the other channel: people and groups who spend their own money to talk to voters about a race, without handing it to a campaign. Courts have said that spending cannot be capped. It can be reported, and it can be labeled. Most of the law here is about drawing lines: between advocacy and discussion, between independent and coordinated, between a voter guide and a campaign piece. Get the line wrong and the consequences arrive fast, usually in the last three weeks before an election.

For the basic vocabulary of contributions, PACs and Super PACs, see Campaign Finance Basics. This lesson goes further into the categories and the paperwork.

Express advocacy: where the line started

In Buckley v. Valeo (1976), the U.S. Supreme Court struck down federal caps on independent spending and narrowed the law to messages with explicit words of advocacy. Footnote 52 gave the list people still call the magic words: "vote for," "elect," "support," "cast your ballot for," "Smith for Congress," "vote against," "defeat," "reject."

Campaigns adapted fast. "Call Senator X and tell him to stop wasting your money" says none of the magic words, and everyone who reads it knows what it means. Congress answered in 2002 with the federal electioneering communication rule. Then in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life (2007), the Court held that an ad can be treated as the functional equivalent of express advocacy only if it is "susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate." Genuine issue ads, ones that talk about a bill or a policy and ask people to contact an official, stay protected.

Idaho wrote its own version. Idaho Code 67-6602(9) defines "expressly advocating" as any message "advocating election, passage or defeat," including the name of the candidate or measure or words such as vote for, elect, support, vote against, defeat or reject. Notice the "including, but not limited to." Idaho's list is a floor.

Independent expenditures in Idaho

An independent expenditure under 67-6602(9) is spending by any person on express advocacy for or against a clearly identified candidate or measure that is not made with the cooperation, prior consent, consultation, request or suggestion of the candidate, the candidate's agents or the committee running the measure campaign. "Person" is broad: an individual, a corporation, a union, a club, a party, an out-of-state group.

The reporting rules are in Idaho Code 67-6611. Once a person spends more than $100 in aggregate for or against any one candidate, committee or measure, it files a statement with the Secretary of State. The statement lists each payee who received more than $50, with amount, date, purpose, the candidate or measure, and whether the spending supported or opposed it. It does not list the spender's donors. That is the gap the electioneering and nonbusiness entity rules partly fill, below.

Idaho filing	Trigger	Due	2026 general (Nov. 3) dates
Independent expenditure statement	More than $100 for or against one candidate, committee or measure	At least 7 days before the primary and general; 30 days after each	By Oct. 27; then by Dec. 3
48-hour independent expenditure statement	$1,000 or more after the 16th day before the election, but more than 48 hours before it	Within 48 hours of the expenditure	Spending after Oct. 18 and more than 48 hours before Election Day
Electioneering communication statement	Costs over $100	Same schedule as 67-6611(2)	By Oct. 27; then by Dec. 3
48-hour electioneering statement	Costs of $1,000 or more	Within 48 hours of incurring the cost, at any point in the window	Window opened Sept. 4
Nonbusiness entity statement	Over $1,000 in a calendar year for or against candidates or measures	Within 30 days of crossing $1,000	Rolling

The dates in the last column are computed from the statutes for the November 3, 2026 general election. The Secretary of State's Campaign Finance Disclosure Manual lists the same 48-hour triggers. People who do not have a Sunshine account can file these forms through the portal's page for nonregistered filers on sunshine.voteidaho.gov.

A PAC that is already registered reports its independent expenditures inside its regular monthly reports too, selecting the expenditure type "Independent Expenditure" and naming the candidate supported or opposed, according to the manual. The separate 48-hour statement still applies in the final 16 days.

Electioneering communications: the Idaho version

Under 67-6602(6), an electioneering communication is a communication that meets all three tests:

• It unambiguously refers to any candidate.
• It is broadcast, printed, mailed, delivered, made or distributed within 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election.
• It reaches an audience that includes voters for that office.

The media list is wider than the federal one: television, radio, newspapers, billboards, direct mail, hand delivery to homes, phone calls to homes, "or otherwise distributed." There is no minimum audience size. The exemptions are news stories and editorials in outlets not owned or controlled by a candidate, committee or party; a business's regular communications; a membership group talking only to its members and their families; a candidate named only as part of a bill's popular name; and anything that is already an expenditure or independent expenditure.

Idaho Code 67-6628 sets the paperwork. A spender whose costs pass $100 files on the 67-6611 schedule. At $1,000 or more, a statement is due within 48 hours of incurring the cost. Either way the statement lists the amount spent and the names and addresses of anyone who contributed $50 or more to the spender. That donor line is the big difference from an independent expenditure statement.

Compare the federal rule in 52 U.S.C. 30104(f), which governs ads about candidates for Congress and president. It covers only broadcast, cable and satellite ads, only ones that can reach 50,000 or more people in the district or state, and only after a spender passes $10,000 in direct costs in a calendar year. Federal reports are due within 24 hours of each disclosure date. Idaho's rule reaches a $200 batch of door hangers. The federal one does not reach a mailer at all.

Question	Idaho (state and local races)	Federal (Congress, president)
Window	30 days before primary, 60 before general	30 days before primary or convention, 60 before general
Media	Broadcast, print, billboards, mail, hand delivery, phone calls, other distribution	Broadcast, cable and satellite only
Audience test	Reaches voters for the office	Can be received by 50,000 or more in the district or state
Reporting threshold	Over $100; 48-hour report at $1,000	Over $10,000 in a calendar year; 24-hour report
Donors disclosed	Contributors of $50 or more to the spender	Contributors of $1,000 or more, with details set by FEC rules

Issue ads, voter guides and the gray zone

An issue ad that discusses a public question and asks people to call an official is protected speech, and outside the windows it usually triggers nothing in Idaho. Voter guides are the trickier case. A guide that lists every candidate's answers to the same questions, in the candidates' own words, without telling anyone how to vote, reads like education. A guide that grades candidates and tells readers who the "right" ones are reads like advocacy.

The Secretary of State acted on exactly that in 2024. As the Idaho Capital Sun reported on May 16, 2024, the office wrote in April to a southern Idaho group that had sent out unofficial voter guides highlighting the platforms of candidates it favored and said it had paid for them without registering as a political committee. The office ordered it to stop distributing the guides until it complied and imposed a $1,000 fine. The same report said a Washington, D.C. group called Retire Career Politicians had spent $76,000 opposing the Idaho House speaker without registering in Idaho, and the office told it to register. The Secretary of State said more than 60 campaign finance complaints had come in that cycle. He also said his office does not police whether what committees say is accurate. It polices who paid.

Not every complaint ends in a fine. In May 2022, a North Idaho party activist complained that The People's Pen, a free publication partly paid for by the Kootenai County Republican Central Committee, was an electioneering piece that should be reported. Newspapers are exempt unless a candidate, committee or party owns or controls them. In a letter dated September 13, 2022, the Secretary of State at the time closed the matter because the evidence did not prove the committee controlled and paid for the paper, the Idaho Capital Sun reported. The committee had reported the amounts of two later printing invoices as independent expenditures. Control and payment, not content, decided it.

Outside spending runs on both sides of contested measures. By September 30, 2026, groups and individuals had reported about $29,000 in independent expenditures opposing the 2026 Proposition 1 (the Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act), among them county party central committees in four counties, a PAC, a construction company and a state senator, and an advocacy affiliate of Planned Parenthood reported about $250 supporting it, according to an October 5, 2026 Idaho Capital Sun report republished by KBOI. The reporter warned the totals might be incomplete because filers entered the measure's name inconsistently in the state database. More on measure money is in Ballot Measures and Issue Campaigns.

Coordination: when independent stops being independent

Idaho's definition makes the test the relationship. Spending is not independent if it is made "with the cooperation or with the prior consent of, or in consultation with," or at the request or suggestion of, the candidate or the candidate's agents. Idaho has no detailed coordination regulation. The Secretary of State's manual explains the consequence: if a committee pays for printing or ads "with the candidate's knowledge," the expense is subject to the candidate's contribution limits and the candidate must report it as an in-kind contribution. If there was no coordination, it is an independent expenditure, with no limit, and the candidate reports nothing.

Federal rules spell coordination out in more detail, and they are a useful map of what to avoid even in a state race. Under 11 CFR 109.21, a communication paid for by an outsider is coordinated if it meets a content standard (for example, it republishes the campaign's own materials or expressly advocates) and a conduct standard. The conduct standards are:

• Request or suggestion. The campaign asked for it, or the spender suggested it and the campaign agreed.
• Material involvement. The campaign weighed in on content, audience, medium, outlet, timing or size.
• Substantial discussion. The spender learned the campaign's plans or needs, and that information shaped the ad.
• Common vendor. A consultant, pollster, list vendor or ad buyer who worked for the campaign in the previous 120 days carries its plans over.
• Former employee or contractor. Someone who worked for the campaign in the past 120 days does the same.

Information from a public source does not count, and a written firewall that walls off shared staff or vendors creates a federal safe harbor unless information leaks anyway.

Political parties are now a special case. On June 30, 2026, in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC, the Supreme Court held 6 to 3 that federal limits on a party's coordinated spending with its own candidates violate the First Amendment. The Secretary of State's Guidance 2026-3 (September 11, 2026), issued after consulting the Attorney General's office, says the office will not enforce Idaho's contribution limits against coordinated spending by a recognized party's state or county central committee for its nominees in the 2026 general election. There is no dollar limit on those coordinated party expenditures, and the party reports them as regular expenditures, not independent ones. Direct gifts from the party to a candidate are still capped. And the guidance says plainly that PACs, individuals, corporations and nonprofits that coordinate are still bound by the limits.

Whose donors get disclosed

This is where most of the argument about "dark money" lives in Idaho. The answer depends on which box the spender is in.

Spender	What it reports about its own donors	Statute
Registered Idaho PAC	Everyone who gave it more than $50 in aggregate, by name and address	67-6607
Independent spender that is not a PAC	Nothing about donors; payees over $50	67-6611
Electioneering communication spender	Contributors of $50 or more to the spender	67-6628
Nonbusiness entity spending over $1,000 a year	Officers or directors, and anyone who paid it more than $500 in either of the prior two years, or paid or agreed to pay more than $500 in the current year	67-6606
FEC-registered committee giving to an Idaho candidate	Its FEC reports stand in, if it is current and the money is not earmarked	SOS Guidance 2026-4

The nonbusiness entity rule in Idaho Code 67-6606 is the one that surprises nonprofits. A "nonbusiness entity" is any group whose main purpose is not profit and whose receipts are more than 10 percent gifts, dues or contributions. Its tax status and home state do not matter. If it spends more than $1,000 in a year in or directed to Idaho voters for or against candidates or measures, it files within 30 days and lists every person who paid it more than $500 in either of the prior two years, or who paid or agreed to pay more than $500 in the current year, for any reason. The Secretary of State's Guidance 2026-5 recommends forming a separate PAC, so that only people who gave for political purposes are named, and says unpaid speeches, volunteer work, unpaid social media posts and emails to members generally need no report.

Federal committees get their own rule. The Secretary of State's Guidance 2026-4 says an FEC registration number "is not a substitute" for Idaho registration when a federal committee participates directly in an Idaho race, and that a federal committee making independent expenditures in an Idaho race files the 67-6611 report with its FEC number. Every foreign national is shut out entirely: Idaho Code 67-6610D bars foreign independent expenditures and electioneering communications, with a felony for knowing violations over $1,000 in 12 months.

Bills to widen donor disclosure for outside spenders have been filed and stalled. In 2025, Senate Bill 1186 (donor disclosures) stayed in committee and Senate Bill 1212 stalled on the Senate floor. In 2026, Senate Bill 1341 stayed in committee, and Senate Bill 1422, a Senate State Affairs Committee bill "to provide for campaign finance transparency," cleared committee with a do-pass recommendation on March 25, reached the Senate's third reading calendar, and was retained there without a vote through April 1, according to the Legislature's bill history. The law in force is the table above.

Federal independent expenditures by Idaho actors

An Idaho group that spends on a race for Congress follows federal law. Independent expenditures go to the FEC. Under 52 U.S.C. 30104(g), spending of $10,000 or more up to the 20th day before an election needs a report within 48 hours, and spending of $1,000 or more after the 20th day, but more than 24 hours before the election, needs a report within 24 hours. For the November 3, 2026 general, the 20th day before was October 14. Super PACs, which may take unlimited money for independent spending, are covered in Forming and Running a PAC.

Electioneering at the polls

A different meaning of electioneering lives in the criminal code. Idaho Code 18-2318, rewritten by Senate Bill 1244 in 2024, applies "on any day that ballots are being cast in person," which takes in early voting. Inside a polling place, inside a building where voting is happening, or within 250 feet of the primary entrance and exit voters use, no one may electioneer, hand out cards or handbills, gather petition signatures, advocate for or against a candidate or measure, solicit votes, offer money or gifts, or interfere with voters or the polling place. The old line was 100 feet and applied on election day only, according to the bill text.

The rule does not reach private property next to the polling place building. No one may block doors, even on that private property. Election officials may "take the necessary steps to address electioneering," including removing materials, talking to people who are electioneering, or calling police. The first two violations are infractions with a $300 fine each; the third is a misdemeanor. Yard signs on a private lot across the street are allowed. A volunteer with a clipboard by the library's front door is not.

Questions and answers

These are the questions residents, candidates, treasurers and nonprofit boards ask most about outside spending. For gift-by-gift questions about who may give to whom, see Who Can Give to Whom: Questions and Answers.

I paid $80 to print flyers telling my neighbors to vote for a county commissioner. Do I file anything?

Not as an independent expenditure. The reporting duty in Idaho Code 67-6611 starts once you spend more than $100 in aggregate for or against one candidate, committee or measure, so a second $40 batch for the same race puts you over. The flyers still need a "paid for by" line naming you under Idaho Code 67-6614A. Keep the receipt either way.

Do I have to register as a PAC to make an independent expenditure?

No. An individual or a single business can spend independently and file only the 67-6611 statements. Registration becomes the question when a group is formed to support or oppose a particular candidate or measure, or when it takes in contributions and spends more than $1,000 in a calendar year on elections, under the definitions in Idaho Code 67-6602. The 2024 voter guide fine described above came from a group that paid for its guides without registering as a political committee. Forming and Running a PAC walks through the trigger.

Is there a limit on how much I can spend independently?

No. Buckley v. Valeo struck down caps on independent spending in 1976, and Idaho's contribution limits in Idaho Code 67-6610A apply to gifts to candidates, not to your own ads. The limit comes back the moment the spending is coordinated, because then it counts as an in-kind contribution to the candidate.

What exactly does an electioneering communication statement ask for?

Under Idaho Code 67-6628, it lists the amount spent, the spender's name and address, and the names and addresses of anyone who contributed $50 or more to the spender. A spender with more than $100 in costs files on the 67-6611 schedule. At $1,000 or more, the statement is due within 48 hours of incurring the cost, at any point in the 30- or 60-day window.

Does a Facebook post or email to my own list count?

Unpaid posts generally do not. The Secretary of State's Guidance 2026-5 says unpaid speeches, volunteer work, unpaid social media posts and emails to members generally need no report. Paying to boost the post, hiring someone to make the video or buying a list turns it into spending that counts toward the $100 trigger.

The candidate's campaign manager emailed me to ask when my mailer drops. Is my mailer now coordinated?

A question alone is not coordination. Answering it, or changing your timing or targets because of what the campaign said, is the kind of exchange Idaho's definition in 67-6602 treats as consultation. Do not discuss the piece, write down the date and what was said, and keep your plans as they were. If the conversation already shaped the ad, treat it as an in-kind contribution and tell the campaign the value so it can report it.

We are a state party's county central committee. What changed in 2026?

After National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC, the Secretary of State's Guidance 2026-3 says the office will not enforce contribution limits against a recognized party's state or county central committee spending in coordination with its own nominees in the 2026 general election. Report that spending as a regular expenditure, not an independent one. A direct transfer of money from the party to the candidate is still a capped contribution.

Where do I file if I am not registered in Sunshine?

Use the page for nonregistered filers on sunshine.voteidaho.gov. The Secretary of State's Campaign Finance Disclosure Manual explains the forms, and the elections division answers questions about which form fits.

Can I hand out flyers in the parking lot of an early voting site?

Not within 250 feet of the primary entrance and exit voters use, on any day ballots are being cast in person there. That is the line in Idaho Code 18-2318 since the 2024 rewrite. Ask the county clerk which door counts, measure from it, and stay beyond the line or on private property next door with the owner's permission.

Hard questions

Why can a group spend unlimited money on ads when I can only give a legislative candidate $1,000 per election?

Because the Supreme Court has drawn the line at coordination. In Buckley v. Valeo (1976), it upheld limits on contributions as a guard against corruption or its appearance, and struck down limits on independent spending because money spent without the candidate's involvement buys speech, not a favor. Citizens United v. FEC (2010) applied the same reasoning to corporations and unions. The answer the law gives to the size of that spending is disclosure: Idaho's 67-6611 and 67-6628 statements, and the 48-hour reports in the final weeks. Whether that is enough is a fair argument, and it is the argument the stalled disclosure bills in 2025 and 2026 were about.

Isn't "independent" a fiction when everyone in a small state knows each other?

The legal test is about specific conduct, not friendship. Under Idaho's definition, spending stops being independent when it is made with the candidate's cooperation, consent, consultation, request or suggestion. A shared vendor or a former staffer is the usual weak point, which is why the federal rule in 11 CFR 109.21 looks back 120 days. Idaho has no detailed coordination regulation, so cases turn on evidence of contact. Reporters and complainants who suspect coordination have to show the contact, which is hard, and that is a real limit on enforcement.

Isn't the electioneering rule just a way to punish people for criticizing officials before an election?

It does not ban anything. A group can run the "call your legislator" mailer 45 days before the general; it files a statement listing what it spent and who gave it $50 or more. Courts have upheld this kind of disclosure: Citizens United upheld federal disclaimer and disclosure rules 8 to 1 while striking down the spending ban. The cost is real for small groups that would rather keep supporters private, and Idaho's $50 donor line is far lower than the federal $1,000, so the rule bites harder here than in a race for Congress.

Isn't disclosure just a way to harass donors?

The Supreme Court has said disclosure can be unconstitutional as applied where donors show a reasonable probability of threats, harassment or reprisals, a principle that runs from NAACP v. Alabama (1958) to Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta (2021), covered in Nonprofits in Politics. It has also said voters have an interest in knowing who is paying to persuade them. Idaho sets its lines at $50 for electioneering donors and $500 for nonbusiness entity payers, and a group worried about exposing general supporters can form a PAC so only political donors are named, as Guidance 2026-5 suggests.

Why does the Secretary of State fine groups for paperwork but not for lies?

Because Idaho law gives the office power over who paid and when it was reported, not over truth. The Secretary of State said as much in 2024: the office polices who paid. No Idaho statute punishes false statements about candidates in ads, and a 2025 bill to give the office that job went nowhere, as Literature, Signs and Ads explains. A government office that judged campaign truth would raise its own First Amendment problems. The remedy for a false ad is defamation law and more speech.

Why should a polling place buffer be 250 feet? Isn't that a big free speech zone?

The Supreme Court upheld Tennessee's 100-foot campaign-free zone 5 to 3 in Burson v. Freeman (1992), as a guard against voter intimidation and fraud. The plurality said a state need not prove its line is "perfectly tailored," and also warned that "at some measurable distance from the polls" a ban could become an impermissible burden. Idaho's 2024 rewrite in Senate Bill 1244 went from 100 to 250 feet and from election day to every in-person voting day, so it sits further out than the zone the Court approved. Private property next door stays open for signs and conversation, which narrows the burden. Anyone who thinks 250 feet goes too far can take it to the Legislature, or test it the way the Tennessee challenger did.