Protecting Idaho's Voice: Taking Campaign Finance Reform from Boise to Washington
One of the issues I have become increasingly concerned about during my service in the Idaho Senate is the amount of money coming from outside our state to influence Idaho elections. This concern is not about Republicans or Democrats, conservative or liberal organizations, or whether a particular candidate wins or loses. It is about something more fundamental: ensuring that the voices of Idaho citizens are not overshadowed by the financial influence of organizations and interests that may have little connection to the communities where our elections take place.
During the 2026 legislative session, I had the responsibility of carrying Senate Joint Memorial 109 (SJM 109), calling upon Congress to support appropriate measures, including a constitutional amendment if necessary, affirming the authority of states to govern their election processes. This includes matters involving campaign finance, transparency, and outside influence.
The memorial was adopted by the Idaho Legislature, making Idaho the 25th state to formally call for a constitutional amendment approach to addressing the influence of money in elections.
I believe our responsibility as legislators extends beyond passing resolutions. When an issue is important enough to bring before the Legislature, we should also be willing to follow through.
That is what took me to Washington, D.C.
Taking Idaho's Concerns to Congress
In September, I traveled to Washington with Representative Brandon Mitchell, who carried SJM 109 through the Idaho House, as part of a coordinated effort organized by American Promise, a national organization working to restore greater authority to Congress and the states over campaign finance laws.
We met with members and staff of Idaho’s congressional delegation, including opportunities to speak directly with both U.S. Senator Jim Risch and U.S. Senator Mike Crapo. I appreciated the time each senator gave us, and I found both conversations constructive and encouraging. Our concerns were well received, and the discussions reinforced the importance of continuing this effort.
Our primary focus was House Joint Resolution 191, introduced by Congressman Tom Barrett of Michigan. The proposed constitutional amendment would expressly authorize Congress and the states, within their respective jurisdictions, to reasonably regulate and limit contributions and spending in elections.
Importantly, this amendment would not automatically impose a particular set of campaign finance restrictions on Idaho. Rather, it would provide additional constitutional authority for state legislatures to consider reasonable safeguards, while preserving the importance of constitutional protections for political speech.
We are not asking Washington to write Idaho’s election laws. We are asking Congress to advance an amendment that would allow Idahoans, through their elected representatives, greater authority to address these issues themselves.
The Broader Influence of Money in Politics
One observation that stayed with me from our conversations in Washington was just how deeply money has become embedded in the political process. The escalating cost of campaigns, the constant pressure to raise money, and the influence fundraising can have on political opportunities, including leadership and committee assignments, were recurring themes in our discussions.
I came away with the sense that the role of money in politics has grown well beyond simply financing elections. It has become part of a much larger system that will not be easily changed.
I do not believe we are beyond addressing the problem, but I do believe it will require thoughtful action, broad cooperation, and a willingness to reconsider practices that have become accepted as part of political life.
When Outside Money Becomes the Dominant Voice
The concern about outside campaign spending is not hypothetical.
During Idaho’s 2024 primary election, approximately $1.1 million in independent expenditures came from out-of-state organizations. Of that amount, $925,985 was spent opposing candidates, compared with $187,649 spent supporting candidates, according to figures presented by Idaho Secretary of State Phil McGrane.
These figures represent independent expenditures by out-of-state organizations, not all campaign contributions or all political spending in Idaho. The distinction matters, but so does the scale of the spending.
Consider what substantial financial resources can purchase in a relatively small legislative district. Direct-mail campaigns, political advertising, flyers, door hangers, and paid door-to-door canvassing can create an enormous political presence in a community. While these are familiar and generally lawful campaign activities, when financed on a large scale, they can create an impression of widespread grassroots support or opposition that may not accurately reflect what local voters believe.
There is a difference between a volunteer walking a neighborhood because of a deeply held personal conviction and a professionally organized campaign operation supported by substantial outside financial resources. Both have a right to participate in the political process. But the public should be able to recognize the difference between genuine local involvement and an extensive operation financed from outside the community.
I want to be equally clear that my concern is not limited to money supporting candidates or causes I disagree with. The same principles must apply regardless of which side benefits. If we are serious about election integrity and accountability, we cannot support safeguards only when they serve our own political interests.
Transparency, Accountability, and State Authority
Political action committees, commonly known as PACs, and certain nonprofit organizations can play significant roles in financing election-related activity. Depending on how those organizations are structured and the disclosure requirements that apply, determining the original sources of political funding can be difficult. This is where concerns about dark money arise.
We must also distinguish lawful out-of-state political spending from spending involving foreign nationals, whose contributions and expenditures in American elections are already restricted under federal law. These are different legal issues, and any effort to address them must recognize those differences.
In Idaho, our Legislature establishes election laws, while the Secretary of State performs important responsibilities involving election administration, oversight, and campaign finance disclosure. However, federal constitutional restrictions limit the types of campaign finance regulations states may enact.
SJM 109 addresses that larger constitutional question. I believe Idaho should have the authority to consider reasonable campaign finance laws that reflect the interests of our citizens, protect lawful political participation, and provide meaningful transparency about who is attempting to influence our elections.
A Constitutional Path Forward
Article V of the United States Constitution establishes two methods for proposing constitutional amendments. Congress may propose an amendment with a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, followed by ratification by three-fourths of the states. Alternatively, two-thirds of state legislatures may apply for a convention to propose amendments, which would also require ratification by three-fourths of the states.
My preference is to see Congress move forward with Congressman Barrett’s H.J.Res. 191.
I believe this proposal presents an opportunity for Congress to address concerns that extend beyond party affiliation and individual political interests. It does not dictate how Idaho must regulate campaign finance. Instead, it would provide greater constitutional authority for elected representatives to consider reasonable rules on behalf of the people they serve.
I recognize that amending the Constitution requires substantial agreement and considerable effort. These are serious questions involving freedom of speech, political participation, and the proper division of authority between the federal government and the states. Those considerations deserve careful deliberation.
Nevertheless, I believe this issue will continue to gain attention as additional state legislatures examine the influence of money in their own elections. Idaho has already taken a position through SJM 109, and I expect the conversation to continue in statehouses across the country.
Turning Concern Into Action
At public meetings and political gatherings, I often encourage people to recognize the influence they have as individual citizens. When something matters to you, become involved. Educate yourself, speak with your elected representatives, work with others, and take the initiative to move an issue forward.
I believe those of us serving in public office should hold ourselves to that same expectation.
It is one thing to identify a problem and talk about it. It is another to work through the legislative process, develop relationships, and pursue practical solutions.
Carrying SJM 109 through the Senate, working with Representative Mitchell and those assisting this effort, and taking our concerns directly to Washington were all part of following through on an issue I believe deserves serious attention.
I appreciate the work of American Promise and the individuals who helped bring these discussions together. It was encouraging to see people from different states and political backgrounds working toward a common objective, even though they may not agree on every other issue.
Protecting The Voice of the People
Article I, Section 2 of the Idaho Constitution reminds us that all political power is inherent in the people.
That principle is at the heart of this effort.
I am not interested in restricting legitimate political debate or preventing people from expressing their views. Freedom of speech, political association, and the right to participate in elections are fundamental constitutional protections. Nor do I believe government should determine which political messages citizens may hear.
What I do believe is that we should have the ability to establish reasonable, constitutionally sound safeguards that promote transparency, accountability, and meaningful grassroots participation.
The objective should be to protect the voice of the people, not diminish it.
The work we began with Senate Joint Memorial 109 and continued in Washington is part of that responsibility. I remain encouraged by the conversations we had and believe this is an issue worthy of continued attention by Congress and state legislatures across the country.
Idaho’s elections should reflect the informed choices of Idaho voters, not simply the financial strength of those seeking to influence them.
That is a principle worth protecting, regardless of party affiliation or political outcome.
Senator Carl Bjerke represents Idaho’s Legislative District 5 in the Idaho State Senate.
Comments