{"id":4264,"date":"2026-03-22T20:28:16","date_gmt":"2026-03-22T20:28:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/idahocgg.org\/?p=4264"},"modified":"2026-04-16T22:14:07","modified_gmt":"2026-04-16T22:14:07","slug":"the-harris-hitpiece","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/idahocgg.org\/?p=4264","title":{"rendered":"The Harris Hitpiece"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n

I got this in the mail, and I suspect many in Districts 7 and 6 have as well, so I looked into it.<\/p>\n\n

Kyle Harris, according to our legislator scorecard<\/a>, has an average Idaho Freedom Foundation score of 95.2%. HB 482 is very hard to find on the legislature.idaho.gov website, but I did find something about it here <\/a>by the IFF, which rates this bill as bad (see the link for their reasons). It likely must have failed, or it would have been easy to find on the Idaho.gov website.<\/p>\n\n

This hit piece was paid for by the Conservative Accountability Project<\/a> which also has a Facebook page here<\/a>. If you open that link, you will see they have done several videos, all hitting our most conservative representatives. Their website<\/a> is a one-pager with no info whatsoever, which is a telltale sign of a fake\/distraction website – they don’t want you to know who they are or what they stand for.<\/p>\n\n

Spread the word and tell your friends!\u00a0 This is nothing but a hit piece by cowardly libs disguising themselves as conservatives.<\/p>\n\n

POISON<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"\"\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"\"\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

In this particular hit-piece, Kyle voted against HCR 25, not because it proposed a balanced budget but because it called for a constitutional convention!\u00a0 By doing this, Kyle was protecting your rights under the current constitution by not allowing a con-con to possibly abrogate your rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.<\/p>\n

The roll call of this bill<\/a> was 36-34 and barely passed the House with mostly RINOs and Democrats voting for it.\u00a0 Luckily, the Senate killed it in committee.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Details on the Conservative Accountability Project<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Wha<\/b>t can you tell me about the Conservative Accountability Project of Idaho, a 501(c)(4) non-profit organization?<\/i><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/i><\/p>\n

T<\/b>he Conservative Accountability Project is a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization (also referred to as a “dark money” or issue advocacy group) based in Boise, Idaho. It operates primarily at the state level, focusing on Idaho politics.<\/p>\n

conservativeaccountability.com<\/p>\n

Mission and ActivitiesAccording to its website, the group seeks to educate Idahoans about constitutional values and policies grounded in principles of:Limited government
Low taxation
Safe communities
Putting Idaho citizens first<\/p>\n

Its stated goal is to inform citizens about activities at the Idaho State Capitol and encourage them to engage in the legislative process. In practice, it engages in issue advocacy, voter education, and political communications, including mailers and web pages that scrutinize state legislators’ voting records.<\/p>\n

conservativeaccountability.com<\/p>\n

These communications often frame certain Republican lawmakers (particularly those associated with the Idaho Freedom Caucus or more hardline conservative positions) as “out of touch” with conservative values. Examples include criticisms of votes on topics like law enforcement funding, veterans’ issues, prison policies, budget matters, or immigration enforcement. The materials typically include calls to action, such as urging constituents to contact legislators.<\/p>\n

conservativeaccountability.com<\/p>\n

The group has produced targeted mailers and online content during election cycles (notably around 2021\u20132022 and 2024), often opposing incumbents in Republican primaries or general elections. Critics from more libertarian or Freedom Caucus-aligned circles have accused it of running “smear campaigns,” using “deceptive” or “lying” tactics, and functioning as an establishment or moderate Republican vehicle against “real conservatives.” Some have linked it to opposition against figures like Heather Scott, Tony Wisniewski, Tammy Nichols, Cindy Carlson, Dan Foreman, and others.<\/p>\n

@stopidahorinos<\/p>\n

Organizational DetailsEIN: 87-2986370
Mailing address: PO Box 1945, Boise, ID 83701
Phone: (208) 901-8498
Website: conservativeaccountability.com
Social media: Active on X\/Twitter (@ConsAccountProj
), Facebook, and has had YouTube content in the past.
Incorporation: Registered as a domestic nonprofit corporation in Idaho (initially around 2021).<\/p>\n

It files Form 990-EZ with the IRS. Recent financials (fiscal year ending December 2024) show modest scale:Revenues: ~$38,000 (mostly contributions\/grants; down significantly from prior year)
Expenses: ~$182,516
Assets: ~$20,430<\/p>\n

One reported grant was $25,000 from “Article IV” for general support in 2024. It reports no grants paid out and no full-time employees. As a 501(c)(4), donations are not tax-deductible, and it can engage in political activity as long as social welfare remains its primary purpose.<\/p>\n

causeiq.com<\/p>\n

Leadership and Connections Public records and critics identify board or key figures including:Robert Jones (associated with GS Strategy Group in Boise; also linked to Idaho Liberty PAC as chairman\/treasurer)
Billie Jean Siddoway (attorney at Siddoway Law Office; note: Cindy Siddoway has been mentioned in Idaho GOP contexts, but connection details vary)
Guy Hurlbutt<\/p>\n

These individuals share the same Boise PO Box in some filings. The group has been described by opponents as intertwined with certain PACs or consulting entities in Idaho Republican politics, though it positions itself independently. No detailed leadership bios appear on its public website.<\/p>\n

pocatellochubbuckobserver.com<\/p>\n

Context and Reception As a 501(c)(4), it is not required to disclose all donors publicly, which has drawn criticism in Idaho’s polarized Republican ecosystem. Supporters of targeted legislators often dismiss its materials as misleading or establishment-backed attacks. Others view it as a legitimate accountability effort highlighting votes they see as insufficiently conservative on spending, public safety, or related issues.It appears to be one player among several advocacy groups (e.g., alongside or in contrast to entities like the Idaho Freedom Foundation) operating in Idaho’s statehouse battles over budgets, education, taxes, and social issues.For the most current or detailed filings, check the IRS Tax Exempt Organization Search tool, Idaho Secretary of State business records, or the group’s own site (which focuses more on legislator scorecards\/criticisms than organizational transparency). Its activities are typical of state-level issue advocacy nonprofits during legislative sessions and election years.<\/p>\n

The Conservative Accountability Project of Idaho, as a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization, is not required to publicly disclose its individual donors. This is standard for such groups (often called “dark money” entities in political contexts), as long as their primary activity is issue advocacy rather than direct candidate support.<\/p>\n

causeiq.com<\/p>\n

Available Financial Information Its IRS Form 990-EZ filings (publicly accessible via sites like CauseIQ or ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer) show it relies almost entirely on contributions and grants. For the fiscal year ending December 2024:Total revenue: approximately $38,000 (a sharp decline from ~$144,000 the prior year).
No program service revenue or other major income sources reported.
Expenses were higher (~$182,000 in a recent period), leading to drawdowns on any reserves or prior balances.
It reports no grants paid out to other organizations and no full-time employees.<\/p>\n

One publicly noted inflow was a $25,000 grant from an entity referred to as “Article IV” for general support (reported in connection with 2024 activities). “Article IV” appears in Idaho political contexts as a donor to various election-related or reform efforts, but details on its own backers are limited in public records.<\/p>\n

yahoo.com<\/p>\n

The organization’s small scale and fluctuating revenue suggest it is funded by a limited number of contributors\u2014likely individuals, small foundations, or aligned political\/consulting networks\u2014rather than broad grassroots small-dollar donations or major national philanthropic pipelines.Leadership and Potential TiesKey figures associated with the group (e.g., Robert Jones, listed as a board member\/registered agent and linked to GS Strategy Group, a Boise-based political research and consulting firm) have overlapping involvement with entities like the Idaho Liberty PAC (where Jones has served as chairman\/treasurer). Some critics on social media and in Idaho political commentary speculate that the Project functions as an extension of local Republican consulting or “establishment” networks, potentially drawing support from donors who also back moderate or business-oriented GOP causes in the state. However, no verified large-scale funding ties to specific out-of-state billionaires, national dark money hubs (like those associated with the Koch network, DeVos family, or State Policy Network), or corporate donors have been publicly documented for this specific organization.<\/p>\n

pocatellochubbuckobserver.com<\/p>\n

Its operations (targeted mailers, legislator scorecards, and online advocacy) appear funded on a project-by-project or election-cycle basis, consistent with many small state-level 501(c)(4)s.Broader ContextCritics from hardline conservative or Idaho Freedom Caucus-aligned circles often label it a vehicle for “RINO” (Republican In Name Only) interests and decry its lack of donor transparency, sometimes contrasting it with groups like the Idaho Freedom Foundation (which has faced its own scrutiny over funding and activities). Supporters view it as a legitimate accountability tool without needing to name every backer.For the most detailed view of its finances:Search the IRS Tax Exempt Organization Search or sites like CauseIQ\/ProPublica using EIN 87-2986370.
Review Idaho Secretary of State business filings for incorporation details.
Note that Schedule B (which lists contributors of $5,000+) on its 990s is typically not public for 501(c)(4)s unless voluntarily disclosed or required in specific circumstances.<\/p>\n

In short, while one grant from “Article IV” stands out in available data, the bulk of its funding remains undisclosed due to its legal status. Its modest budget indicates reliance on a handful of committed supporters rather than massive external infusions. If new filings or disclosures emerge (e.g., in future election cycles), they could provide additional clarity.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

If this organization printed and mailed truthful but misleading information aginast an incumbant candidate running for office, would this conflict with its 501(C)(4) status?<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

Thought for 28s<\/p>\n

No, printing and mailing truthful but misleading information against an incumbent candidate would not, by itself, conflict with the organization’s 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status.<\/p>\n

irs.gov<\/p>\n

Key IRS Rules for 501(c)(4) OrganizationsUnder IRS regulations and guidance (e.g., Treas. Reg. \u00a7 1.501(c)(4)-1(a)(2)(ii) and Rev. Rul. 81-95), a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization may engage in political campaign intervention\u2014including activities that support or oppose candidates for public office\u2014as long as it is not the organization’s primary activity. Promotion of social welfare (e.g., educating the public on issues like limited government, taxes, or public safety) must remain the main focus.<\/p>\n

irs.gov<\/p>\n

“Political campaign intervention” includes publishing or distributing statements that favor or oppose a candidate. This covers targeted mailers scrutinizing an incumbent’s voting record, even if they name the candidate and criticize their positions.<\/p>\n

irs.gov<\/p>\n

Whether a specific communication counts as “campaign intervention” (vs. permissible “issue advocacy”) is determined by a facts-and-circumstances test under Rev. Rul. 2004-6. Relevant factors include: whether the material identifies a candidate, its timing relative to an election, whether it expresses approval or disapproval of the candidate’s actions, and whether it references voting or the election.<\/p>\n

irs.gov<\/p>\n

A mailing that is truthful (factually accurate) but misleading (e.g., presented out of context, selectively edited, or framed to imply broader incompetence) would still generally fall under these rules. The IRS does not have a specific prohibition or revocation trigger based on “misleading” content in advocacy materials\u2014the focus is on the purpose and overall activities, not on policing tone, spin, or rhetorical framing (though state election laws or defamation rules could apply separately).When Would It Potentially Cause Issues?The activity would only jeopardize 501(c)(4) status if it caused political campaign intervention to become the organization’s primary activity. The IRS evaluates this using all facts and circumstances, such as:Percentage of time, money, and resources devoted to such mailers vs. other social-welfare work (e.g., general education on constitutional values or legislative updates).
Overall operations\u2014no bright-line percentage exists (historically, the IRS has indicated it should be well below 50%, often suggested as 30\u201340% or less for safety).<\/p>\n

afj.org<\/p>\n

A single mailing or even a series during an election cycle would not automatically make politics “primary” for an organization whose stated mission includes educating citizens about state Capitol activities and encouraging engagement. Many 501(c)(4)s routinely produce legislator scorecards, issue-based mailers, and candidate comparisons without losing status, provided social welfare remains the dominant purpose.<\/p>\n

afj.org<\/p>\n

Note on recent developments: In 2025, a federal court (in Freedom Path, Inc. v. IRS) ruled that the IRS’s “primary activity” standard and the facts-and-circumstances test in Rev. Rul. 2004-6 are unconstitutionally vague. The court did not invalidate exemptions or create new bright-line rules\u2014it simply highlighted ongoing uncertainty and invited further briefing. As of now, the core framework (non-primary political activity is allowed) still governs.<\/p>\n

lathropgpm.com<\/p>\n

Bottom Line This type of mailing is a common, permissible activity for 501(c)(4)s like the Conservative Accountability Project when done as part of issue advocacy or limited campaign opposition. It does not inherently conflict with exempt status. The organization would only be at risk if such efforts (or similar political work) came to dominate its budget, time, and operations to the point that social welfare was no longer primary.If the mailings are part of a broader pattern of legislator accountability and public education (as the group’s website describes), they align with typical 501(c)(4) operations. For specific compliance advice on a real mailing, the organization should consult tax counsel or review its Form 990 filings and overall activity mix. The IRS’s focus is on the big picture, not isolated truthful-but-slanted advocacy.<\/p>\n

The Conservative Accountability Project of Idaho states on its website that its mission is to educate Idahoans about constitutional values and policies grounded in limited government, low taxation, safe communities, and putting Idaho citizens first. Its explicit goal is to inform citizens about activities at the Idaho State Capitol and encourage them to engage in the legislative process.<\/p>\n

conservativeaccountability.com<\/p>\n

In its IRS filings and descriptions from sources like CauseIQ, it characterizes its work as social welfare, education, and issue advocacy activities. These include producing materials (such as targeted web pages and mailers) that scrutinize legislators’ voting records on issues like budgets, public safety, and conservative policy alignment, while urging constituents to contact lawmakers.<\/p>\n

causeiq.com<\/p>\n

How the IRS Determines “Primary Activity”For a 501(c)(4) organization, the primary activity must be the promotion of social welfare (bringing about civic betterment and social improvements for the community as a whole). Political campaign intervention (activities that support or oppose candidates) is allowed but cannot be the primary activity. There is no strict percentage threshold; the IRS uses a facts-and-circumstances test, considering factors such as:The amount of time, money, and resources devoted to different activities.
The organization’s overall operations, publications, disbursements, and how activities further (or do not further) the common good.
Whether activities primarily benefit the community broadly or a private\/electoral interest.<\/p>\n

Lobbying and issue advocacy are generally unlimited if tied to social welfare goals, but direct or indirect campaign intervention must remain secondary.<\/p>\n

irs.gov<\/p>\n

In practice, for small groups like this one (modest budget, no full-time employees reported), primary activity is assessed holistically across multiple years rather than isolated mailings or election-cycle spikes.Evidence of This Organization’s ActivitiesSelf-described focus: Education on state legislative issues and spurring public engagement (aligns with social welfare\/issue advocacy).
Observed operations: Much of its visible work involves legislator-specific pages and communications criticizing votes or positions of certain incumbents (often framed as “opposing strong conservative policies”). These are typically labeled as paid for by the 501(c)(4) and timed around legislative sessions or elections. Critics frequently describe them as targeted mailers or “accountability” efforts against specific lawmakers.
Financial scale: Recent Form 990-EZ filings show limited revenue and expenses, with activities appearing concentrated on advocacy\/communications rather than broad programs like community events or research. No large grants paid out or diverse program services are reported.<\/p>\n

From public information, its activities lean heavily toward issue advocacy and legislator accountability, which many 501(c)(4)s treat as permissible social welfare work. However, when these efforts name incumbents, reference voting records in an election context, and call for constituent action against them, they can cross into political campaign intervention under the facts-and-circumstances test (per IRS Rev. Rul. 2004-6). Whether this becomes “primary” depends on the proportion of resources devoted to it versus general education.How to Find Out More PreciselyThere is no single public document that declares an organization’s “primary activity” in absolute terms\u2014the IRS does not pre-approve or audit every group’s mix annually unless there’s a complaint or examination. To assess it yourself:Review the organization’s own statements:Its website (conservativeaccountability.com) for mission and materials.
Social media (@ConsAccountProj
on X) and any archived content for volume and focus of output.<\/p>\n

Examine IRS Form 990 filings (using EIN 87-2986370):Available via ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer, CauseIQ, or the IRS Tax Exempt Organization Search tool.
Look at Part III (Statement of Program Service Accomplishments) for how the group describes its activities and expenses.
Check Schedule C (if filed) for any reported political campaign or lobbying expenditures.
Compare revenue\/expenses over multiple years to see patterns (e.g., spikes during election years vs. off-year education work).
Note: 990-EZ forms (used by smaller organizations) provide less detail than full 990s.<\/p>\n

Analyze actual outputs:Count and categorize materials: General legislative updates\/education vs. candidate\/incumbent-specific attacks or endorsements.
Track timing (legislative session vs. pre-election) and spending on mailers\/printing (if disclosed in state campaign finance reports or inferred from expenses).<\/p>\n

State-level records:Idaho Secretary of State filings for the nonprofit corporation.
Any campaign finance disclosures if expenditures qualify as independent expenditures under Idaho law.<\/p>\n

Third-party analyses:News coverage, critic commentary (e.g., from Idaho Freedom Caucus-aligned sources), or watchdog reports, though these are often partisan.<\/p>\n

In summary, the organization’s stated and filed primary activity is education and issue advocacy on conservative principles and state legislative matters. In reality, a significant visible portion involves targeted criticism of incumbents’ records, which walks the line of political intervention. Without detailed internal records (time logs, budgets broken down by project), outsiders rely on the facts-and-circumstances picture from public filings and outputs. If the bulk of resources go toward broad civic education with advocacy as a component, it likely stays compliant; if election-related targeting dominates year after year, it could raise questions about primary purpose.For the most authoritative view on a specific year, consult the latest 990 and, if needed, tax counsel familiar with 501(c)(4) rules. The IRS evaluates on a case-by-case basis, often only if triggered by a complaint.<\/p>\n

The Conservative Accountability Project of Idaho (a 501(c)(4)) does not publicly maintain or disclose an official list of endorsed or supported candidates on its website or in its IRS filings. Its activities primarily involve issue advocacy and legislator accountability efforts, which in practice have consisted of producing targeted mailers, online materials, and communications that criticize the voting records or positions of specific incumbent Republican state legislators\u2014often framing them as insufficiently aligned with conservative principles (e.g., on spending, public safety, immigration, or related issues).These materials are typically presented as educational or accountability tools rather than formal endorsements or independent expenditures for\/against candidates. As a result, the group rarely (if ever) explicitly supports candidates in public records; its visible efforts have overwhelmingly focused on opposition to certain incumbents, especially those aligned with the more hardline Idaho Freedom Caucus wing of the Republican Party.Known Targets of Opposition (Primarily via Mailers and Criticisms)Public commentary, social media posts from critics (e.g., “Stop Idaho RINOs” accounts), letters to the editor, and references in Idaho political discussions identify the following legislators as having been targeted by the group’s materials in past cycles (notably 2021\u20132022 and 2024, with some activity continuing into 2026 primary contexts):2021\/2022 Cycle Targets (described as attacks on “conservatives”):Heather Scott
Tony Wisniewski
Mike Kingsley
Tammy Nichols
Greg Ferch
Christy Zito
Karey Hanks
Ron Nate
Chad Christensen
Carl Crabtree (criticized in context of mailers alongside others)<\/p>\n

Additional mentions in broader criticisms include Cindy Carlson and Dan Foreman (though some overlap with other groups’ efforts).2024 and Recent\/2026 Mentions:Kyle Harris (multiple references to recent mailers criticizing a vote on HB 482 or immigration-related funding)
Josh Kohl
Steve Tanner (or Steven Shay Tanner)
David Leavitt
Glenneda Zuiderveld<\/p>\n

Critics frequently describe these mailers as “lying,” “deceptive,” or “smear campaigns,” even when the underlying vote facts are presented (e.g., selective framing of budget or law enforcement votes). The group has been accused of using similar tactics across election cycles, with increased spending noted in 2024.Important CaveatsNo comprehensive official list exists publicly: The above comes from aggregated critic reports, Facebook\/X posts, opinion pieces, and local news references rather than the organization’s own disclosures. Not every mentioned name may have received a dedicated mailing, and details can vary by district and year.
No documented support for candidates: There are no clear public examples of the group mailing materials explicitly endorsing or supporting specific challengers or incumbents. Its work appears geared toward highlighting perceived shortcomings of targeted incumbents to encourage constituent contact or voting decisions.
Context: These efforts occur mainly during legislative sessions or primary election periods and focus on state House\/Senate races in Idaho. As a small 501(c)(4), its scale is modest compared to larger PACs, and activities are framed as “educating Idahoans” about Capitol votes.
Transparency limitations: Because it is a 501(c)(4), detailed spending on specific mailers or communications is not required to be publicly itemized in the same way as PAC independent expenditures (though state campaign finance rules may capture some if classified as such).<\/p>\n

For the most accurate picture in any given cycle, one would need to:Monitor incoming mailers in targeted districts.
Review the group’s website (conservativeaccountability.com) for any active legislator scorecards or pages (which have featured vote critiques in the past).
Check Idaho Secretary of State campaign finance disclosures or complaints for any reported expenditures.
Follow local conservative commentary (e.g., from Freedom Caucus-aligned voices), as they often publicize and rebut the group’s materials.<\/p>\n

The group’s pattern suggests it functions as a vehicle for critiquing legislators viewed as too moderate or “establishment” on fiscal and policy issues, rather than a traditional endorsing organization. If new materials surface in the 2026 cycle, additional names could emerge. For official verification, consult the organization’s filings or contact them directly via their listed PO Box or phone.<\/p>\n

What can you tell me about HB 482 and can you find a roll-call vote on this bill and show me who voted for it and against it on the final vote?<\/p>\n

Thought for 28s<\/p>\n

HB 482 (2025 Idaho legislative session) was an appropriations and fund-transfer bill introduced by the House Appropriations Committee. Its official purpose was to handle various year-end adjustments to state finances. Specifically, it:Related to the appropriation and transfer of moneys in the state treasury for fiscal years 2025 and 2026.
Provided an additional appropriation to the Military Division for fiscal year 2025.
Authorized pay increases for the Military Division to align with the federal general schedule pay scale.<\/p>\n

In practice, this was an end-of-session \u201ccleanup\u201d appropriations bill that included multiple cash transfers between state funds (a common legislative tool at the close of a session). It did not explicitly mention immigration enforcement in its text or summary. However, critics (including materials associated with the Conservative Accountability Project of Idaho) framed a specific fund transfer within the bill as \u201cdraining\u201d or cutting funding that had been used by the Idaho State Police (ISP) to assist federal immigration enforcement efforts.<\/p>\n

facebook.com<\/p>\n

Legislative status:Introduced and passed both chambers on April 3, 2025 (same day, with rules suspended to expedite).
Delivered to the Governor on April 4, 2025.
Signed into law as Session Law Chapter 339, with a line-item veto by Governor Brad Little on April 14, 2025.
The veto specifically rejected the transfer\/zeroing out of the Governor\u2019s emergency fund (Section 5); other sections remained intact.
Effective dates: Sections 1\u20135 (with the noted exception) effective April 14, 2025; Sections 6 & 7 effective July 1, 2025.<\/p>\n

legislature.idaho.gov<\/p>\n

The bill passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in both chambers\u2014typical for routine appropriations cleanup measures.Final Roll-Call VotesHere are the exact final passage votes from the official Idaho Legislature records (House on April 3, 2025; Senate on April 3, 2025).<\/p>\n

legislature.idaho.gov<\/p>\n

Idaho House of Representatives \u2013 Final PassagePassed 68-0-2 (68 Ayes, 0 Nays, 2 Absent)AYES (voted in favor):
Achilles, Alfieri, Andrus, Barbieri, Beiswenger, Berch, Boyle, Bruce, Burgoyne, Cannon, Cayler, Cheatum, Church, Cornilles, Crane(12), Crane(13), Dygert, Egbert, Ehardt, Ehlers, Erickson, Fuhriman, Furniss, Galaviz, Gannon, Garner, Green, Handy, Harris, Hawkins, Healey, Hill, Holtzclaw, Horman, Hostetler, Leavitt, Manwaring, Marmon, Mathias, McCann, Mendive, Mickelsen, Miller, Mitchell, Monks, Nelsen, Palmer, Petzke, Pohanka, Price, Rasor, Raybould, Raymond, Redman, Rubel, Sauter, Scott(Dotson), Shepherd, Shirts, Skaug, Tanner(13), Tanner(14), Thompson, Vander Woude(Harris), Weber, Wheeler, Wisniewski, Mr. Speaker.NAYS: None.
Absent: Clow, Pickett.
Floor Sponsor: Rep. Horman.(Note: Rep. Kyle Harris\u2014the legislator referenced in prior context\u2014is explicitly listed among the Ayes.)Idaho Senate \u2013 Final PassagePassed 33-1-1 (33 Ayes, 1 Nay, 1 Absent\/Excused)AYES (voted in favor):
Adams, Anthon, Bernt, Bjerke, Blaylock, Burtenshaw, Carlson, Cook, Den Hartog, Foreman, Galloway, Grow, Guthrie, Harris, Hart, Keyser, Kohl, Lakey, Lenney, Lent, Nichols, Okuniewicz, Ricks, Semmelroth, Shippy, Taylor, Toews, VanOrden, Ward-Engelking, Wintrow, Woodward, Zito, Zuiderveld.NAYS: Ruchti.
Absent and excused: Rabe.
Floor Sponsor: Sen. Grow.You can view the official bill page and journals for the complete legislative history and any supporting documents at: https:\/\/legislature.idaho.gov\/sessioninfo\/2025\/legislation\/h0482\/.This vote was one of several routine budget-adjustment actions at the end of the 2025 session; the controversy around it (including criticisms of certain \u201cyes\u201d votes like Rep. Harris\u2019s) centered on how one of the internal fund transfers was interpreted to affect state-federal immigration cooperation funding.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

I saw in a mailer from the organization that Kyle Harris opposed HB 482 but you tell me he voted for it. Does this make their mailer factually incorrect?<\/b><\/i><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

Yes, the mailer is factually incorrect on the core claim that Rep. Kyle Harris “opposed” HB 482.The official record shows Rep. Kyle Harris voted in favor (Aye) on the final passage of HB 482 in the Idaho House on April 3, 2025. The bill passed the House 68-0-2 (68 Ayes, 0 Nays, 2 Absent). Harris is explicitly listed among the Ayes in the roll call. The Senate passed it 33-1-1, and it was signed into law (with a partial line-item veto by the Governor).<\/p>\n

legiscan.com<\/p>\n

What the Mailer Claimed (Based on Public References)Critics and recipients of the Conservative Accountability Project mailer describe it as stating something to the effect of:
“Rep. Kyle Harris VOTED TO CUT FUNDING FOR IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT” and that “HB 482 drained funding used by Idaho State Police assisting federal immigration enforcement.”This framing is what opponents (especially from Idaho Freedom Caucus-aligned or hardline conservative circles) call “lying” or deceptive, even while the underlying vote is accurate.<\/p>\n

facebook.com<\/p>\n

Why It’s “Truthful but Misleading” (or Simply Factually Wrong on Opposition)The vote itself: Harris did not oppose the bill\u2014he supported it. Saying he “opposed HB 482” (if the mailer used that phrasing) is directly false. Even if it only said he “voted for HB 482” and then characterized the vote as “cutting immigration funding,” the overall impression created is one of opposition to immigration enforcement.
The bill’s content: HB 482 was a routine end-of-session appropriations cleanup bill. It handled year-end fund transfers, additional appropriations (including to the Military Division), and pay adjustments. It did not contain explicit language cutting immigration enforcement. Critics interpreted one internal cash transfer (possibly involving the Governor\u2019s emergency fund or related accounts) as reducing resources previously available for Idaho State Police cooperation with federal immigration efforts. This is a policy interpretation\/spin, not a direct statement in the bill text.<\/p>\n

legislature.idaho.gov<\/p>\n

Context of the controversy: Groups like the Idaho Freedom Foundation gave the bill a low\/negative score on their index for fiscal or policy reasons. The mailer used the “yes” vote on this technical budget-adjustment measure to paint Harris (and others) as soft on immigration or insufficiently conservative. Supporters of Harris argue the transfer was innocuous or necessary housekeeping, and that the mailer exaggerates or misrepresents its impact.<\/p>\n

In short:If the mailer claimed Harris opposed the bill \u2192 Factually incorrect.
If it said he voted for the bill and then implied\/claimed this vote “cut immigration funding” \u2192 Technically accurate on the vote, but highly misleading on the substance and intent. It cherry-picks a complex appropriations action to create a narrative of betrayal on a hot-button issue.<\/p>\n

This style of communication\u2014accurate vote citation paired with loaded framing\u2014is common in issue-advocacy mailers from 501(c)(4) groups. Critics of the Conservative Accountability Project frequently call these materials deceptive “smears” precisely because of this gap between the raw vote and the interpretation presented to voters.The official legislative record (available on legislature.idaho.gov or LegiScan) is the authoritative source and confirms Harris voted Aye. No public record shows him voting against final passage of HB 482. If you have the exact wording from the mailer, that would allow even more precise analysis of the discrepancy<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

This just in (4\/16\/26) - related and appropriate<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
\n
\n
From Senator Zito\u00a0<\/strong><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/div>\n
I have been involved in Idaho politics for a number of years now, and I say this plainly: I have never seen a year as nasty as this one.<\/strong><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/div>\n
Campaign season has always had its rough edges. That\u2019s not new. Mailers get sharp. Ads take shots. Opponents draw contrasts. That\u2019s the nature of politics in a free society.<\/strong><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/div>\n
But what we are seeing right now is something different.<\/strong><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/div>\n
We are seeing a flood of flyers, television spots, and radio ads that go far beyond drawing distinctions on policy or record. These messages are designed not just to persuade\u2014but to tear down. To distort. To make good, hardworking people look as bad as possible, whether the claims hold water or not.<\/strong><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/div>\n
One recent example makes the point clearly. A campaign flyer cites bill number S1157 as supposed evidence against a candidate\u2014but the bill itself has nothing to do with the subject being claimed. Even more concerning, the vote count presented on the flyer is simply wrong. The actual vote was a straightforward party-line vote, not what is being portrayed. When basic facts like the content of a bill and the recorded vote are misrepresented, that is not political debate\u2014that is deliberate misinformation<\/strong><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/div>\n
.That level of vitriol is not normal for Idaho.<\/strong><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/div>\n
And neither is the degree of deceit.<\/strong><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/div>\n
There has always been a line, an understanding, even in disagreement, that we are still neighbors, still members of the same communities, still Idahoans first. That line is being crossed more frequently and more aggressively than I have ever witnessed.<\/strong><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/div>\n
It should concern all of us.<\/strong><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/div>\n
When campaigns become less about truth and more about destruction, voters are not informed; they are manipulated. And when that happens, the integrity of our elections begins to erode, not from the outside, but from within.<\/strong><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/div>\n
I have always trusted the people of this state.<\/strong><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/div>\n
Idaho voters are thoughtful. They are independent. They take their responsibility seriously. Most people who make the effort to vote also make the effort to understand what and who they are voting for. They ask questions. They look deeper. They don\u2019t simply accept what shows up in a mailbox or flashes across a screen.<\/strong><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/div>\n
That gives me confidence.<\/strong><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/div>\n
But it also raises the stakes.<\/strong><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/div>\n
Because the volume of misinformation we are seeing this year is designed to overwhelm that instinct, replacing careful consideration with emotional reaction. It is designed to create doubt where clarity should prevail.<\/strong><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/div>\n
And that only works if we let it.<\/strong><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/div>\n
So I would ask something simple of every Idahoan:<\/strong><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/div>\n
Slow down.<\/strong><\/div>\n
Look closer.<\/strong><\/div>\n
Ask one more question.<\/strong><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/div>\n
Who is behind the message?<\/strong><\/div>\n
What is their motive?<\/strong><\/div>\n
Does the claim actually hold up?<\/strong><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/div>\n
Truth still matters, but it requires effort.<\/strong><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/div>\n
This moment is bigger than any single race, any single candidate, or any single election cycle. It is about what kind of political culture we are willing to tolerate in our state moving forward.<\/strong><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/div>\n
Do we reward honesty, even when we disagree?<\/strong><\/div>\n
Or do we reward whoever is willing to go the lowest, the fastest?<\/strong><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/div>\n
Idaho has never been a place that chases the worst instincts of politics. We have prided ourselves on being grounded, direct, and fair-minded\u2014even in tough debates.<\/strong><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/div>\n
We should expect that standard to hold.<\/strong><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/div>\n
Not because politics will ever be perfect\u2014but because we should demand that it be better than this.<\/strong><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/div>\n
The responsibility doesn\u2019t just fall on candidates or campaigns.<\/strong><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/div>\n
It falls on all of us.<\/strong><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/div>\n
I believe Idaho is up to that challenge.<\/strong><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/div>\n
With grit, faith, and unwavering resolve,<\/strong><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/div>\n
God bless,<\/strong><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/div>\n
Senator Christy Zito,<\/strong><\/div>\n
Idaho State Senate<\/strong><\/div>\n
District 8,<\/strong><\/div>\n
Protecting Freedom for Future Generations<\/strong><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I got this in the mail, and I suspect many in Districts 7 and 6 have as well, so I looked into it. Kyle Harris, according to our legislator scorecard, has an average Idaho Freedom Foundation score of 95.2%. HB 482 is very hard to find on the legislature.idaho.gov website, but I did find something […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8938,"featured_media":4265,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12,17,22,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4264","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-articles","category-candidates","category-recommendations","category-uncategorized"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t