On July 15, several changes to Kentucky’s campaign finance laws included in HB 136 and HB 139 from the 2026 Legislative Session will go into effect.
One of those changes that stands out is that campaign funds may now be used to cover the reasonable cost of security measures. This includes both during and after an election.
I suppose it’s a sign of the times. Attempts (plural) on President Trump’s life, along with the murders of Charlie Kirk and Minnesota Representative Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, are a sad indication of just how divisive our politics have become.
Another change increases the individual contribution limit to candidates to match the limit for federal candidates per election and ties future contribution limit increases to adjustments made by the FEC (increase from current $2,200 individual contribution limit per election to $3,500 per election).
I think as a whole, this is beneficial except maybe if you are a donor with expectations of maxing out to one or multiple candidates. But for the candidates and the process, it is definitely a win.
One debate I used to have for years with a close friend was whether we should have unlimited contributions from individuals to a candidate. Based on my election history, I could probably argue either side of this topic.
The position I usually took with my friend was, say you were financially very wealthy (which I am not) but you didn’t want your name or your family drug through the mud of what has become of politics, but you wanted to help someone who was willing to step out and take the risk.
In the current system for all but 12 states, there are limits on how much you can donate directly to a candidate. However, if you were willing to run, you could spend as much as you wanted of your own money, thereby providing you with an advantage—at least financially.
My friend would argue that if someone gave you a million dollars, they might have a substantial amount of influence on your decisions in office. And then I would counter that could happen, but that risk could be lessened if all donations large or small had to be reported so people could decide for themselves if they wanted to support someone who took money from a specific person.
From my personal experiences, I can show you examples when I won every general election race since my loss to a Democrat (who is actually a Republican now) in 2000 with only a modest (and sometimes anemic) campaign war chest (including my first race for Auditor when I only had $45,000 going up against the incumbent Auditor who had $800,000+). God blessed me with a victory in that race.
However, in my 25 years of running for office, and my 21 years straight serving in office (13 as State Representative and 8 as Auditor), I never won a primary. Now I only had two in all that time as I was usually the Don Quixote candidate taking on challenges no one else would.
In both of those races, I could definitely make an argument if my campaign — one on a slate for Governor and Lt. Governor (2011) and one for Governor (2023) — had substantially more funds there would have been a much better chance for victory.
On the other hand, I could point to other primaries of other candidates, where someone was outspent 10-to-1 and still had a victory in that race.
So, I suppose arguments could be made either way about what limits, if any, should be on how much someone can give to a candidate and what public disclosures are needed and what risk of corruption or undue influence may be involved with that decision.
But as for now, changes are coming starting July 15.
Mike Harmon served as Kentucky auditor of public accounts from 2016-2023 and before that was a Republican member of the Kentucky House of Representatives for the 54th District. He is now state outreach director for the Comonwealth Policy Center.