The civic record
Read. Follow. Verify.Connecticut bill shields home addresses of public officials, funds security, and allows campaign spending on personal protection
Last action · April 9, 2026: File Number 582
Track this bill to get notified when it advances a stage. One tap to stop, anytime.
What This Bill Proposed
Senate Bill 492 expands protections to hide the residential addresses of elected officials, judges, and municipal board members from public agency personnel and medical files starting October 1, 2026. Effective July 1, 2026, the measure allows political candidates using the or personal funds to pay for personal security services, creates a legislative safety account, and matches national organization grants to the account with state appropriations.
Public officials, candidates, and legislative staff gain new privacy protections and access to campaign-funded or state-backed security resources, while public agencies face new restrictions and potential civil penalties for disclosing protected home addresses.
Who It Would Have Affected
Groups the bill's text would have affected, as described in the record. Being affected is not a position for or against it.
Elected officials and public employees
Their residential addresses are protected from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act across public agency personnel, medical, and similar files.
Political candidates and campaign committees
They are permitted to use campaign grant funds and personal funds for personal security services subject to specific aggregate limits.
Public agencies
They are prohibited from disclosing protected residential addresses and face potential civil penalties of $20 to $1,000 for wilful and knowing violations.
Joint Committee on Legislative Management
It administers the newly created legislative safety account and expends moneys for the security of state legislators and legislative staff.
Key Facts
- Prohibits public agencies from disclosing the residential addresses of statewide elected officers, General Assembly members, gubernatorial appointees, probate judges, municipal chief elected officials, municipal board members, and school board members from personnel, medical, or similar files.
- Defines 'personal security services' as protection services rendered to a candidate, family, or campaign staff by individuals other than on-duty law enforcement, necessitated by campaign activity.
- Requires the State Elections Enforcement Commission to amend Citizens' Election Program regulations on or after July 1, 2026, to permit expenditures for personal security services.
- Permits qualified candidates participating in the Citizens' Election Program to use grant funds for personal security services up until the certification of election results, subject to qualifying contribution limits.
Show all 9 facts
- Exempts personal security expenditures made directly from a candidate's personal funds from candidate funding limits, provided the candidate does not seek committee reimbursement.
- Establishes a separate, nonlapsing 'legislative safety account' to be expended by the Joint Committee on Legislative Management for the security of legislators and staff.
- Requires the deposit of moneys received from national legislative organizations into the legislative safety account during fiscal year 2027 and mandates a matching General Fund appropriation for that fiscal year.
- Imposes civil penalties ranging from $20 to $1,000 on public agencies or officials found by the Freedom of Information Commission to have wilfully and knowingly violated address disclosure restrictions.
- Removes prohibitions allowing candidates and immediate family members to receive compensation for providing child care services to a campaign.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which public officials are newly protected from having their home addresses disclosed?
Can political candidates use public campaign grant funds to pay for private security?
What is the legislative safety account?
What penalty do public agencies face for violating the home address disclosure rules?
What else do you want to know?
News Coverage
Follow the record
Votes, people, money & the original sourceWhere This Stands
This bill did not become law - Died at adjournment · on the Senate floor.
Procedural history
9 actions- Apr 9, 2026Connecticut General AssemblyFile Number 582
- Apr 9, 2026SenateSenate Calendar Number 348
- Apr 9, 2026SenateFavorable Report, Tabled for the Calendar, Senate
- Apr 9, 2026Connecticut General AssemblyReported Out of Legislative Commissioners' Office
- Apr 2, 2026Connecticut General AssemblyReferred to Office of Legislative Research and Office of Fiscal Analysis 04/08/26 5:00 PM
- Mar 23, 2026Connecticut General AssemblyFiled with Legislative Commissioners' Office
Show 3 earlier actions
- Mar 23, 2026Connecticut General AssemblyJoint Favorable
- Mar 13, 2026Connecticut General AssemblyPublic Hearing 03/18
- Mar 12, 2026Connecticut General AssemblyCommitteeReferred to Joint Committee on Government Administration and Elections
Version history
Only one version on file - nothing to compare yet. As later stages (committee substitute, engrossed, enrolled) are captured, the redline appears here.
View official text →Lobbying Activity
No state lobbying filings in our records match this bill. Federal lobbying reports (LDA) cover Congress, so they are not listed on state bills.
Full breakdown
Who this bill affects and the strongest case for and against it, written only from the bill’s own text.
Discoveries
Patterns POLISCOPE noticed across the record. These are observations to investigate, not conclusions.
Expansion of FOIA Home Address Redactions
The bill broadens protections previously reserved for law enforcement, judges, and specific state workers to include virtually all top-tier state and municipal elected officials and school board members.
State Matching Funds for Legislative Security
Section 7 introduces a direct funding linkage where state General Fund appropriations in FY 27 must match any contributions received by the Joint Committee on Legislative Management from national legislative organizations.
Connected Entities
Sources
cga.ct.gov
Analysis Score
0–100- Significance20Lowered because this bill did not pass (its text scored 75)
- Controversy35Intensity of disagreement among stakeholders
- Entertainment10Compellingness for a non-policy-wonk reader
- Buzz55Current news / social attention level
Publisher tools