New Hampshire campaign-finance records reveal substantial corporate and out-of-state funding flowing into the Committee to Elect House Republicans, chaired by House Majority Leader Jason Osborne.

The committee has reported more than $1 million in contributions during the 2026 election cycle. Its donors include:

• GOPAC Election Fund: $90,000 in the reviewed records
• General Cybernetics Corp: $30,000
• Granite Bio Innovation: $30,000
• Kalshi: $20,000
• i360 LLC: $18,900, a political data company associated with the Koch network
• U.S. Term Limits: $15,000
• NH BUILD PAC: $10,500
• NHBA State Bank PAC: $10,250
• Sig Sauer: $10,000

Most of these corporations have received tax cuts as a result of Jason Osborne. Our property taxes have gone up as a result. Now these corporations are giving Jason Osborne the largest slush fund for local politics in history. Jason Osborne is shooting off AI-generated ads, mass -producing roadside signs, and spending significant dollars on killing New Hampshire Public Schools.

It's blatant, disgusting corruption in plain sight.

These records are publicly available through the New Hampshire Secretary of State's campaign-finance reporting system. Search for Committee to Elect House Republicans, filer ID 207762.

https://cfs.sos.nh.gov/login

https://preview.redd.it/9vg263xsfxsh1.png?width=1711&format=png&auto=webp&s=96c885974195de6930e2939bd31891925d11a600

If this was a game of Sid Meier's civilization, we'd be losing.

Remember this in November when you vote for state representatives.

Ask your Republican legislators a simple question: “What specific bill have you voted for in the past 10 years that actually lowered property taxes?”

Then listen carefully to the answer. They’ll blame your local schools and tell you the solution is to cut school spending.

But that ignores the other side of the equation: The Republicans have repeatedly cut or eliminated revenue sources while shifting more costs onto local property taxpayers.

You can’t cut state revenue, push costs down to towns, and then blame the schools when the property-tax bill arrives.

https://preview.redd.it/zaesdlsdvqkh1.png?width=1536&format=png&auto=webp&s=caf605bf94d7605b070167bdcad1f2e05eb2a999

https://preview.redd.it/iz848p9t3ekh1.png?width=2048&format=png&auto=webp&s=2fc1ab832b5f7614353e2b9cdf5c8a9ea4991122

New Hampshire’s School Funding Fight: What the State Is Asking the Supreme Court to Do

New Hampshire’s school funding case in Rand is moving forward, and the State has filed a major brief asking the Supreme Court to change long-standing rules.

The State is trying to do two big things:

• Overturn or narrow the Claremont decisions, which established a constitutional right to an adequate education funded by the State.
• Or, at minimum, change how that obligation is measured.

The key issue: counting local taxes as “state funding”

The State argues that local property-tax dollars should count toward its constitutional duty to fund education.

In practice, that means:

• If a town raises more money locally to meet education costs,
• The State could treat that as part of its own required funding.

This leads to a simple problem:

If local taxpayers are filling the gap, is the State really meeting its obligation?

The ConVal ruling

In 2025, the New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled in ConVal that the State’s base education funding was too low.

• The Court identified $7,356 per student as a minimum reference point.
• It did not order immediate funding changes.
• It also noted the State did not provide evidence showing its funding was enough.

The State now says the adequacy standard is too unclear and hard to apply.

The response is straightforward: the State has not shown what an adequate education actually costs or that its funding covers it.

What the Legislature did in 2026

Lawmakers:

• Rejected SB 582, which would have raised funding to the ConVal minimum.
• Rejected HB 1636, which would have studied how to fund that level.
• Passed HB 1815, which created a “shared responsibility” model between the State and towns and changed how adequacy is calculated.

The State is now asking the Court to adopt that approach.

Why this matters for taxpayers

This is not just a legal dispute. It affects how schools are paid for.

If the State counts local taxes as part of its funding:

• Wealthier towns can raise more money and offer more services.
• Less wealthy towns may struggle to keep up.

A lower court in Rand found the State’s funding was not enough and that local taxes were already being used to cover the gap.

The core questions

At its center, the case comes down to:

1. What does an adequate education actually cost?
2. How much must the State pay?
3. How much are local taxpayers already covering?

Where things stand

The Supreme Court has not ruled yet. The plaintiffs will respond next, followed by possible oral arguments.

This case could become one of the most important school funding decisions in New Hampshire in decades.

The main issue is whether the State can meet its constitutional duty by counting money that local taxpayers already had to raise.