SB 423: Government Transparency; campaign committees, independent committees, political action committees, and leadership committees from accepting contributions or donations from non-Georgia persons that exceed 50 percent of all contributions received; prohibit

In plain language

What the bill does

Who it affects

Why it matters

Key provisions

From the bill

Discussed in meetings (13)

The House and Senate meetings that took this bill up, from their machine transcripts. Each account was written by Georgia Commons with AI and is not part of the record; the video is what was said.

1. Senate Ethics Committee, March 2, 2026

   From 0:58:19 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor presented a substitute limiting covered candidates and political committees to receiving no more than 50% of contributions from non-Georgia sources during each reporting period. The sponsor said excess contributions must be returned or surrendered to the state, with exceptions for family contributions and certain national party transfers. The sponsor also described disclosure requirements for independent election advertising and an exemption from reporting for political action committees spending $25,000 or less annually, until that threshold is exceeded. Deliberately routing contributions through others to evade the limits would carry felony penalties of one to 10 years, a $10,000 fine or both, according to the sponsor. One member questioned criminal rather than civil penalties. The sponsor compared deliberate evasion to money laundering. Other members raised concerns about reporting-period calculations, verifying corporations’ Georgia connections and restricting donations from personal contacts elsewhere. The sponsor confirmed the limit applied separately to each reporting period and said businesses with qualifying Georgia tax filings or economic ties would count as Georgia sources. The sponsor argued that the measure would increase transparency and withstand constitutional review. The committee approved it 7-4.

2. Senate Rules Committee, March 5, 2026

   From 0:26:02 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said SB 423 would restrict campaign contributions from outside Georgia, describing the restriction as preventing 50 percent or more of contributions from coming from out of state. The sponsor presented it as a campaign-transparency measure intended to limit outside influence on Georgia elections. The committee unanimously included the bill in the floor-calendar package.

3. Senate floor session, March 6, 2026 (legislative day 28, part 1)

   From 1:05:46 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel · Confirmed by the bill's status history (Senate Engrossed)

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said SB 423 would limit out-of-state contributions to 50% of a candidate's or covered committee's total, require excess funds to be returned, strengthen independent-committee disclosures and penalize donations routed through others to evade the cap. The sponsor said small political action committees would begin full reporting after exceeding $25,000 in annual spending. The Senate first voted 32 to 20 to bar floor amendments to this bill and five other measures. During debate, one member questioned why personal friends outside Georgia could not provide a majority of campaign support. The sponsor answered that those donors could contribute within the cap. A second member argued that the bill targeted candidates with national Democratic support, left family exemptions unclear and could invite harassment through lawsuits filed by any Georgia resident. That member also questioned constitutionality, enforcement and the distinction between large in-state and out-of-state donations. The sponsor argued that the bill would increase transparency and protect Georgia voters' influence. The Senate adopted the committee substitute and passed the bill, 33 to 21.

4. House Governmental Affairs Committee, March 26, 2026

   From 0:54:27 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said the substitute to SB 423 would restore a reporting exemption for political action committees spending no more than $25,000 annually, require independent election advertisers to meet applicable federal disclosure rules, and cap non-Georgia contributions at 50 percent after June 1, 2026. The sponsor described family and national-party exceptions, 45 days to return excess funds or surrender them to the state, and felony penalties for knowingly routing outside contributions through another person. Members questioned constitutionality, enforcement, reporting costs, corporate exceptions and advantages for incumbents or self-funded candidates. The sponsor defended the cap and said businesses with Georgia tax or employment ties would qualify as Georgia donors. A retired attorney opposed the proposal on free-speech and administrative grounds. Committee counsel said there was insufficient controlling court guidance to determine constitutionality. Members rejected an amendment tightening corporate eligibility and rejected removal of felony penalties, 6-9. The sponsor clarified that those penalties applied to straw-donor arrangements. Members adopted an amendment removing independent committees and political action committees from the contribution cap, limiting it to candidates and campaign committees. The committee approved the amended bill with nine votes in favor; the opposition count is incomplete in the transcript.

5. House Rules Committee, March 31, 2026

   From 0:35:58 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel · Confirmed by the 2026 House Journal, p. 3954

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said SB 423 had been narrowed in committee to focus on candidates and campaign committees. The sponsor described registration requirements before advertising, a 50% limit on candidate contributions from outside Georgia, and a felony provision for intentionally routing illegal contributions through another person. One member questioned the contribution limit's constitutionality. The sponsor defended it as promoting transparency and protecting against outside interference, citing a state interest recognized by the Supreme Court without identifying a case. A second member questioned whether defining Georgia donors partly through income taxes paid could exclude people receiving refunds, renters or people temporarily registered to vote elsewhere. The sponsor maintained that the definition clearly distinguished Georgia residents from nonresidents and cited voting, residency and tax connections. A third member said receiving a refund generally means someone overpaid taxes, not that they paid none, and the sponsor agreed. No change or calendar decision was recorded.

6. House floor session, March 31, 2026 (legislative day 39, part 2)

   From 2:01:25 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel · Confirmed by the bill's status history (House Third Readers)

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The presenter said the bill clarified a $25,000 reporting exemption for small political action committees, required disclosure of certain election advertising and limited candidates and candidate committees to receiving no more than half their contributions from non-Georgia sources. The presenter described exceptions for donors with Georgia economic connections, national party transfers and family contributions, a 45-day refund period and penalties for routing donations through others. A supportive member said some campaigns received 80 percent of their money from outside Georgia. Asked why the cap excluded political action committees, the presenter said those provisions were removed to gain agreement. One opponent cited court decisions and argued the cap violated political speech rights. A second warned of taxpayer-funded litigation. A third supported disclosure but said individual donors faced stricter eligibility rules than corporations. Minority-report speakers warned of difficult donor verification, advantages for wealthy or self-funded candidates and money shifting to less transparent groups. One disputed the presenter's explanation of the family exception. Another opponent said circumvention could carry one to ten years in prison and questioned enforcement costs without a fiscal note. The presenter moved to table the bill, and the House did so without objection.

7. House Rules Committee, March 31, 2026

   From 0:29:30 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel · Confirmed by the 2026 House Journal, p. 3954

   Summary by Georgia Commons: A member objected to placing SB 423 on the supplemental floor calendar. The chair called a voice vote and announced that the motion carried. No vote count or substantive discussion was provided.

• Read aloud: Senate floor session, January 28, 2026 (legislative day 8), 0:25:06
• Read aloud: Senate floor session, March 3, 2026 (legislative day 26), 0:29:43
• Read aloud: Senate floor session, March 4, 2026 (legislative day 27), 0:48:15
• Read aloud: House floor session, March 9, 2026 (legislative day 29), 0:51:30
• Read aloud: House floor session, March 10, 2026 (legislative day 30), 0:42:10
• Read aloud: House floor session, March 27, 2026 (legislative day 38, part 1), 0:35:37

Status timeline

Sponsors

Votes

Topics