Senate Ethics Committee, March 19, 2026 Video: https://vimeo.com/1175284225 (a timestamp t plays at https://vimeo.com/1175284225#t=s) Page: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-03-19/senate-ethics This is a machine transcript of the General Assembly's video, made by a speech-recognition model. It is not an official record and can mishear words, names, and numbers. Speakers are not identified. The video is the record: every timestamp links to the moment it plays. [0:20:39] But before we do that, um. And I'm gonna ask my vice chair to do that. [0:20:47] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let us pray. Dear God, I come to you again today asking for your blessings, your guidance, your wisdom. I ask for your understanding, for we're mere mortals trying to do what we can to make our lives better and to be fair and just. I ask for your forgiveness of our sins and lead us and guide us and direct us. In thy name we pray, amen. [0:21:18] Amen. All right. Thank you, sir. [0:21:23] Make sure that you have the first and second use there anyway. [0:21:28] All right. Uh, first little quick order of business is we need to approve a, uh, Life Sciences Caucus. Should have it in your, uh, folders. Um, they're kinda getting a late start, but, uh, we'll go ahead and approve them in case they wanna do something, uh, later on. [0:21:43] Make a motion to do pass. [0:21:44] Second. [0:21:46] A motion and a second. Any discussion? All right. All those in favor say aye. [0:21:50] Aye. [0:21:51] Any opposed? All right. We got a Life Sciences Caucus now. Y'all should join. [0:21:56] All right. [0:21:57] Good. I hope the, uh, the rest of our legislation here this evening is like that. [0:22:02] Absolutely. [0:22:03] Uh, first up, uh, Chairman Albers, come on down. Um, you've got a bill here. I think it's, uh, very, very familiar, uh, information that we talked about some, I think, uh, a week or so ago. [0:22:17] Yes, sir. [0:22:18] Um, but if you'll just, uh, let us know what you got, and I'll turn it over to you. [0:22:23] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, august members of this committee. This is House Bill 369, LC 47-4282S. Uh, you had looked at a very similar version of this bill. This is a cleanup. There were some technical changes that needed to be made to make sure it conformed properly. This takes the five metro counties which are defined in the code as consolidated law enforcement counties and makes all the positions county level, minus the sheriff, uh, as a nonpartisan, uh, elected official. This will help us with safety and security, and I yield for questions. [0:22:57] All right. Anybody have questions for the author? [0:23:03] All right. I- [0:23:04] Motion to do pass. [0:23:05] Hold on. [0:23:05] I thought you had questions on that. [0:23:08] Uh, number four. Is that you- [0:23:10] Yes [0:23:10] ... minority leader? [0:23:11] Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was just curious, um, just based on the metrics that are being used about the nonpartisan aspect, why not include the county sheriff? I would not necessarily be in favor of that, but I'm just asking based on your metrics, why not include the county sheriff? [0:23:23] It's a great question, Mr. Leader. I appreciate that. [0:23:25] Mm-hmm. [0:23:25] Uh, this was a careful negotiation and working with the Georgia Sheriff's Association. Uh, we opted, uh, to take a bite of that apple next year. Thank you. [0:23:35] All right, number seven. Is that you? [0:23:39] Uh, thank, thank, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, [0:23:44] I, I'm trying to understand, uh, section two, uh, where it talks about the consolidated law enforcement county, um, where the county coroner's been abolished, county office. C- can you explain that section to me so I can understand it? Because if a county has a medical examiner, they could just bring a coroner back and abolish the medical examiner, which would probably, uh, overburden the Georgia Bureau of Investigation because they have full-time medical examiners. [0:24:15] They alleviate the state from having to perform and conduct several of those autopsies. So what would stop them from bringing one back? [0:24:23] Uh, they certainly could bring one back, although I don't see that happening. We worked very closely with legislative council and the interested parties to make sure this will impact the five large metro major counties, which are Fulton, Gwinnett, Cobb, DeKalb, and Clayton, which are our five law enforcement intensive counties, things like the World Cup and other stuff. We wanna make sure that people are working together in a nonpartisan way to protect our citizens. [0:24:46] Uh, and just a further follow-up, Mr. Chairman. Uh, in those five metro counties that you mentioned, in talking about working, uh, in a nonpartisan manner, uh, why only those counties and not the rest of the state? Shouldn't the rest of the state have the same treatment as those five metro counties? Uh, why are we segregating counties? [0:25:10] They are the most law enforcement intensive counties in the state. I'd love to work with you on a bill next year to expand that. [0:25:18] All right, uh, we got one more. Number five. [0:25:22] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, to the, uh, author. Uh, the... [0:25:30] Uh, is the, the, the, the, the, um, just this is the same thing that we'd looked at before. Uh, what w- what happened to your, uh, or the bill that was offered earlier that, uh, s- sought to accomplish the same thing with these five, uh, counties in the center of the state? [0:25:50] There was a technical cleanup, uh, um, Senator. Unfortunately, it had, uh, district attorneys at the wrong election date in May, and they should have been in November. So there were some technical cleanups. The legislative council that had some senators, uh, who needed to, uh, understand to make sure that was right. We have made those technical corrections, so this is perfected and ready to go. [0:26:09] Um, second question, if I may, uh, uh, uh, Mr. Chair, is, um, [0:26:16] the... You said that you had, uh, spoken with, uh, you in- you indicated i- in your comments a, a minute ago that you, the, the, you had, uh, had oc- had occasion to check in with each county. I forget exactly how you put it, but, uh, just what feedback did you get from these five impacted counties? [0:26:38] Actually, I mentioned that I talked to the Sheriff's Association, uh, because this is about law enforcement and a public safety issue, and those are the folks that we decided that we would wait, uh, while further discussion happened to bring that up in a f- in a year's time. [0:26:50] So you, have you t- have you spoken with any of these, uh, impacted, uh, uh, holders of these offices that, uh- You ever, uh, attempting to, uh, address? [0:27:02] Good news is, uh, in the Senate body, we cover, uh, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people in those counties, and many of us represent them and talk to them, uh, almost on a daily basis. [0:27:11] So the answer is no, this hadn't been spoken of, uh, in a s- in a systematic way of the, of the, the, the positions that you're impacting, seeking to impact with this bill? [0:27:20] We've had a lot of discussion, Senator. [0:27:22] Well, that still sounds very oblique and, uh, uh, and, and, uh, not quite a forthcoming answer. [0:27:30] I would have to humbly disagree, but thank you. [0:27:32] All right. We got some more questions here. Uh, Minority Leader Jones. [0:27:36] Thank you, Mr. Chair. [0:27:37] One more? [0:27:37] Yes, one more. Because we're stating, uh, uh, to do it in a nonpartisan manner. Now, other than Fulton, 'cause I know, uh, you, you've had that little example in Fulton, but other than that- [0:27:46] Mm-hmm [0:27:46] ... how have any of these DAs acted in a partisan manner? [0:27:50] Uh, this is not just about one office, uh, uh, Mr. Leader. This is about several offices. Uh, and we have found that it works very good. In fact, I think if you look at Fulton County, it's a great example of how a nonpartisan school board has functioned with excellence, and they're nationally recognized by that. Uh, I believe a few years ago we did the same with Gwinnett County, and believe, uh, DeKalb is the same way. So I think it's applying those right principles. But if you look across the board of how we look at this area of the state and how important it is, we have things like the World Cup and other important events. We wanna make sure partisan politics are out of the way and we're protecting people, and public safety is my number one priority. [0:28:23] It has always been since the day I came to this Senate. It will be to the day that, uh, I leave, and I believe this is very important for all our constituents. [0:28:30] If I could have one follow-up, Mr. Chair. [0:28:31] Yeah. [0:28:31] And that would just be because you go back to saying partisan politics. That's what I'm asking. How do, how do, how do they operate in a partisan manner, these particular officials? [0:28:40] Uh, I, I think if we have, uh, paid attention and, and watched the news in the many years, I think we've seen many examples, unfortunately. And I think this will seek to bring unity in an area that needs to be unified. I think so goes Metro Atlanta, so goes the State of Georgia, and I think this is a great policy and it's great to protect the people. Thank you. [0:28:59] All right. Well, I don't see any further questions, Chairman. And just for the committee's reference, we, we took testimony on this a, a week or so ago, and there was a discussion held on the floor. And, um, I know that the author has made a lot of good changes to this bill to try to bring everybody together. So at this time, I'd like to entertain a motion. So moved. [0:29:17] Second. [0:29:18] So moved. All right. We've got a motion. [0:29:21] A motion for what, Mr. Chairman? [0:29:23] To do pass. Do pass, LC4724282S. Got a motion to do pass. Do I have a second? [0:29:32] Second. [0:29:33] Got a motion- Mr. Chairman, I move to table. All right. We've got a, uh, motion to table. [0:29:39] Second. [0:29:40] And we have a second. All right. All those in favor of, uh, tabling, uh, HB 5- 369 ... 369, please raise your hand. All right. Uh, all those against tabling, please raise your hand. [0:30:00] 7-2-3. Motion fails. Call the question. All right. We're back to the question. Uh, all those in favor of HB 369, LC47428S- [0:30:14] 8S [0:30:14] ... uh, please, uh, raise your hand. [0:30:19] All right, seven, four. Uh, those opposed? [0:30:24] Oh, I'm opposed, absolutely. Three opposed. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You got a bill. [0:30:29] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. [0:30:30] Yes, sir. Appreciate your work on this. [0:30:35] All right, uh, next up, uh, 583. Chairman Carson, [0:30:42] come on down. [0:30:46] Thank you. [0:30:47] The floor is yours. [0:30:48] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Uh, this is House Bill 583. This is a, uh, bill that started out in the House, obviously, as a, uh, motor vehicle plates bill. It crossed over last year. Um, what we've done is we've, uh, we've taken language from another House bill, HB 1377, that, uh, discusses, uh, transit referendums. Uh, this was, these, these transit referendums were put in place by House Bill 930 back in 2018. [0:31:19] And what this, uh, HB 583 language, all it calls for, uh, on lines 31 and 32, is it just calls for an eight-year waiting period before a transit referendum can be reintroduced by a county. Uh, the reason we're doing this is because the, uh, this also, this only impa- impacts Atlanta counties within the non-attainment area. Non-attainment meaning those counties that have not attained the, uh, guidelines in the Federal Clean Air Act of 1990. [0:31:53] So you're basically talking about, um... Well, I have the counties here. Mostly just Metro Atlanta area. Uh, Cobb, Fulton, DeKalb, Henry, uh, Gwinnett, and I think a couple others. Um, the reason we're doing this, because the, uh, again, this, this does not affect TSPLOST, which is an individual county. It does not affect transportation SPLOST for a region like we did in the TIA in 2010, and that re- that those elections were in 2012. [0:32:25] This does not affect single county transportation SPLOST. It does not affect regional ta- uh, regional SPLOST. It does not affect the MARTA S- uh, tax. All this does is affect the transit, uh, proposed, uh, taxes. The reason being for that is because county, uh, bodies are using obviously taxpayer funds to promote this, uh, but they're doing so for up to a 30-year, uh, uh, referendum on the sales tax. Which I, as a finance person, I understand, because if you're gonna be able to borrow on these funds and p- future tax proceeds, you need to be able to have a, a longer term to do so. [0:33:02] There's also language that was requested by our body in line 18 to just to make sure, just to be very clear in the transportation, um- Uh, language such that the, uh, the transportation spl- uh, SPLOST language that the funds for SPLOST are not used for operating funds to reduce fares. [0:33:26] All right. [0:33:26] Forgive me if I went on too long. [0:33:29] All right. Uh, let's see if we got some questions here. We do. Uh, Senator Mallow. [0:33:34] Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, just a, a couple questions for you. Uh, in the city of Savannah, we operate water ferries. Um, and we provide those water ferries, uh, fare free. Uh, and the way you've gotten this proposed, we would then have to tax for those ferries 'cause we, uh, use funds to help supplement that 'cause y- I mean, nobody... You can't get across the Savannah River without it. And so if we were to come back with a, a TSPLOST to cover the ferries and all, all the operations of our transit authority, we would then be prohibited from that? [0:34:14] I bel- Yeah, I believe that it was the original intent of the transportation SPLOST, both in the TIA in 2010, as well as a transportation sales tax of the special purpose local option sales tax. I believe the p- the whole intent for that was for capital expenditures, as we understand it from legislative council. [0:34:36] And my, my final question, I know Atlanta benefits from the, the MARTA tax. But the rest of us down I-16, we don't necessarily have, uh, that benefit. And so I have great concern where we will not have the option to have a tax other than the TSPLOST to help fund water ferries, transportation, and back and forth across the river, and just our general transit authority 'cause we're not in the metro areas. [0:34:58] Well, y- no, I, I wanna be clear. Each county can still, uh, have a transit referendum. The only change is that if there is a failed transit referendum, then that county must wait eight years until they have another one. And the reason we're doing it, again, just to be very clear, Mr. Chairman, uh, appreciate the indulgence, is because these are very big decisions. These are not just four- or five- or six-year, uh, county SPLOST like my county does and, and many others that I see. These are 30-year, 20, 30-year sales taxes. [0:35:29] And I have a, uh, a picture in regard to, uh, the failed, uh, transit referendums, uh, in Cobb and Gwinnett. There have been four, excuse me, five transit referendums in Cobb and Gwinnett the past seven years. Every single one has failed. [0:35:45] Hm. [0:35:46] So this doesn't prevent a county at all. I just wanna be very clear, Senator Mallow. I, this does not prevent a county from having a transit referendum. It just says there must be an eight-year pause before they have another one after a failed one. [0:35:57] Right, and we have a current chairman that failed on the first one, and we're working to try to get the second one- [0:36:02] Second [0:36:02] ... right by working with the delegation. That's why I asked that, 'cause it didn't include a lot of the other things that, uh, our constituents wanted to see in that. And they tried to make it about just all the, the roads, for, for example, and that's not what voters wanted. So I just wanted to ask that. [0:36:16] And that pause of that eight years would only apply to non-attainment areas, which would be metro Atlanta. Areas that did not meet the, the clean air, Clean Air Act standards of 1990. [0:36:26] Gotcha. Okay. Thank you. [0:36:27] All right. We got some more questions. Uh, number five. Senator Orrock. [0:36:32] Mr. Chair, uh, to the chairman. Uh, you mentioned those two counties that ha- that have had, uh, several failed, uh- [0:36:41] Yes [0:36:41] ... uh, ballot attempts. Are they the only counties that then would, would be impacted by this legislation? [0:36:47] No, it would be any county in the non-attainment area. And I had that, uh, up, uh, uh... There's at least six counties. [0:36:55] Mm-hmm. [0:36:56] Um- [0:36:56] Back there [0:36:58] ... the counties are Bartow, Clayton, Cobb, DeKalb, Fulton, Gwinnett, and Henry. Unless legislative council tells me otherwise, I believe it's those seven counties. [0:37:07] And, and my, and my question, just to, just to clarify, is you listed two counties that would d- definitely fall out, j- you know, b- be, be, uh, put on hold for the- [0:37:19] Yes [0:37:19] ... eight-year pause. Uh, do, do you have the r- uh, the, the, the data for any of the other counties that you've, uh, listed? [0:37:26] I don't have any data in regard to, uh, other proposed or either passed or proposed, uh, transit referendums. [0:37:34] So we don't know how this would impact the other counties in, in the real world application. [0:37:38] Well, if they have had a transit referendum, which I don't believe they have, it would not impact them at all. [0:37:43] Mm-hmm. [0:37:43] Because they would just be able to have a transit referendum like I just mentioned to- [0:37:46] That's right [0:37:47] ... to the senator. [0:37:48] So that, that's why I was that, that curious of whether any, a- any other counties, to your knowledge, felt, fell within this description, um- [0:37:56] No. The, it, t- uh, I'm sorry. It is to my knowledge that no other counties would be subject to this, how this, uh, HB 583 substitute- [0:38:06] Mm-hmm [0:38:06] ... is written. [0:38:06] Mm-hmm. [0:38:08] I did wanna mention one other thing. Uh, I've been up here 15 years, and in my third year, I came to a committee meeting, and it was a surprise to see a committee sub. So I wa- I want the, especially the minority to, to, to know that I did call the, uh, the original author of this bill. Uh, she does not support it. Uh, but she, she appreciated me reaching out both via text as well as a phone call. And, um, she'll be taking her name off the bill. [0:38:33] Mm-hmm. [0:38:33] Um, I consider that to be a compliment, but that's my other side of the aisle. Um, but I, I, I did, uh, make that, that, that courtesy to the member of the minority that, that authored this bill. And by the way, her language passed in '25 into another area of the law and was codified. It was in regard to motor vehicle license plates. [0:38:51] All right. Thank you. We're gonna go to the other side here. Number 13. [0:38:55] Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just clarification. Now, this only applies to non-attainment areas, is that correct? [0:38:59] Yes, sir. That's correct. [0:39:00] And when you listed those seven counties, would you do that again for me, please, just a bit slower, just to make sure I don't miss a county? [0:39:06] Uh, sure. Yes, sir. [0:39:07] So I heard Bartow, Cobb. I got through B and C, and then I lost it. Okay? [0:39:11] That's okay. Bartow- Clayton [0:39:15] Clayton [0:39:15] Cobb [0:39:16] Okay [0:39:17] DeKalb, Fulton, Gwinnett, and- [0:39:19] Hold, hold on. [0:39:20] Look down. [0:39:21] Cal- I'm writing them down. DeKalb, Fulton [0:39:24] Okay. Uh, let me start from the top. Is that s- [0:39:26] All right. That's fine [0:39:26] Is that okay, Mr. Chairman? [0:39:27] Sure. [0:39:27] Yeah. Go for it. [0:39:28] Bartow, Clayton, Cobb, DeKalb, Fulton, Gwinnett, and Henry Counties. [0:39:43] Thank you. Uh- [0:39:43] I count, I count seven. [0:39:45] Okay. Thank you. Uh, yeah, uh, follow up, Mr. Chairman? [0:39:51] Yes. [0:39:51] Uh, is it possible that counties would either join that group or be removed from that group? [0:39:58] As I understand it from legislative council, the answer is no, because we're, we're going back to a test date of who, which... Uh, I, I didn't mean to say who. Which counties met the, the Clean Air Act standards in 1990. So we can't change that w- [0:40:15] Can't change that [0:40:16] ... those da- that data. [0:40:17] Th- that was my question. And so, uh, for my good friend from I 16, uh, I don't think it impacts Savannah, nor does it impact Augusta, nor Columbus, nor Macon, nor Dalton, nor Valdosta. Is that fair? [0:40:30] That's correct. [0:40:30] Thank you. Thank you, chair. [0:40:32] All right. And that's all the questions we got. Uh, so at this time I'd like to entertain a motion. [0:40:39] So moved. [0:40:40] Second. [0:40:40] A motion and a second. More? Okay. All those in favor? [0:40:46] Is there a discussion? [0:40:47] All right. Yep. Okay. [0:40:49] Yeah. Uh, I, I, uh, we, we have a massive traffic challenge. Uh, and any of us that drive around in this, this area, particularly tho- through those counties that you're speak- uh, have listed, uh, uh, suffer with it on a, uh, a weekly if not a daily basis. And, uh, we, and it's true I believe, uh, that we're the only m- uh, major transit system in a major city of the, uh, of the country that does not receive state funding from, uh, uh, allocations from our state, uh, revenues. [0:41:25] And, uh, we are f- faced with sharp contradictions, uh, that i- impact b- our economy and our quality of life. And a- and for that reason, uh, placing more restrictions on the ability to get, get, uh, get a, uh, a transit, uh, tax on the ballot, uh, I, I, I wouldn't be comfortable voting for this. [0:41:49] I understand, ma'am. [0:41:50] Thank you. [0:41:52] 14. That's you, Mr. Will. [0:41:54] Yes. Thank you. Uh, Representative Carson, I wanna thank you for bringing this legislation. My concern is somewhat opposite, is where we are just beating our citizens with voter fatigue. Every time something fails that a group of politicians or interested parties want, they turn around and come back 18 months later and put it back on. And just our citizens get absolutely exhausted, which on a lot of these referendums we see the voter turnout continue to decline. I think what we need to do is take a breath, get out and educate our citizens during the, during the time that, that Chairman Carson's giving in this legislation so that our citizens can go out and possibly go out and vote with a changed mind and decide to do it. [0:42:38] And I think to, um, to Senator Orrock's point, uh, uh, gives them a much longer time to go out and educate the citizens on the actual traffic issues that exist. So I do appreciate this legislation, and thank you. [0:42:52] All right. Don- [0:42:53] Can I go back in time and have Senator Robertson present the bill, 'cause that'd be... That was better when he did it. [0:42:58] Well, we're fitting to, we're fitting to vote this thing out- [0:43:00] Okay [0:43:00] ... I think, so you better hold up. [0:43:01] It was be- it was better when he did it. It really was. [0:43:04] All right. We, we got a motion and a second, so, uh, uh, let's vote on this bill. LC395082S. All those in favor, please raise your hand. [0:43:17] Seven in favor. All those opposed, please raise your hand. Three opposed. You got a bill, Mr. Chairman. [0:43:23] Thank you, sir. Thank you, committee. [0:43:24] Good luck. Thank you. All right, uh, next up, uh, Chairman Martin. Come on down. [0:43:36] And there was no one to sign up to speak on that previous bill, just so the record shows. [0:43:44] Floor is yours, Mr. Chairman. [0:43:47] Well, I'm, I'm standing between y'all and going home, so if y'all are good with it, we can move on. [0:43:52] Uh, that works for me. You wanna give it a try? [0:43:55] I, I, I do. Uh, I will, I will be brief, Mr. Chairman, in, in the interest of time, and, but I'll stand to answer any detailed questions. I'm not trying to do- gloss over this. But what, what the bill we're trying to do, uh, here today is protect, uh, our ballot initiatives in Georgia fr- from foreign influence. Basically protect our elections. As many of you, uh, know, I've known some of you for years. Senator Orrock, going back to 1996. Um, we know that foreign influence cannot happen in our, our personal elections. We're elected every two years, the governor every four years. [0:44:26] You cannot participate those i- in those elections if you're a foreign national. I would argue that constitutional amendments have a far longer and li- uh, uh, h- uh, longer impact and, and more, uh, specific impact than any one of us would, would have. And yet, there's not a state law that prohibits foreign, uh, money into those elections. So what we are trying to do in this bill i- is to keep, um, Americans, uh, from f- uh, to, that are lawfully in the country and that, um, are green card holders for legal s- s- excuse me, legal citizens, uh, can continue to, uh, participate in those elections. [0:45:03] So what the bill does is it prohibits foreign nationals from directing or controlling ballot questions. It prohibits foreign nationals from soliti- so- soliciting, it's late in the hour, m- Mr. Chairman, uh, do- donations for these questions. It, and it prohibits, uh, g- committees, um, from certifying funds that come from those. They have to certify that the funds don't come from there, and it establishes the campaign finance law to, uh, be the authority on this. What it does not do, and this is important, does not affect anyone's right to vote. [0:45:34] It does not affect eligibility or voter registration. It does not change how ballots are cast or counted. It does not apply to candidate, uh, committees. They are already covered, and it does not respec- does not restrict lawful political speech by US citizens and lawful permanent resident holders. Um, the foreign national definition is taken from federal law, so we are mirroring the foreign national, um, prohibition in our, our races. And, uh, I believe this matters because we, uh, as I said before, I think any ballot referendum is far more important that lasts forever in a constitutional amendment than any one of our elections. [0:46:11] So what we're doing is trying to do at the, the state level what we already do at the federal and state level for candidates. I can step through the bill and talk through d- definitions, and would do that, uh, based on questions. Um, but with that, Mr. Chairman, I, I would s- stop and just answer questions about what the bill does i- in the, in the interest of the, the time we have available. [0:46:32] All right. Let me see if we got a few questions here. Would anybody have questions for the author? Uh, Chair- Senator Mallow. [0:46:41] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, I tell you, I just be thinking of stuff when I ... I, you know, I just got this, so I'm hot off the press with it, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Representative Martin, let me ask you, what about any, uh, organizations that represent Israel or pro-Jewish organizations that are not necessarily US citizens? Would this bill apply to them? [0:47:00] It, it, uh, well, if I ... I draw the gentleman's attention to the definition of foreign national, uh, in- on the bill on lines 26, "An individual who is not a citizen or a lawful permanent resident of the United States, a government of a foreign country or subdivision thereof, a foreign political party, any business entity that is organ- organized under the laws of or the principal place of business in a foreign country and any business organized under federal law of the United States but is wholly owned." I mean, I could read the entire thing, but it applies ubiquitously across the globe. [0:47:30] It does not single out nations. If you are not a US citizen or a lawful permanent resident, you cannot participate in your election, Senator, or my election, and this bill seeks to create that same prohibition for ballot referendum. Simple as that. Applies to everybody. [0:47:46] And the reason I ask that, and my final question would be, for example, Hyundai is in the back part of my district. [0:47:51] Yes, sir. And, and thank you for the question. I, I m- I mean that seriously. Hyundai is a, uh, owned by a, a, b- we're gonna assume that the majority of that is owned by a Korean company, but the bill also de- defines that monies made by that company located in the US, and if they're directed by US citizens or lawful permanent residents, they can participate in ballot, uh, questions. D- d- does that, does that help answer the question? So- [0:48:17] Somewhat. Somewhat. [0:48:17] Okay. So i- if there, if the co- if the company is not a defin- doesn't fit the definition of foreign national, and Hyundai as it exists in your, in your district down there, um, would, would not do that as long as the money that they were putting into the election is generated in the US and it was controlled by, um, y- uh, US citizens or lawful permanent residents. So it's a great question. Thank you for it. [0:48:40] All right. Uh, Minority Leader Jones. [0:48:44] Yeah, I was just, uh ... Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just ask for clarification. Like, how does this actually, like, look or work when you start talking about, um, an individual is more the thing I'm more concerned about. For what limitations would be on the individual exactly on these ballot questions? They couldn't give at all. What, what, what limitations are, they gonna have? [0:49:02] If, if, if the individual is not a lawful permanent resident or a citizen, they would be prohibited from, from giving to the ballot question. Yes, sir. That, that is, they are prohibited from contributing to your race today, and we just seek to do that same thing for ballot questions. [0:49:18] Okay. [0:49:18] That, that ... By, and by the way, that does not keep an individual's right to post a yard sign in their yard, to, to, to walk around individually and, and, and voice their, you know, their speech. They still have their First, First Amendment rights. That's, that's not what this bill does. This bill is talking about financing a campaign, campaign or actively directing or managing that campaign for a ballot question. [0:49:39] Can I have one more question, Mr. Chairman? [0:49:41] Yeah. [0:49:41] Okay. That's kind of like what I'm asking. How, who would keep up with this, I guess, because it's a ballot question. Who, uh, who, who's keeping up w- whether- [0:49:47] Well, there- [0:49:48] ... it's a foreign, foreign national? [0:49:49] Uh, no, uh, absolutely. But it, it's, it's the same thing as you do with a- any, any campaign committee. I mean- [0:49:54] Mm-hmm [0:49:54] ... if there's a campaign committee, the bi- the bill has, you know, back, back in, um, [0:50:01] lines, uh, 72 through 83, it talks about the campaign committee has to register. When they get donations, they have to certify that they did not come from a, a foreign national. So it, it's up to the campaign committee to do this. I mean, I would be s- here, we have speeding laws, and we don't catch everybody that drives 60 in a 55. I, I'm sure that there are gonna be somebody that, that maybe does a little more than this, this bill says that, that it does. I mean, that, that happens every day. But what this bill seeks to do is make people accountable, make the campaign committees that raise, raise and spend a lot of money to influence in influential questions, things that are gonna last in the state of Georgia far longer than any of us. [0:50:40] A, a constitutional amendment is, is there until it's repealed, and we know how, uh, how hard those things can, can be to get on the ballot and then pass. So what this is, seeks to do is to stop that influence so that our, our communities can't be, uh, over- overtaken by foreign influence. [0:50:57] Mr. Chairman, I have one last one, I promise. Have there been any, like, examples that we can point to where we think that this has actually been taking place on a kind of wholesale level? [0:51:05] F- fair, fair enough. I can't give you a specific example 'cause we don't track it in Georgia, right? We don't do that. But I do know from a federal standpoint, and I, I'd be glad to get the leader the, the information, that there have been foreign nationals that have spent upwards of half a billion dollars influencing our elections around the United States, and I, I can, I can forward you that list. They do that through some 504s, um, and I'll get the numbers wrong because I'm not a, an accountant or an IRS specialist. But we know that there's a lot of money that rolls in, uh, that tries to influence our elections, things that have happened in the past, a y- a few years ago in West Virginia in order to try to get around the, the, um, f- The candidate portion of it, they would say call- they call the candidate and they'd say, you know, "Call Senator Mallow," if you don't mind me using you here. [0:51:52] "Call Senator Mallow and tell him to not pollute our rivers." I mean, that was the way they got around saying they weren't campaigning against Senator Mallow, but they were actually influencing. If somebody called you, that'd be bad for it. And by the way, I don't know that Senator Mallow's anything but a, a, you know, environmentalist and take care of the rivers. I don't want that to be, you know, a, a bad example, Senator. But I can't give you specific examples in Georgia because we don't track it, and with this law, we can protect those elections, protect those ballot questions all the way down to the city and local level. [0:52:22] All right. Got one more over here. Vice Chair Williams, do you have a question? [0:52:26] I do. On page four, line 81, where did you come up with $100,000? [0:52:34] Yes, sir. And I, I'm not an, an attorney, but I ... So I can't st- uh, state the case. There, there might be somebody here that can. But that is a number that has been upheld in federal court that the folks that sued were ruled against. The 100,000 was upheld as, as a constitutional number. They further tried to get it enjoined while they appealed. The injunction failed, and then the case has been dropped. So that's a, if you will, and, and again, I may be using the term improperly, but that's a bit of a safe harbor constitutionally, that $100,000. I know there's been some talk about going lower, but I think w- when one is doing things around elections, you, you look for that place, the burden on the folks and the, and you weigh that against the, the, the security of the ballot. [0:53:16] And the federal courts, at least to date, Senator, have found that $100,000 number, uh, to be, uh, upheld unconstitutional. So that's where that number came from. [0:53:25] You could influ- if I could- [0:53:26] Yeah [0:53:27] ... continue. You could influence a lot of, uh, elections with $100,000. [0:53:34] I, I suppose you could, Senator. A- again, you asked me where I came the number. [0:53:38] Right. [0:53:38] That, that is, that is a, uh, constitutionally, it's been constitutionally upheld. Um, and I, and I would suggest we have nothing in Georgia today, and we, and, and we crawl, but, you know, we crawl before we walk and walk before we run and, and try to get something that, that we can do to protect our elections. [0:53:53] Well, I passed a bill just, uh, I think two sessions ago, I think it was Senate Bill 177, that prohibited any money from foreign countries. And it was so broad that, uh, it was vetoed because of Kia and Hyundai being here in the United States, even though they're foreign owned. But, uh, and that was the reason for the veto. And I'd, I'd just, um, have heartburn over $100,000 that we're saying it's okay. [0:54:23] We can accept up to $100,000 over a four-year period. [0:54:29] But if I, if I m- might interject, Senator. [0:54:32] Yeah, please. [0:54:32] That, that, that money is from indirect. That is, that the ... If that is, if, if you are an organization A and you give to organization B and organization B gives to the campaign, they have to certify that the people that have given to them haven't aggregated more than $100,000 from foreign, from foreign sources. It's not the direct giving of the $100,000 to the campaign. Direct giving from a foreign source is prohibited entirely. So that would be if, if you had an organization that was getting, um, money from foreign sources to do a lot of things, and then that organization was giving money to influence a ballot question. [0:55:11] If that aggregate number that came from, um, the foreign, um, nationals was more than $100,000, they would have to re- report that and, and they would still have to certify that none of the money that they got came from that foreign source. It's, that's an indirect number, not a direct number. [0:55:28] But it's still foreign national money. [0:55:30] It's foreign national money going to a group. [0:55:34] Well- [0:55:34] But that money, it directly can't, still not, cannot go to influence elections. There, there is no, there is no money that can do that. They have to certify, if the gentleman will, will allow me, it says, "Contributions or expenditures from one or more foreign nationals aggregating in excess of 100 over four-" [0:55:52] Over a four-year period. [0:55:54] "Over a four-year period." Right. So they, if, if they have received more over a four-year period in, in, in donations for that and then they are contributing to this, they have to, they have to make note of that. [0:56:04] Sounds like money laundering where I come from. [0:56:06] That, that's exactly what we're tr- that's exactly what we're trying to, to, to stop. Yes, sir. And the $100,000 has, has been federally, uh, held up in federal court. [0:56:16] But, uh, it's not limited to one of those little ... So that foreign country could give $100,000 to 25 different PACs within that four-year period. It doesn't limit them. [0:56:33] As long as, as long as that foreign money, that foreign money didn't get given to the campaign. No foreign money can get, no money from a foreign national can, can be given to the campaign. [0:56:43] But if it goes to that PAC, then that PAC can give it to the campaign. [0:56:47] Sometimes. [0:56:48] Or am I missing it? [0:56:51] That, that's where the, that's where the limitation is of, of the ... They have to certify if the 100,000 came from the do- the donations from, from a foreign nation. So if you, you, you could have a, you could have a, a refugee organization that's getting, you know, support from a foreign nation. That refugee organization could support a ballot initiative, as long as that money was not y- you know, directly used from a foreign na- foreign national. I mean, it, it, be clear to me, Senator, if I could use the thing, if, if A gives B $100,000 and then B gives this place $100,000 and that's all the money they had, it would pretty, pretty much, you could be sure that $100,000 came from the foreign national. [0:57:32] And that would be, uh, against the law. [0:57:36] Well, we've got an attorney down here on the end. Maybe he can clear things up for us. Chairman- [0:57:40] I might make it worse. Um, Mr. Chairman, there was a case out of Kansas where this law was tested, and, uh, the courts have found that this threshold makes this constitutional based on the fact, I think a lot of this may go to the knowledge and knowing where-... money's coming from and the idea of having a threshold there. Is that, is that what we're trying to accomplish? [0:57:59] A- as I've joked in this, this session before, I'm several semesters shy of a law degree, um, uh, Senator. But, uh, uh, the, the Kansas case may be the one to which I'm referring. I do know there was a federal case, and I cannot cite the case, uh, specifically. [0:58:12] Okay. 'Cause I, I agree with what, um, Chairman Williams is saying, but I think, what my understanding at least, maybe others can weigh in, is we also wanna make sure we're doing something that is gonna pass constitutional muster. And I think a lot of this goes back to basically having knowledge of where your money's coming from. That's why there's a threshold amount that's- [0:58:29] Yeah [0:58:29] ... high enough where you should know where it's coming from at that point. That's my understanding of it, but maybe others can weigh in. [0:58:35] I, I thank the senator for the, for the help. That mu- much- [0:58:39] Mm-hmm [0:58:39] ... better articulation of the details. [0:58:41] All right. One attorney m- makes another attorney speak, so here we go. Chairman Hatchett. [0:58:49] I, I, I- [0:58:49] Now, now, now, now- [0:58:50] I know what judiciary is like, right? [0:58:54] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, just to the author, I'm always hesitant with new definitions. And I see on line 49 you define preliminary activity. Preliminary activity includes, but is not limited to, conducting a poll, which I understand, a focus group, drafting a ballot measure language, telephone calls, and travel. I was trying to figure out what that meant. [0:59:25] Um, and I don't see where preliminary activity is actually used in the bill. So I'm just- [0:59:38] ... trying to figure that out. I support your bill, I just, I'm trying to figure out what that definition, where that definition is gonna go. [0:59:52] Right. [0:59:52] Senator, I'm, I'm looking at, it, it was used once in, to be honest- [0:59:58] Line 74. So- [1:00:00] Uh, yes. There, there you go. Um, the, um, on line 74, "No preliminary activity was funded with one or more..." [1:00:13] Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:00:21] Okay. [1:00:27] Uh, here we go. Senator Orrock. [1:00:31] Uh, thank you, Chair. Uh, Mr. Chairman, Representative Martin, uh, the, on, on line 74, 75, uh, uh, affirming that no preliminary activity was funded by one or more foreign nationals, whether directly or indirectly, uh, how do we understand that indirectly? You may have already, uh, tried to clarify it, but I, and I missed it. But what, what's an example of it- [1:00:59] Well- [1:00:59] ... indirectly? [1:01:00] I, I would just, I would use that, the, um, you know, and I'm not being, you know... It's not here when I say this, just the, the plain meaning of the word. I mean, if, if, if a foreign national funded it directly, they would've been paying the phone bill if there were calls being made. If they were funding it indirectly, they would've funded it through, I think I'm saying this right, maybe a 504 organization or something. They can't do anything like that to set it up. If, if you know that was how the committee was, was brought to bear, that you, you can't go around, as, as Senator Williams was so want to point out, that you could kinda launder the money through a, through another, um, group to do that. [1:01:35] That's what we're trying to do with directly or indirectly. [1:01:37] Thank you. [1:01:40] If I may, Mr. Chair. [1:01:42] Hold on, we got one more question on this. But you've already got one, haven't you? [1:01:46] Oh. [1:01:46] Yeah, let me s- all right. Chairman Burns. [1:01:48] I, I, I think directly, indirectly are, is defined in 23 and 24. Is that not true? And it, it means either alone or jointly, through or on behalf of other individuals. So, [1:02:05] um- [1:02:06] Excuse me while I clear this [1:02:08] ... I'm hopeful that, uh, what we're, what we're doing here is protecting Georgians from foreign influence on ballot issues, ballot referenda. And I, and I support that. I think, uh, I've got, have to defer to leg counsel and the attorneys to, to craft legislation that would be enforceable, accurate, and, and, uh, can withstand any potential challenge on constitutionality. And at the appropriate time, Mr. Chair. [1:02:37] Uh, we do have- [1:02:39] No problem [1:02:40] ... uh, two people signed up to speak. [1:02:41] Okay. [1:02:43] Um, Senator Mallow, did you have a follow-up question? [1:02:48] Yes, I'm gonna share. M- any reason why we just, like, didn't define, like, countries that hate America as opposed to countries that are foreign nationals? Uh, and the only reason I, I just ask that question, I think about all the companies that, you know, pool in with the chamber to influence, like, SPLOST votes and different, you know, ballot referendum issues that related to transportation. And I just always hate unintended consequences. And I, I just got a little heartburn because we have a lot of, uh, foreign companies. We got shipping lines, uh, that operate in Savannah- [1:03:19] Sure [1:03:19] ... that are foreign nationals, Hyundai, and, uh, and I got three degrees and I, it's, it's as clear as mud to me. So I just, I'm a little confused. [1:03:29] Yeah. Yeah, yes sir. I, w- well, I would, I would answer the gentleman's question is the reason we included everybody is we, we want, uh, these ballot questions to be influenced by, you know, A- Americans or, or legal permanent residents i- in America irregardless of if the- Folks from other places or our friends or maybe, you know, are, are using Senator Isaacson's friends or future friends. It do- it do- it doesn't matter. Uh, it doesn't matter to us. But, but I would, um, y- y- go back and, and refer the gentleman to, um, the, the definition of foreign nationals and, and to, and ag- and again to say it is my absolute reading of, of the words on the paper that companies that are in the, the US, that are operating in Georgia, that are, that are making, you know, revenue in Georgia, even interest, maybe making revenue on interest, that is money generated in Georgia. [1:04:18] And if that is being directed by an American or a legal permanent resident, you know, as defined in this bill, they are, they are more than welcome to participate in our process. But if the money is coming from outside of the United States, that's what we are trying to do. And that- that's just a, a policy question. I respect the gentleman's, you know, thoughts on it either way, and if there's, um, anything further, I'll do that. And otherwise, I'll yield the- [1:04:42] Ho- hold on, Mr. Chairman. I got one more question from the other attorney down here, Minority Leader Jones. [1:04:46] Yeah, thank you. [1:04:47] I'm gonna bring my attorney next time, Senator. [1:04:49] I'm telling you. But, you know, I'm, I'm, I'm really asking for this for education purposes. I'm just not sure. So let's say you had, like, a nonprofit that was gonna be involved and, you know, they're gonna try to influence an election, but then they get money from, I guess, a foreign national. Uh, are they also input ... Tell me how that would work. I'm just curious. [1:05:07] Well, for the, for it to apply to them, they would have to have a campaign committee registered to, to influence that ballot question. [1:05:13] To do it. [1:05:13] So, uh, if you, by, sort of by definition, if somebody is a nonprofit, I mean, I think probably the nonprofit side is they have to be careful how that- [1:05:22] Mm-hmm [1:05:22] ... nonprofit without a separate campaign committee in- [1:05:25] Okay [1:05:25] ... influences various elections anyway. And I, and again, I'm not sure how that's structured. [1:05:29] Seems to be 15. Thank you. [1:05:29] But they wouldn't be prohibited fro- from doing things. Again, this doesn't impose any restrictions on somebody's First Amendment rights to speech or their, their personal speech. [1:05:39] Mm-hmm. [1:05:39] It just says you can't organize or raise funds to influence that from a foreign national. [1:05:44] Okay. [1:05:45] Okay? Our, our, our goal is not to squelch free speech at all or, or participation in, in the election process, but to keep foreign money from the election. [1:05:54] All right. We got two signed up to speak, one for, one against. If you will, please be very brief. Yeah, you can just sit right on that bench, Mr. Chairman. Uh, David Schaeffer. [1:06:05] Come on down. [1:06:14] Tell us, tell us your name and who you are and who you're representing. [1:06:17] Yes, my name's David Schaeffer. I'm with Common Cause of Georgia. Uh, I appreciate Chair Martin bringing the bill. I'll be super fast. Thank you, Mr. Chairman Watson and, and committee for letting me speak tonight. Uh, we all share a concern, I think, about the influence of, of foreign influence in ballot initiatives in Georgia, so that's a common concern. We wanted to bring up a couple of thoughts, uh, which Chair Martin, I think we've talked about, uh, previously at, at a previous committee meet- meeting. But we feel that this could create some heavy compliant burdens for grassroots campaigns. [1:06:51] The ballot measure, uh, committees will be required to track and certify funding sources tied to preliminary activity. And, uh, this could really turn into a situation in which, uh, m- more well-funded campaign committees are able to do those kind of monitoring and compliance, and it could kind of push some of the more grassroots campaigns out of the question and restrict their ability to participate in the grassroots ballot initiatives. Uh, we also have some concern about core political speech. [1:07:24] Uh, there's, uh, a chilling effect that might more broadly take place, and it's just something I think we need to be concerned about as we're trying to walk the tension between foreign influence as well as, as opening up as broadly as possible, 'cause it is important for individuals and maybe less funded entities to be able to participate in those ballot campaigns. We're also concerned that the four-year look-back requirement is hard to verify. So requiring committees to certify that donors have not knowingly or willfully received or solicited 100 grand from foreign nationals in the prior four years asks campaigns to verify information they often have no practical way to confirm, which could increase legal risk to them, uh, if there are not clear enforcement standards. [1:08:08] So these are just some of the brief concerns that we wanted to bring to the table. We, we appreciate the sentiment of the bill, which is protecting campaign initiatives from foreign influence. [1:08:17] All right. Any questions for the ... All right. Thank you. Uh, Garland Favorito is for the bill. [1:08:27] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm gonna be really brief. My name's Garland Favorito. I'm the co-founder of Voter GA. We have about 20,000 supporters statewide, and, uh, we support this bill. Um, it's just common sense. Um, and, uh, y'all have, um, raised all the questions. I cannot add anything to the discussion. I just wanna thank the chairman for bringing the bill, and thank you for hearing it. [1:08:48] Hold, hold on. I may have a question here. Mr. Witt, do you have a question? [1:08:50] I do. Sir, you and I both support this bill, and I agree with it. And would I be correct in saying you and I have known each other for about six years now? [1:08:59] I, I would say at least that long. [1:09:01] And I think we, our, our politics on a lot of this stuff is pretty much in line with each other, and we've always been frank and honest with each other. [1:09:09] Yes, sir. [1:09:09] Something was brought to my attention the other day. Um, and would you agree with me that political violence is an issue that we have in this country today, whether we're talking about the assassination of legislators in the state of Minnesota to the assassination of Mr. Charlie Kirk? [1:09:26] Yes, sir. [1:09:27] Yes. Somebody brought something to my attention the other day, and they said they thought it might have came from maybe one of your organizations or somebody within your, uh, circle of influence, that had pictures of some of my fellow senators on a wanted poster. And so if you get the opportunity, I would f- really appreciate it if you would, if you find out somebody in your organization is sending that out, if you would use your influence to have them stop. I'm not accusing anybody. [1:09:56] Or have them come and talk to me. Because everybody up on this dais here, whether they're a Democrat or a Republican, come up here to serve their constituents, and nobody comes up here to be threatened in social media. So in putting somebody's face on a wanted poster, I think can be considered dangerous, and I would greatly appreciate you using your influence within your organization or within your circle of influence to make sure that is not happening. If you would do me that favor, I would greatly appreciate it. [1:10:26] I, I appreciate you, uh, bringing that question up because- [1:10:29] Yes, sir [1:10:29] ... there's nothing that I've ever seen on social media, and certainly from us, that was ever posted like that. And I think, uh, uh, we've checked that, and there's nothing that has ever been posted on social media- [1:10:42] Uh, so you know, you know the, you know the instance I'm talking about then? [1:10:45] Yes, I do. [1:10:45] You do? [1:10:45] And we double, we double-checked that, uh, and we have, there was nothing posted on social media from us that had anything to do with that. [1:10:53] I, I do appreciate that, and if it were somebody from another organization with a other thought process, I would ask them to do the same thing. [1:11:00] Mm-hmm. [1:11:00] I do appreciate your time. Thank you, sir. [1:11:01] Sure. Thank you for raising it. [1:11:02] Thank you, Mr. Webb. Ho- hold on, Garland. May have one more. Uh, Senator Mallow, do you have a question for ... [1:11:09] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The longer I sit here, the more I think. Uh, Mr. Pappas, I just have a question for you. You talk about a foreign national, uh, and you support the bill. Um, do you have any idea, for example, if the Pope, who is a resident of the Vatican, a sovereign country, decided to, uh, support a ballot referendum that was gonna be pro-life, and the Vatican sent money to the Catholic Church? That would be prohibited under this bill from doing that, the way I'm reading it. Is that not true? [1:11:37] I, I, I'm, I'm not sure I fully understood the question, but I think that it's, what you said was true. [1:11:42] Okay. [1:11:45] I ... If I understood your question correctly. [1:11:47] Absolutely. [1:11:47] But I think that would be better directed to the chairman than me. [1:11:52] All right, hold on. Chairman. [1:11:55] Yeah, I think, yeah, I think what he was asking is if the Pope, who's not a resident of Georgia or United States, was, if there was a ballot question about a pro-life ballot question, if he traveled to the United States to speak at a pro-life rally, would that prohibit him from doing that? [1:12:17] I, I- [1:12:18] 'Cause it, 'cause it- [1:12:19] Again- [1:12:19] ... it says travel. That's, that was the definition of travel that I was worried about. [1:12:22] Well, I think you could, uh, if you, I think that was on line, um, what was it? 24? Uh, I, I forgot the line number. But you could possibly say related travel or related telephone calls. You could add the word related there. Um, but again, not being an attorney, I think that, uh, it might be better directed to the chair, to the chairman. [1:12:45] All right. Let's, let's let the chairman come back up. [1:12:47] Yes. Uh-huh. [1:12:51] Um, before you answer, hold on. We got maybe a clarification here. [1:12:55] I'm not gonna clarify. I have a question- [1:12:57] Okay [1:12:57] ... of y'all. I, I mean, I know, I know the gentleman's question. So I first want to say as a practical matter, I think the current pope is a resident of the United States. Is, is, is, is a citizen of the United States. Uh, as, as a pr- [1:13:08] He was. [1:13:08] He, he, well, he is a citizen of the United States. The fact that he's the pope, I don't believe he loses that, um, id- uh, and, and I, I don't make like ... The gentleman's asking a valid question for later on. [1:13:18] Right. [1:13:18] And, and it wou- it would be my, my understanding that he has a First Ame- Amendment right to come in and speak at that. If he were to try to organize, if he personally were to try to organize and they were to try to fund out of the Vatican a campaign to promote that constitutional thing, I think that would be, um, that would be prohibited under this. So I don't mean to, uh, Senator, that, that was a valid question. But we, we are glad. I believe I am correct in saying that the, uh, the, the, the first pope that is a, a United States citizen. [1:13:48] Chairman Harbin. [1:13:49] Yes, sir. Question. If this threshold is violated, number one, who's the enforcement agency for this? And number two, what's the penalty? I don't, I di- I, I don't s- it says that. Could you clarify? [1:14:02] Yes, yes, sir. The, I've, I've talked with the, the folks at the Campaign Finance Commission, and they would be the enforcement, and they have the, it would be the same penalties that go with, uh, that they have for other, um, infractions. [1:14:12] Okay. [1:14:12] The, the, they're, those are in their purview currently. It would fall under that. [1:14:18] All right. [1:14:18] Yes, sir. Chairman. [1:14:19] Mr. Chairman, uh, uh, just clarification. So, um, the Georgia Ethics- [1:14:24] Yes, sir [1:14:24] ... Commission would be the enforcing body. [1:14:26] Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Uh-huh. [1:14:27] And they, they would use the same guidelines they would use for foreign contributions to campaigns. Is that not true? [1:14:33] Well, hey, what the, what the, uh, is it the executive director or the secretary? [1:14:37] Executive director. [1:14:37] I'm gonna get in trouble. Uh, we've not given him his title probably. But what he has said to me is that we, we have a, a policy and, and, and procedures in place to apply those to, to this, uh, law. This would, would not in- incur, would not, they would not incur additional costs in order to come up with new rules and regs to, to do this. [1:14:55] Thank you. [1:14:57] All right. I don't see any more questions, so at this time I'll entertain a motion. [1:15:01] Move to pass. [1:15:05] I'm sorry? [1:15:05] I'm so sorry. But I believe I was called upon to speak. [1:15:08] On the sheet. [1:15:10] Uh, what's your name? [1:15:11] Brooke Mount. [1:15:15] Okay. Yeah, we, we didn't know what you, you didn't put a, what you signed up to speak for. It's blank. [1:15:20] Oh, I'm sorry. You know, I don't know how it is at this late hour. [1:15:23] Okay. Just come on down. Hurry, please. [1:15:30] All right. [1:15:30] I move for an amendment to the amendment. [1:15:34] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am so sorry for that. Yeah, uh, uh, um, at, at this late hour, it is definitely, um, a bit, uh, a bit tricky to keep everything in order. Um, so I, I appreciate the, uh, line of inquiry from the gentleman from the second but before with how this could affect, um, the civic engagement of Jews because, um, we are working off the, uh, LC 473851, right? Oh, I'm so sorry. Uh, my name is Brooke Mills. Um, I'm not with any particular organization. I self-represent, and I, um, try to bring a Jewi- a Jewish identity and civic engagement here to the capital. [1:16:10] Um, if y'all wanna hear my sermons, definitely come down to House Judy NonSip. Um, so I have some concerns, especially on, um, in section three with a foreign national na- shall not direct, dictate or control directly or indirectly the decision-making process of any person in regards to activities, um, because this appears to be divorced from the monetary co- um, constr- constraints. And I can say with confidence that, uh... [1:16:40] I'm sorry? [1:16:44] I'm s- sorry? [1:16:46] There was somebody over [1:16:49] Oh. Um, hello, Chairman Burns. Uh, what's up? [1:16:52] No, just speak. [1:16:54] Um, I'm so sorry. Um, I can definitely say with confidence that in my community, uh, we have plenty, um, of Isra- of, of Israeli Jews in, um, in my congregation. Um, and I interact with them. Um, other people interact with them. We're all civically engaged. So under this, this framework, would we be subject to this? And, um, that's particularly concerning, especially, um, in light of the rise in antisemitism. And I'm, and I'm not inc- uh, um, accusing the sponsor of anything, a thing of that sort. [1:17:25] Clearly, he's got a good idea to try to tackle big money in politics, and it's a very real issue, but this takes more of a sledgehammer to a s- a, a s- i... a, a problem that needs more of a scalpel. Um, I can say, say with confidence that, uh, um, um, that this would harm more civic engagement, especially related to religious minority groups such as Jew- um, um, Jews and the political process as a, as a whole. So great idea. Maybe it needs some more time in the oven, maybe some more, so- some more input with ledge counsel or j- um, or perhaps some, um, work on a substitute from the committee. [1:18:02] That's what I would encourage. [1:18:05] Hold on. [1:18:06] Hold on just a minute. Uh, Chairman Burns, do you have a question? [1:18:08] No. [1:18:09] No? Okay. Uh, I had one more person on here that didn't, didn't put down a number. Jackie Doyer, Honest Elections. Do... Okay, come on down. [1:18:23] Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you so much for having me. My name is Jackie Doyer. I'm the legal policy director for Honest Elections Project Action. We're a 501[c][4] dedicated to defending the right of every American to vote in free and honest elections. I wanna just s- direct my remarks to the threshold because there were a lot of questions about that. And we have seen, you know, this particular problem. You know, you were asked about some examples. And I wanna make clear that while it's illegal for a foreign national, uh, to c- contribute to a candidate campaign, there is nothing that prohibits a foreign national from contributing to these ballot issues. [1:18:59] And so states have gone in and tried to address this at their, at the state level and close off that loophole. States that have already banned this: Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Montana, Tennessee, Wyoming, and Ohio. And so this is not a hypothetical concern. Uh, we have seen millions of dollars in foreign tied funds spent to influence the outcome of state ballot issues. Um, research by Americans for Public Trust has found that a single group, the 1630 Fund, simultaneously received nearly $300 million in donations from a Swiss billionaire named Hansjoerg Wyss. [1:19:35] And si- and then that money was spent on state and local ballot issues in 26 states to the tune of $130 million. So this is foreign money being laundered into the political process at scale. Now, when we talk about this threshold, this was passed in Kansas. They included the $100,000 threshold and the four-year timeframe. And the intent there is to help prevent this law from being overturned if it gets litigated. And it, when we were talking about the constitutional concerns and, and First Amendment, the Kansas court, the case is Kansans for Constitutional Freedom v. [1:20:11] Kobach, found that the threshold and the timeframe helped to demonstrate that that legislation was narrowly tailored to achieve a s- a compelling state interest. And so that is why that, that particular threshold is something that would be tried and true, as, uh, Representative Martin put it. [1:20:30] I've got a question, uh, Vice Chair Williams. [1:20:33] Who do you get your funding from? [1:20:35] Uh, Senator Williams, thank you for the question. Like, uh, all groups and, uh, like I mentioned, we're a 501[c][4] and a 501... We have a 501[c][3], and we respect the right to privacy for our donors. [1:20:47] So I can't go online anywhere and find out where you're getting your money? [1:20:52] I, unfortunately, am not aware, Senator, of what exactly would be online about our funding. [1:20:58] Just where, who, who supports you, who gives, who donates to you. Is it a foreign country? Do you get any money from a foreign country? [1:21:07] I can say that we do not get any foreign money. [1:21:10] No foreign money? [1:21:11] No, sir. [1:21:11] Do you get any that goes to this number two PAC over here and then it comes to you? [1:21:19] That is not something that I would be aware of. [1:21:21] Okay. All right, thank you. [1:21:24] All right, we got one more. Mr. Wipp. [1:21:27] Yes, ma'am. You said you were a 501[c][3]? [1:21:29] We have a 501[c][3], I, and- [1:21:31] And you- [1:21:31] But I'm here in my capacity for the C4 [1:21:32] ... yeah, I understand that. [1:21:33] Yes, sir. [1:21:33] But you, you mentioned to Chairman Williams you were a 501[c][3] and a 501[c][4]. As a 501[c][3], you do have to report where your contributions come from. Is that not correct as a nonprofit? Because as a 501[c][3], aren't you tax deductible? [1:21:47] I'm just saying I don't know what all would be in, on the internet about our funding. [1:21:51] Right, but the, uh, the IRS puts- [1:21:53] Sure [1:21:53] ... they, the forms that you have to file to be a 501[c][3] have to be filed with the IRS. They're fi- in the, in the IRS, you can go in through the portal and see who gives to 501[c][3]s. Is that not correct? [1:22:03] You can... I believe so. I've, I believe it would show if... I, I, uh, I'm not too familiar with how the IRS does it, but, uh, the way I understood it is if somebody contributes to us, then you could go and pull their [1:22:14] ... return and see who they've contributed to. [1:22:16] Yeah. [1:22:16] But as far as who is contributing to us, that would not be- [1:22:20] Yes, ma'am. That has to be filed also on a 501[c][3]. So I'd, I'd double-check and make sure y'all are filing the right documentation as a 501[c][3]. [1:22:28] Understood. [1:22:28] Yes, ma'am. Thank you. I appreciate that. [1:22:30] All right. That's all the questions for you. Thank you. Au- chairman, come back up here. If we can get the author back up here. Um... [1:22:38] M- m- Mr. Chairman, I, I know you're ready to go, and I, I wa- will just say this. That to the, to the lady that last spoke and was concerned about the Jewish community and participating in the elections, uh, if they're partic- participating, and I, I know they, you know, they are in the state elections for, for House seats and state sea- seats, they would still be able to do the same, same thing here. This is... This mirrors federal law as relates to mine and your election, and I'm gonna go back to what, what I said at the beginning of this. This is simply trying to extend that to ballot questions. [1:23:06] All right. Well, thank you for bringing the bill this time. [1:23:08] Old and random member. [1:23:10] All right. Well, let's, uh, motion and a second on the bill, and we'll come back to you. [1:23:14] Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman. Move do pass LC4738-51. Second. [1:23:23] All right. We got a motion and a second. All right. You got amendment, Vice Chair? [1:23:30] I do. I'd like to, on line 81, line 95, line 113, all has $100,000. I would like to reduce that to $15,000. [1:23:51] Second. [1:23:54] All right. Got a motion and a second on amendment. Um, any further discussion on the amendment? [1:24:01] Pass off. [1:24:03] Is that something you support with the bill with an agree in the House? [1:24:06] I, I, I would prefer the, the bill stay as it is because of the constitutional protection. I, I, I don't disagree with the senator and what he wants to do. But here, if you're asking me, we're late in the session. We have nothing on the books to protect Georgians from this process. And you know as I do, Senator, that it's gonna be a long time to get this on the Senate floor, and then it puts it in an agree status. Uh, it is something that concerns me about the constitutionality. As the gentleman s- stated earlier, this has gotten a veto previously. [1:24:40] I think the best, uh, option, respectfully to the senator and his ability to amend it, it's, it is your committee. Uh, I feel like it, we better serve Georgians to leave the bill as it is. If we pass it on the Senate floor, it would be onto the governor's desk, and we would, uh... That would be the fastest path to protect Georgia's, uh, ballot referendum. That would be my position. [1:25:00] All right. We got Chairman Burns. [1:25:02] Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I, I r- I respect and appreciate, uh, Senator Williams' motion, and I agree with it philosophically. However, I think it's wise for the committee to go with the $100,000 limit since it has been tested and found to be, uh, constitutionally supported. I think we can certainly revisit that number at a future date- [1:25:23] Sure [1:25:23] ... and, and adjust it, uh, appropriately. But I would, uh, respectfully ask the committee to, to c- continue with the original number. [1:25:31] All right. Well, we got a motion and a second on the amendment, so we need to vote on the amendment that was offered. So all those in favor of the amendment, please raise your hand. [1:25:41] Don't we [1:25:41] Five [1:25:45] in favor. Uh, all those opposed to the amendment. [1:25:51] You opposed the amendment? You a second to it. [1:25:55] Is that four? [1:25:55] That's four. [1:25:56] Huh? [1:25:57] Yeah, that is four. [1:25:58] Oh. Raise your hands again. All those opposed. One, two- [1:26:03] That's why, that's how lawyers make their money [1:26:04] ... three. [1:26:05] They're not- [1:26:06] Four [1:26:06] ... who's con- who said it's constitutional. [1:26:08] Clarification. [1:26:09] Okay. [1:26:10] I move to table. [1:26:12] What's- [1:26:12] I'm just oppose the amendment. Is that correct? [1:26:15] That's- [1:26:16] No, we're talk- yeah, we're talking about the amendment. [1:26:18] This is the amendment. [1:26:19] All right. Th, th, that... I just ask that you vote, clarify the amendment question. [1:26:25] All right. All those in favor of the amendment offered by, um, Vice Chair Williams to change 100,000 to 15,000, if you are in favor of that amendment, please- [1:26:40] Can I have discussion? [1:26:40] Uh, okay. Well, all right. [1:26:42] To the former ethics chairman and, and your comments earlier, because I'm not familiar with the cases like the author is, but this essentially has been tested, and the 100,000 has been found to be constitutional. If we go below that, then essentially the bill dies if it's found to be unconstitutional. But if we sit at 100,000, it's challenged, we know we're gonna win. [1:27:13] We can come back and go lower, and if we lose that, it still stays at four- 100,000. So the 100,000 is- [1:27:21] Say floor [1:27:21] ... the floor. No, the ceiling. [1:27:23] Ceiling. [1:27:23] Excuse me. It is the ceiling. Um, I'm also with the author of the amendment. I'd like to see it at zero honestly, but I, I just think we should maybe follow suit on, with other states that have tested this so that, like the author said, we can get some protections now because you know these groups can challenge these things quick. [1:27:47] We didn't have your protection last year. [1:27:51] All right. Hold on here. Number 13. Chairman Burns. [1:27:54] I j- just to, again, and not to belabor the point, um, I think if we lower the limit at this time, we invite a challenge. And if, if we invite a challenge, then we have the potential of losing, uh, any form of oversight and control. So I, I understand the chairman, uh, uh, Chairman Williams' position, and, and I agree. I would like to see it lower. And again, I, f- zero's a good number for me. [1:28:22] But I, I think we have to start with a reasonable number that can be, uh, upheld and, and be sustainable. So I, I have to unfortunately, um, vote no on the amendment. [1:28:33] All right. One more. Chairman Horman. Yeah, go ahead. [1:28:36] I am, I am of the same opinion that I would like to go to zero if I could. I don't wanna kill the constitutionality of it. Here's my question, is that since we have not had the time to study this really as we'd like to, there's no reason that we could not amend this even on the floor of the Senate if we found there was a reason or reasonableness that we could do that, that could be done on the floor of the Senate. Am I correct? [1:28:59] No, this, this bill will be engrossed on the floor. [1:29:01] They're gonna engross it on the floor. Okay. [1:29:05] All right. [1:29:06] Mr. Chairman. [1:29:07] Yeah. Final comments, Mr. Chairman. [1:29:08] Well, I, I only ask here, I don't know if that, if your rules allow y'all are in the process, but if I might allow. I, I don't, I don't disagree with, with, um, your vice chair on, on the amounts to do that. But I, I would again, um, you know, state that if we get something on the books, we know we're constitutionally protected, we continue to work on that. And I w- I would also suggest that you, you know, if you have some, uh, way to find some- something that makes you change your mind on the way to rules, we can do that. If you change the bill, and then we change it back in rules, it makes it have to come back to the House because the bill's been changed twice. [1:29:44] So I, I would respectfully ask to leave it in its form. If you find later you need to do that on the way through rules, if, if we're not, don't have that count level, you have that opportunity. Um, and, you know, I would, a- again, respectfully like to move forward and protect voters immediately. [1:29:59] Okay. Well, thank you for your input, and, um, let's see what everybody wants to do. Um, on the amendment, is everybody clear? We're changing ... The amendment was to move, to change the 100,000 to 15,000. Um, all of those in favor of that amendment, please raise your hands. One, three in favor. All those opposed. Four. Four. I'm sorry. Thank y'all for ... Man, it's getting late. I can't count. I was really excited. I thought we were gonna be out in less than an hour, and y'all have all let me down. [1:30:32] It would've been my first time ever. Um, all those opposed, please raise your hand. One, two, three, four. [1:30:40] You can't vote. [1:30:41] Five, six. Six opposed to the amendment. [1:30:45] It, it was late. I- [1:30:46] All right. Back to the, uh, original bill. We have a motion and a second. Uh, all those in favor of, uh, LC473851, please raise your hand. [1:31:04] Six in favor. All those opposed. [1:31:09] Four. All right. You got a bill, Mr. Chairman. [1:31:13] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:31:13] Thank you for being here. Appreciate your work on this, and thank you, committee. We're adjourned. [1:31:26] You're welcome.