HB 906, the Stop Scam PACs Act, adds a new disclosure section to Maryland election law governing certain political organizations that solicit contributions or donations. The bill requires covered entities to include clear and conspicuous disclaimers on solicitations when they use a candidate’s or political party’s name, image, or likeness without authorization, and when a solicitation appears to be for charitable, electoral, or political purposes. In those cases, the solicitation must state that the use of the candidate or party identity does not imply approval or authorization, and must also disclose that contributions are not necessarily used for charitable purposes and are not tax-deductible.
The bill applies to persons already required to file campaign finance reports under Maryland law, as well as certain political action committees that are not affiliated with a corporation or labor organization and that make only independent expenditures or electioneering communications. It defines “solicitation,” “disbursement,” and “donation” for purposes of the new section and authorizes the State Administrator of Elections, or a designee, to investigate potential violations. The State Board may issue subpoenas, hold a public hearing, publish a report of findings, bar future solicitations for a period of time, and impose civil penalties of up to $10,000. The bill also specifies that violations are not subject to the criminal and certain civil penalties that otherwise apply under related election law provisions.
The bill’s impact is to expand Maryland campaign finance disclosure requirements and create an enforcement mechanism aimed at preventing misleading fundraising practices by political organizations. It amends the Election Law Article by adding a new section, § 13-223, and gives the State Board of Elections new oversight and penalty authority over solicitations that use political imagery or that could be mistaken for charitable fundraising. The act takes effect July 1, 2025.
Overall sentiment appears strongly favorable. The bill passed the House on third reading by a wide margin, 132-6, and the committee report was favorable with amendments. The lack of recorded committee transcript discussion suggests limited public controversy in the available record, and the broad vote indicates bipartisan or near-unanimous support for the bill’s consumer-protection and anti-fraud framing.
Any contention likely centers on the scope of the disclosure requirements and the State Board’s investigative authority, including subpoena power and the ability to impose solicitation bans or civil penalties. Potential concerns may involve free-speech implications, administrative burden on political organizations, and whether the bill could reach legitimate issue advocacy or fundraising communications that use candidate names or resemble charitable appeals. Nonetheless, the recorded vote suggests these concerns did not prevent passage.
HB 906 adds new disclosure and enforcement provisions to Maryland’s Election Law Article, specifically creating § 13-223 to regulate solicitations by certain political organizations and PACs. It requires disclaimers on fundraising communications that use a candidate’s or political party’s name, image, or likeness without authorization, and mandates disclosures when solicitations could be mistaken for charitable appeals. The bill also authorizes the State Administrator of Elections and the State Board to investigate violations, issue subpoenas, hold hearings, publish findings, and impose civil penalties or temporary solicitation bans, while exempting violations from certain existing criminal and civil penalty provisions.
The available record shows strong support for the bill. The House passed HB 906 on third reading by a vote of 132-6, and the committee report was favorable with amendments. With no committee transcript provided, there is no detailed recorded debate, but the overwhelming vote suggests the bill was broadly viewed as a consumer-protection and anti-scam measure rather than a controversial election-law overhaul.
The main points of potential contention are the breadth of the disclosure mandate and the enforcement powers granted to the State Board of Elections. Critics could argue that the bill may burden political speech, create compliance challenges for political organizations, or sweep in communications that are not deceptive. Supporters, by contrast, appear to have framed the measure as necessary to prevent misleading fundraising practices and unauthorized use of candidate or party identities in solicitations.