Creates new restrictions on certain business practices of entities doing business in this state related to economic boycotts and DEI initiatives
SB 272 adds two new sections to Missouri law aimed at restricting certain business practices by companies that contract with public entities or engage in private contracting in the state. One section would require public contracts for services, supplies, information technology, or construction to include a certification that the contractor is not engaged in an “economic boycott” and will not engage in one during the contract term. The bill defines economic boycott broadly to include actions taken against companies because of their involvement in fossil fuels, timber, mining, agriculture, firearms, greenhouse gas-related environmental standards, board or workforce composition criteria, or abortion, gender transition, or transgender medical care, as well as companies that do business with other companies meeting those criteria. It exempts smaller contracts under $100,000 and contractors with fewer than 10 employees.
The bill would make noncompliant public contracts void as against public policy and authorize enforcement by the attorney general, including investigative demands, court-ordered document impoundment, and treble damages equal to three times the amount paid under a violating contract. It also creates a private right of action for injured persons, with injunctive relief, damages, costs, and attorney fees available in Cole County. Separately, the bill creates a new unlawful business practice under chapter 431 for private businesses that refuse to contract, score, or condition contracts on DEI-related classifications or information, or that require quotas or disclosures tied to race, ethnicity, nationality, socioeconomic status, sex, sexual orientation, gender, or gender identity. This section applies to certain Missouri-related contracts and includes civil penalties, injunctions, and attorney general enforcement authority.
Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears to reflect a strong policy preference against both ESG-style boycotts and DEI-based contracting criteria. The overall tone of the legislation is prescriptive and enforcement-oriented, suggesting support from sponsors who want to limit what they view as discriminatory or ideologically driven contracting practices. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of floor debate or bipartisan support in the supplied materials.
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s broad definitions and its restrictions on both public and private contracting decisions. Critics may object that the “economic boycott” definition reaches a wide range of corporate conduct tied to environmental, firearms, reproductive health, and gender-identity issues, while supporters may argue it prevents politically motivated discrimination against lawful industries. The DEI section is also likely to be controversial because it bars businesses from considering workforce diversity information or policies in contracting decisions, which opponents may view as limiting private business autonomy and diversity initiatives. The bill’s private cause of action, attorney general powers, and treble-damages/civil-penalty provisions also create significant enforcement exposure for affected companies.