To repeal section 9.76 of the Revised Code to eliminate a requirement that state contracts include a provision in which the company declares it is not boycotting any jurisdiction with which Ohio can enjoy open trade, including Israel, and will not do so during the contract period.
Summary
HB489 would repeal section 9.76 of the Ohio Revised Code. That section currently requires state contracts to include a certification that the contracting company is not boycotting any jurisdiction with which Ohio can enjoy open trade, including Israel, and that it will not engage in such a boycott during the contract term. By repealing the section, the bill would remove that contractual anti-boycott declaration requirement from state procurement law.
In practical terms, the bill would change the terms under which businesses may contract with the state by eliminating a political or trade-related certification tied to state purchasing. The measure does not create a new regulatory program or tax change; instead, it narrows an existing restriction on state contracts and would affect vendors seeking to do business with Ohio government entities.
Impact
If enacted, HB489 would amend Ohio procurement law by removing the statutory anti-boycott clause in state contracts. This would affect state agencies and contractors by no longer requiring vendors to affirm that they are not participating in boycotts of covered jurisdictions, including Israel, as a condition of contracting with the state. The bill would repeal section 9.76 in its entirety, thereby eliminating the current legal basis for that certification requirement.
Sentiment
The available context shows the bill was introduced and referred to the House General Government Committee, but there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes provided. As a result, there is no documented public debate or vote history in the supplied materials to indicate broader legislative sentiment. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to be a targeted policy reversal of an existing contracting requirement rather than a broad partisan or fiscal initiative.
Contention
The main point of contention inherent in the bill is the removal of the anti-boycott certification, which has implications for state policy toward Israel and other jurisdictions covered by the current law. Supporters would likely view repeal as protecting free speech, trade freedom, and contractor choice, while opponents would likely argue that the requirement is an appropriate state contracting condition and a way to discourage discriminatory boycotts. No specific arguments from legislators or stakeholders are included in the provided discussion materials.