Oklahoma House Bill HB2795

Oklahoma 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/3/25
• Refer: 2/4/25
• Report Pass: 5/19/25
• Engrossed: 5/20/25
• Enrolled: 5/22/25
• Passed: 5/29/25

Caption

Ethics Commission; Political Subdivisions Enforcement Fund; increasing fund cap; emergency.

Summary

HB2795 amends the statute governing the Ethics Commission’s Political Subdivisions Enforcement Fund. The bill raises the amount of money that may remain in the fund before excess balances are transferred to the state General Revenue Fund, increasing the cap from $150,000 to $450,000. The fund is used to support the Commission’s Political Subdivisions Enforcement Division, which handles enforcement related to campaign finance and financial disclosure laws for counties, municipalities, technology center districts, and independent school districts. The bill also preserves the existing structure of the fund as a continuing revolving fund made up of legislative appropriations, late filing fees, settlement fines, and court-assessed penalties. If the fund falls below $100,000, the Ethics Commission’s Executive Director may suspend further enforcement activity by the Political Subdivisions Enforcement Division until the balance is restored above that threshold. The measure includes an emergency clause, meaning it takes effect immediately upon passage and approval.

Impact

HB2795 changes Oklahoma law by amending 74 O.S. 2021, Section 4258.1, to increase the Political Subdivisions Enforcement Fund’s retention cap and thereby allow the Ethics Commission to keep more money available for enforcement operations. This affects the state treasury, the General Revenue Fund, and the Ethics Commission’s ability to finance enforcement of local campaign finance and disclosure laws. It does not create new enforcement powers, but it changes the funding mechanism and available operating balance for the agency’s political subdivisions enforcement work.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have received broadly favorable support. It passed the House Appropriations and Budget Committee unanimously on the House side and with only two dissenting votes in the Senate committee, then cleared both chambers with strong margins. The final floor votes were 84-0 in the House and 42-4 in the Senate, suggesting general agreement that the Ethics Commission needed a higher fund cap to support enforcement activities.

Contention

There is little evidence of major controversy in the available record, but the only likely point of debate would be the larger amount of money allowed to remain in the fund rather than being swept to General Revenue. Supporters likely viewed the increase as necessary to maintain enforcement capacity and avoid interruptions when the fund balance dips, while any skeptics may have been concerned about reducing transfers to the state’s general fund or expanding the Commission’s retained resources. The final vote totals indicate that any opposition was limited.