Video & Transcript Research : 'admin penalties'
Page 108 of 338
VT
Transcript Highlights:
- This is the same penalty as Vermont's extortion statute.
- This is the same penalty as or older.
- This is the same penalty as Vermont's<00:23:49.840>
extortion <00:23:50.480>statute. - Are you referring to the penalties for voyeurism in section 2605 or 2606? Well, both.
- <00:43:21.119>
for <00:43:22.400>um the penalty for um the penalty for um for<00:43
Summary:
The House convened, suspended its rules to introduce 18 bills by number only, and referred the bills to the appropriate committees. House Bill 647, relating to the Vermont Sister State Program and carrying an appropriation, was referred to Appropriations under House Rule 35A. The chamber also read several resolutions: HR13, concerning support for the people of Palestine and Israel and the end of apartheid, was treated as a bill and referred to Government Operations and Military Affairs; JR88, condemning a U.S. military incursion in Venezuela and calling for withdrawal of U.S. forces, was likewise referred to Government Operations and Military Affairs; and JRS37, supporting gender equality in Nordic combined Olympic competition, was referred to Commerce and Economic Development. JRS39, a weekend adjournment resolution, was adopted in concurrence.
On the action calendar, the House passed H541, relating to interference with voters and election officials. It then took up H5, which expands Vermont’s existing hearsay exception for child victims from age 12 and under to age 15 in specified abuse and sexual assault proceedings, with judicial safeguards and a July 1, 2026 effective date. The Judiciary Committee reported the bill favorably 10-1, and the House adopted the committee amendment and ordered third reading.
The House also considered H626, a major Judiciary Committee bill on voyeurism, non-consensual disclosure of explicit images, and sexual extortion. Committee members described the bill as updating criminal and civil remedies for image-based abuse, creating a separate sextortion offense, extending criminal statutes of limitation, and clarifying civil recovery for trauma-related harm. During floor debate, members questioned the distinction between the voyeurism and disclosure provisions and the meaning of “reasonable expectation of privacy”; the committee responded with examples and statutory explanations, including that voyeurism covers unlawful recording while the disclosure offense covers later dissemination of images. The bill remained under consideration as the discussion continued.
TX
Transcript Highlights:
- In addition, the maximum penalty for noncompliance needs to increase in this bill.
- Our testimony here today is that we should consider modifying the $10,000 penalty.
- Do you also agree that the fine should be a "shall" impose a penalty? Yes, sir.
- The $10,000 penalty is not insignificant.
- Penalty, so we support the $10,000 level, which is up from zero or $1,000.
Keywords:
HB 48, oilfield theft, organized theft, petroleum products, oil and gas equipment, DPS, Department of Public Safety, Texas, Railroad Commission, criminal justice, energy resources, theft prevention, organized crime, border region, El Paso, law enforcement task force, asset recovery, pipeline theft, drilling equipment, equipment theft
NH
New Hampshire 2025 Regular Session
House Criminal Justice and Public Safety (03/19/2025)
Criminal Justice and Public Safety
Transcript Highlights:
- <01:00:38.039>
or <01:00:38.319>life jury is either the death penalty or life jury - is either the death penalty or life without<01:00:38.920>
parole <01:00:39.880>so <01:00 - penalty penalty and<01:03:26.839>
that <01:03:26.960>was <01:03:27.079>the <01:03 - of perjury if you go to court penalties of perjury if you go to court to<01:11:24.320>
support - Hopefully increasing these penalties will make a difference.
MN
Transcript Highlights:
- of Revenue, but it reduces the penalty for not giving a certificate of rent paid to the renter.
- of Revenue, but it reduces the penalty for not giving a certificate of rent paid to the renter.
- of Revenue, but it reduces the penalty for not giving a certificate of rent paid to the renter.
- of Revenue, but it reduces the penalty for not giving a certificate of rent paid to the renter.
- enacted in the 2025 special penalties enacted in the 2025 special session<00:31:45.519>
as <00
Bills:
HF9
Keywords:
energy policy, renewable energy standard, carbon-free standard, solar standard, hydroelectric, hydropower, electric utility, Public Utilities Commission, PUC, renewable portfolio standard, carbon capture and sequestration, CCS, greenhouse gas emissions, climate policy, nuclear power plant, certificate of need, fossil fuel plant demolition, utility compliance delay, beneficial electrification, sales tax exemption
CA
California 2025-2026 Regular Session
Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee Apr 22nd, 2026
Revenue and Taxation
Transcript Highlights:
- My question is really about the penalties.
- Can you speak a little bit to the penalty and your flexibility there?
- My question is really about the penalties.
- Can you speak a little bit to the penalty and your flexibility there?
- I would also add that the author has agreed to reduce the penalty.
Summary:
The committee heard several revenue and taxation bills, beginning with SB 1124, which would require the California Department of Public Health to create and post signage at tobacco retail locations about lung cancer screening eligibility. Senator Archuleta and Dr. Alex Zhu testified that lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death and that awareness is low, while retail groups raised implementation concerns about sign size, notice, and penalties. Members discussed screening access and cost, and the author indicated willingness to reduce penalties. The bill passed 4-0 to the Senate Health Committee.
The committee then heard wildfire-related tax relief measures. SB 1352 would clarify that disaster victims rebuilding homes may increase the size of a reconstructed home by up to 10% without triggering reassessment, and SB 1343 would provide a $4,000 income tax credit for sales tax paid on furniture and appliances purchased to furnish a rebuilt primary residence after a disaster. Both measures were supported by local officials and taxpayer groups, with some concern about administration and whether the benefits would skew toward higher-income households. Each bill passed unanimously, with SB 1352 sent to Appropriations and SB 1343 also sent to Appropriations.
SB 1172 would place limits and transparency requirements on consultant compensation in local tax-sharing agreements, prompted by concerns that revenues in places like Shafter and Dinuba were being diverted away from local communities. The bill drew support from the League of California Cities and the California Retailers Association, while some members worried about local control. It passed 4-0 to Appropriations. SB 1408 would authorize the Contra Costa Transportation Authority to place a countywide sales tax measure of up to 1% on the ballot to continue transportation funding; supporters said it would let voters decide on continued investment in roads, transit, and congestion relief, while taxpayer groups opposed it. The bill passed 4-1 to Appropriations.
The committee also considered SB 1404, which would restore a fire prevention fee in state responsibility areas and use it to help fund Cal Fire wildfire prevention and suppression, with the author arguing the fee would help address rising wildfire costs and reduce reliance on other funding sources. Rural county and taxpayer groups opposed it, citing affordability, double-charging, and constitutional concerns; some members also questioned the fee’s administration and burden on fixed-income residents. The bill passed 4-1 to Appropriations. Finally, SB 1102 would create a $2,000 tax credit for frontline nurses working in rural hospitals to improve retention and access to care; it drew support from a rural clinic and no opposition beyond a CTA tax-credit concern, and it passed 5-0 to Appropriations. The consent calendar, including SB 1072, SB 1165, and committee bills SB 1435-SB 1437, was also adopted.
TX
Transcript Highlights:
- My office has taken off the following bills due to having either a penalty, fiscal note, significant
- opposition, or the chair: SB1181 had a criminal penalty.
- SB2371, criminal penalty. SB2392, criminal penalty. SB2514, criminal penalty.
- SB2876, criminal penalty. SB1964, fiscal note. SB2117, fiscal note. SB2154, fiscal note.
- There's no fiscal note or criminal penalties on this bill. That's right. Okay. Thank you.
Keywords:
cowboy culture, Bandera, cultural heritage, historical significance, Texas identity, Birding Capital, Matagorda County, wildlife, conservation, Texas Legislature, statutory revision, code corrections, laws omitted, legislative updates, spaceports, tax-exempt bonds, aerospace investment, Texas space economy, Federal legislation, 1185
LA
Louisiana 2026 Regular Session
Commerce Apr 22nd, 2026
Commerce, Consumer Protection, and International Affairs
Transcript Highlights:
- Currently, or are we creating one, and what is it, and who could possibly have this penalty?
- Can you give me—on page 3, 9-11, it says in addition to or in lieu of the criminal penalties.
- So what are the criminal penalties right now that we be adding to?
- And that's the source of the enforcement, and the enforcement is civil penalties.
- And that's the source of the enforcement, and the enforcement is civil penalties.
Summary:
The House Committee on Commerce met on Wednesday, April 22, with a quorum present and heard several bills. HB 1195, relating to the Louisiana State Athletic Commission, was amended with technical changes and a fee-related amendment tied to student athlete agents, then reported favorably. Members asked about criminal penalties and whether the bill would affect prison athletic events; the author said he would follow up on those questions. HB 798, the Broadband and Cable Price Notice Act, was amended to clarify definitions, federal compliance, notice requirements, and severability, then reported favorably after extensive debate over whether providers already give adequate notice, whether a separate notice is necessary, and whether the bill would be preempted by federal law. Charter Communications testified in opposition, saying the bill was duplicative and would add costs, while the author argued it was needed to ensure clear, conspicuous notice of price increases and cancellation rights.
CA
California 2025-2026 Regular Session
Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee Jun 24th, 2025
Transcript Highlights:
- And when you're talking about platforms of such enormous wealth, what should the penalties be?
- So, for example, let's talk about the penalties. The penalty is... The penalty is...
- What should the penalties be? So, for example, let's talk about the penalties.
- The penalties for violating those laws, what victims can get now under existing law, is a maximum, I
- So the penalties are raised for intentional violations, for reckless violations.
Summary:
The committee hearing covered several bills related to privacy, consumer protection, and online harms. SB 259 by Senator Wahab would prohibit surveillance pricing based on device data such as geolocation or battery level; supporters argued it would curb discriminatory and predatory pricing, while opponents raised concerns about geolocation definitions, legitimate location-based pricing, and impacts on discounts and loyalty programs. The bill was moved on a due pass motion to the Judiciary Committee and passed 8-1, with members noting amendments and ongoing discussions with stakeholders.
SB 22 by Senator Laird would raise the amount of gift cards that can be redeemed for cash, with the author saying the goal is to update the long-standing $10 threshold for inflation and preserve consumer value. Consumer advocates supported the bill, while retailers, restaurants, grocers, and chambers of commerce opposed or opposed unless amended, citing fraud concerns, safety issues, and the need for clarification on donated or returned gift cards. The committee voted the bill out on a 6-1 vote and kept it on call.
SB 576 by Senator Umberg would apply broadcast-style loudness rules to streaming advertisements. The author said the bill is intended to prevent ads from being much louder than programming, especially for children, while the opposition argued that streaming ad insertion is technically different and that existing industry standards and FCC oversight already address the issue. The bill passed 8-0. SB 683 by Senator Cortese would clarify that people can seek injunctive relief, including a TRO, for unauthorized use of name, image, or likeness; supporters said it strengthens privacy protections, while opponents warned about prior restraint and First Amendment concerns. The bill was moved out on a due pass motion and kept on call.
The final bill discussed, SB 771 by Senator Stern, would clarify that existing civil rights and hate-related laws apply to social media platforms and their algorithms, with higher penalties for intentional or reckless violations. Supporters, including the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Islamic Networks Group, described online hate as fueling real-world violence and urged stronger accountability; opponents argued the bill could conflict with Section 230, chill lawful speech, and create vague standards. Members raised questions about constitutionality, definitions, and whether the bill would be workable, but several expressed support for the author’s goals.
MN
Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session
Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection - 04/28/26
Commerce and Consumer Protection
Transcript Highlights:
- , if you look at the penalties provision, there's different layers, different levels of penalties.
- , if you look at the penalties provision, there's different layers, different levels of penalties.
- , if you look at the penalties provision, there's different layers, different levels of penalties.
- If you look at the penalties provision, there's different layers, different levels of penalties.
- penalties if they don't. penalties if they don't.
MN
Transcript Highlights:
- a bill to clarify criminal penalty a bill to clarify criminal penalty provisions<00:04:54.200>
- <00:08:58.920>
for we want to make sure the penalty for we want to make sure the penalty for- criminal penalties for uh people without criminal penalties for uh people without tickets.<00:15:31.120
- prosecute these criminal penalties. prosecute these criminal penalties.
- That is a civil penalty, not a criminal penalty. Is that correct?
- <00:08:58.920>
TX
Transcript Highlights:
- Are you personally in favor of the death penalty in any cases?
- Am I in favor of the death penalty in any cases? I am not. Okay.
- So you're opposed to the death penalty, but you are... I am not. Okay.
- would be eligible for the death penalty.
- And members, this bill is not about the death penalty.
Summary:
The committee first took up House Bill 2777 by Representative Rose, which would bar the death penalty for defendants who can prove by clear and convincing evidence that they had schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder and active psychotic symptoms at the time of the offense. Rose said the bill would still hold defendants accountable through life without parole, would save money by avoiding lengthy capital litigation, and would address cases where severe mental illness was not adequately considered. Supporters from NAMI Texas, the Catholic bishops, and a forensic psychologist said the bill is narrowly tailored, consistent with neuroscience and moral principles, and would prevent executions of people whose psychosis substantially impaired reality testing. Committee members questioned how the bill interacts with existing competency and insanity law, whether the diagnosis is sufficiently defined, and whether the statute requires active psychosis at the time of the offense. An opponent argued the death penalty should remain available for juries to decide in all cases. The bill was left pending.
The committee then heard House Bill 1221 by Representative Lozano, which would raise the cap on pretrial intervention program fees from $500 to $1,200. Lozano and a district attorney witness said the increase is needed because program costs have risen and the fees help make diversion programs self-sustaining, allowing first-time or low-level offenders to complete rehabilitation and potentially obtain expunction. Opponents from the Texas Fair Defense Project argued the higher fee could make diversion unaffordable for indigent defendants and undermine an important alternative to incarceration, especially where related supervision and monitoring costs already add up. Members discussed whether the fee applies only to PTI participants, how payment plans and waivers work, and whether ability to pay should be addressed more explicitly. The bill was left pending.
Finally, the committee heard House Bill 1738 by Representative Jones, which would repeal Penal Code Section 21.06 and related Health and Safety Code references concerning homosexual conduct. Jones said the law is unconstitutional under Lawrence v. Texas, remains harmful on the books, and has led to confusion and unnecessary costs even though it is unenforceable. Supporters said the bill simply removes outdated language and protects civil liberties, while opponents from Texas Values argued the statute still serves as a statement that homosexual conduct is unacceptable and should remain as a warning, even if unenforceable. Members debated whether the law’s remaining language is merely symbolic or still harmful, and whether other criminal statutes already cover conduct such as prostitution, incest, and offenses involving minors. The bill was left pending after testimony.
MN
Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session
House Commerce Finance and Policy Committee 3/20/25
Commerce Finance and Policy
Transcript Highlights:
- So this is civil penalties, case.
- where we have excess, we have penalties where we have excess, we have penalties and<00:19:34.480
- So to the bill author, first of all, what would be the penalties? Who reports?
- So to the bill author, first of all, what would be the penalties? Who reports?
- And what would penalties? Who reports?
Keywords:
consumer protection, restitution, attorney general, consumer enforcement, unclaimed funds, victim compensation, settlement funds, special revenue fund, general fund, restitution account, consumer fraud, state treasury, eligible consumers, distribution of funds, tax subtraction, income tax, refund, unpaid compensation, Minnesota Department of Revenue, consumer redress
MN
Transcript Highlights:
- What is the penalty? Chair Fryberg, I don't believe there's a penalty specified in the language.
- What is the penalty? Chair Fryberg, I don't believe there's a penalty specified in the language.
- What is the penalty? Chair Fryberg, I don't believe there's a penalty specified in the language.
- What is the penalty? Chair Fryberg, I don't believe there's a penalty specified in the language.
- What is the penalty? Chair Fryberg, I don't believe there's a penalty specified in the language.
Keywords:
veterans, military affairs, Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Military Affairs, omnibus veterans bill, appropriations, National Guard, state active service, armory, State Armory Building Commission, veterans homes, veterans cemeteries, county veterans service office, Minnesota GI Bill, Gold Star families, Blue Star families, Secret War in Laos, Hmong veterans, Laos veterans, special guerrilla units
MN
Transcript Highlights:
- After this amendment that we just accepted, it also allows for some penalties to teach a lesson to those
- amendment, but the one distinction between this amendment and the prior bill is this question of penalty
- Even though if the board were to find a violation, it would not have the ability to apply any penalty
- I think we should put in here that you could seek a civil penalty at a court up to $3,000, put it in
- <00:36:04.079>
for so this is is adding some penalty for so this is is adding some penalty
ND
North Dakota 2025-2026 Regular Session
HB 1229 Conference Committee Apr 16th, 2025 at 03:30 pm
Transcript Highlights:
- fleeing penalty, but not quite as severe.
- like the full on fleeing penalty, but not quite as that severe.
- Well, and I think there are criminal penalties as well that go with these.
- They're just not listed here because the DOT doesn't administer criminal penalties.
- All right, with that, this meeting's adjourned. administer criminal penalties.
Summary:
The conference committee on House Bill 1229 met to try to resolve differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill, which deals with reporting certain traffic offenses to driving records and, by extension, insurance companies. House members argued that the House position was driven by concern that reporting lower-level offenses would unfairly raise insurance costs, while Senate members said they opposed removing reporting because they wanted transparency and believed people who break the law should face consequences. The discussion focused heavily on whether the bill should continue to exclude offenses at two points and below from reporting, or whether a narrower compromise such as one point and below might be acceptable.
Committee members and DOT Driver and Vehicle Director Brad Schaefer reviewed a color-coded list of offenses and how they are currently reported. Schaefer explained that salmon-shaded items automatically appear on driving records because they trigger suspension or revocation, green items are commercial-driver violations that also trigger suspension, and the remaining unshaded zero-, one-, and some two-point violations were the main subject of the conference discussion. Members debated whether some low-point items, such as equipment violations, no child restraint, distracted driving, and failure to use due care, should remain reportable, while acknowledging that serious offenses like fleeing and human trafficking would remain reportable regardless.
No final compromise was reached. Several members expressed interest in a possible middle ground limited to one-point-and-below offenses, but others worried the Senate would not accept it. The committee agreed to adjourn and reschedule after members had more time to review the list and consider possible amendments.
AL
Alabama 2025 Regular Session
Alabama House County and Municipal Government Committee Mar 5th, 2025
County and Municipal Government
Transcript Highlights:
- These days, the recordings will be public online, with no penalties. I was kind of surprised.
- Um, I know Representative Crawford said earlier there's no penalty, there's no fine for those things.
- Chairman, does it ease your mind that there's no penalty or not?
- I always prefer no penalty to a penalty, but it still brings up that concern, right?
- We suggest a no penalty route to get compliance... route to get compliance.
LA
Transcript Highlights:
- H.B. 133 provides for penalties for students who commit attacks on other teachers and students in the
- And so the judge there has broad discretion to control and narrowly craft a penalty, which takes all
- But what is the penalty? In other words, is there a penalty?
- The main penalty, if they cut it off, that's an escape. And so we could charge with escape.
- We can't do a penalty because that would require levying another crime against them, and they have the
TX
Transcript Highlights:
- I'm only in favor of the death penalty in any cases.
- Am I in favor of the death penalty in any cases? I am not.
- Okay, so you're opposed to the death penalty, but you are a person who...
- Would testify whether or not someone would be eligible for the death penalty.
- This bill is not about the death penalty.
Bills:
HB 1194, HB 1221, HB1738, HB1913, HB2177, HB2178, HB2180, HB2229, HB2282, HB2448, HB2492, HB2777, HB2984, HB3357, HB3553, HB3602
Keywords:
emergency protection order, protective order, magistrate, criminal procedure, victim safety, family violence, domestic violence, stalking, assault, magistrate's order, temporary protection, court order duration, defendant restrictions, Article 17.292, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, emergency restraining order, victim protection, firearm restriction, pretrial intervention, reimbursement fee
NH
New Hampshire 2025 Regular Session
Senate Children and Family Law (04/03/2025)
Children and Family Law
Transcript Highlights:
- So, if I go and I pull a fire penalty.
- So, this never a penalty assigned to it.
- committee last term to allow a penalty committee last term to allow a penalty to<00:51:47.920>
- <01:10:51.600>
for um that require penalties for um that require penalties for uh<01:10:54.480- <02:24:42.399>
of Attorneys under the pain of penalty of Attorneys under the pain of penalty - <01:10:51.600>
AZ
Arizona 2026 Regular Session
04/16/2026 - House Conference Committee HB2874
Transcript Highlights:
- political action committee, or political party to file a termination statement and prohibits and voids penalties
- The Senate amended the bill by prohibiting and deeming void, retroactively, penalties against a committee
- internet or through the Secretary of State's filing system, a listing of all committees that owe penalties
- The conference committee amendment limits the maximum amount of penalties that a committee may accrue
- reporting period to $5,000 beginning July 1 of this year, adds a session law section that prohibits penalties
Summary:
The House and Senate conference committees met on April 16, 2026, to reconcile differences on HB 2874, which deals with campaign finance termination statements and penalties for committees that had no contributions or expenditures. Staff explained that the Senate version retroactively voided certain penalties for late campaign finance reports if a committee certifies no activity, and the conference amendment further refined the bill by requiring public posting of committees that owe late-filing penalties, clarifying termination-statement requirements, extending the no-penalty provisions to some committees that had received contributions, and capping penalties at $5,000 per late report beginning July 1. The amendment also moved the retroactivity date, added a session-law provision, and included an emergency clause.
Members discussed whether suspended accounts with no activity would be covered, and staff indicated that while not expressly named, they would likely fall within the bill’s criteria. Supporters said the measure would help clear old compliance issues from the books, improve transparency, and provide relief to smaller candidates and local officeholders who may not have the resources to manage complex campaign finance requirements. One member noted the bill would create a practical safe harbor for inactive campaigns and reduce penalties that continue to accrue on closed or empty campaign accounts.
A motion was made and adopted to approve the five-page conference amendment dated April 16, 2026, at 9:03 a.m., to the Senate engrossed version of HB 2874, with authorization for technical and conforming changes recommended by the rules attorney. The motion passed by voice vote, and both the House and Senate conference committees adjourned.