Bills: SF3045, HF2783, HF1943

Keywords: omnibus, state government, local government, elections, campaign finance, voter registration, absentee voting, election administration, electronic rosters, lobbying, lobbyist disclosure, state budget, appropriations, biennial budget, Minnesota Secretary of State, Minnesota Management and Budget, state personnel, civil service, affirmative action, disability employment

Bills: HB115

Keywords: public funds, lobbying, political subdivision, government spending, transparency, HB 115, taxpayer-funded lobbying, local government lobbying, county association dues, municipal lobbying, lobbyist registration, Chapter 305, Government Code Section 556.0056, Local Government Code Section 89.002, county government, city government, injunctive relief, attorney's fees, state association of counties, sheriffs association

Summary: The Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence reconvened with a quorum present and announced it would likely not vote that night because of confusion over the bill list; members were told a definitive list would be circulated the next morning and a formal meeting would be scheduled later. The chair then heard a series of bills, generally taking testimony and leaving each pending without action. House Bill 1847 would set maximum caseload standards for private attorneys handling indigent criminal appointments through the Texas Indigent Defense Commission; House Bill 2417 would expand compensation eligibility for some wrongfully imprisoned people; House Bill 2813 would require earlier and more specific victim notice of scheduled court proceedings; and House Bill 2309 would expand state and local authority in certain civil asset forfeiture cases involving human trafficking, health care fraud, and organized crime. Each bill was laid out by its author or a member, with no opposition witnesses registered, and each was left pending. The committee also heard House Bill 4733, which would require sealing records for people acquitted of charges when they were not convicted on the related allegation; House Bill 2328, which would modernize expunction service by encouraging electronic notice, setting a standardized fee when electronic service is unavailable, extending clerk retention of expunction orders, and preserving certain mental health commitment orders; and House Bill 115, which would revise Texas’s “junk science” post-conviction writ law by providing counsel, changing the relief standard, requiring written decisions, and easing procedural barriers. Testimony on HB 2328 was mixed: county clerks supported the bill as a cost-saving modernization, while legal advocates warned that permanent retention of expunction orders could undermine true expunction and create privacy risks. HB 115 drew support from innocence and defense organizations, with some concern about a provision affecting subsequent writs. All were left pending after testimony. Later, the committee heard House Bill 2046, which would allow affirmative family-violence findings for any Penal Code offense rather than only Title V offenses; testimony from a Dallas County prosecutor and a committee member emphasized that family violence can involve arson, burglary, fraud, and other non-Title V conduct, and the bill was left pending. House Bill 1765 would tighten restrictions on no-knock warrants by requiring higher-level approval, judicial review, and identifiable officers; members discussed the dangers highlighted by the Harding Street raid and similar incidents, and the bill was also left pending. The meeting ended with the chair noting that some bills had been removed from the agenda at the author’s request and that members should be prepared to finalize the vote list the next day.

Bills: HB 186

Keywords: public funds, lobbying activities, political subdivisions, government expenditure, transparency, local government, political subdivision, county, city, municipality, special district, taxpayer-funded lobbying, lobbying restriction, registered lobbyist, government association, county association dues, Texas Legislature, injunctive relief, attorney's fees, Chapter 556

Bills: SB 18, SB 19, SB 666, SB 688, SB 707, SB 888

Keywords: municipal libraries, state funding, gender identity, public events, children's literature, SB 19, Texas, political subdivision, local government, county, city, municipality, taxpayer-funded lobbying, lobbying ban, public funds, registered lobbyist, Chapter 305, Government Code, Local Government Code, county association dues

Transcript Highlights:

• Would it be beneficial for them to have that information, their economic disclosures, before the election
• Well, the reason for the disclosures is so that...
• The reason for the disclosures is so that individuals have an understanding of the economic conflicts

Bills: HB250

Keywords: HB250, Alabama Ethics Commission, statement of economic interests, financial disclosure, candidate ethics, campaign finance, candidate filing deadline, qualifying papers, declaration of candidacy, independent candidate, ballot access, election law, ethics reform, public officials, public employees, asset disclosure, income disclosure, real estate holdings, indebtedness disclosure, late filing penalty

Transcript Highlights:

• The bill clarifies that recap disclosures are required before a buyer...
• Disclosures are required before a buyer of property, but a written agreement is not required at this

Bills: HB230

Keywords: real estate, brokerage, broker, salesperson, licensee, consumer disclosure, agency disclosure, RECAD, Real Estate Consumers Agency and Disclosure Act, Alabama Real Estate Commission, buyer agreement, listing agreement, transaction broker, single agent, dual agency, compensation disclosure, commission, referral agreement, referral fee, written agreement

Bills: HB186, HB517, HB 1093, HB 1268, HB1395, HB186

Keywords: social media, children, account verification, data privacy, parental control, property owners' association, residential watering restrictions, vegetation, fine limitations, drought, technology, innovation, economic development, grants, Texas Economic Development, business funding, HB 1395, private passenger vehicle rental, car rental, vehicle rental

Transcript Highlights:

• They would still file their annual personal disclosure.
• It removes the disclosure, but even absent disclosure, would it remove any possible violation that would
• The disclosure only occurs if it is allowed.
• , so they're still going to be required to file disclosure reports.
• I don't, it's clear and understandable disclosure.

Bills: HB88, HB181, HB210, HB250, HB486, HB529, HB544, HB639, HB996, HB1036, HB1071, HB1113

Keywords: local law, special bill, legislative process, transparency, election amendment, Medicaid, SNAP, fraud detection, income tax, legislative auditor, data sharing, state revenue, lobbying, public service, ethics, statewide officials, compensation, disclosure requirements, government employment, financial disclosure

Bills: SB165

Keywords: candidates, economic interests, disclosure, ethics, transparency, public officials, 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Just a couple thoughts on the tariff disclosure bill: our members have suffered through a year and a
• It would be very, it would be near impossible to comply with the provisions in the tariff disclosure
• Just a couple thoughts on the tariff disclosure bill: our members have suffered through a year and a
• It would be very, it would be near impossible to comply with the provisions in the tariff disclosure
• And while I'm here, I'd like to just oppose House Bill 5036 on the tariff disclosures.

Bills: H5036, H5138

Keywords: tariff transparency, consumer disclosure, price transparency, vehicle pricing, Monroney label, auto dealer, car manufacturer, retail pricing, shelf tag, receipt disclosure, online storefront, import duties, trade taxes, Chapter 93A, Attorney General enforcement, consumer protection, federal preemption, customs, supply chain costs, tariff surcharge

Summary: The Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure held a public hearing on two bills: House Bill 5138, which would create a statewide cash-rounding standard for transactions involving pennies, and House Bill 5036, which would require consumer disclosure of tariff-related price impacts. Committee chairs noted the hearing was taking place while the House and Senate were in session and that members might need to leave for roll calls; the hearing was ultimately closed after testimony, with a motion and voice vote to adjourn the hearing. Testimony on H.B. 5138 was broadly supportive. Senator Paul Feeney described the bill as a response to the federal decision to stop producing pennies, saying the measure would reduce confusion for consumers and businesses by requiring cash totals to be rounded to the nearest five cents, while leaving electronic, check, and gift-card payments unchanged. Retail and restaurant representatives said the bill would improve operational efficiency, provide legal clarity, and create a fair statewide standard, though the Retailers Association suggested changing mandatory language from "shall" to "may" to preserve flexibility. Several witnesses also noted that clear notice requirements would help consumers understand the rounding process. Testimony on H.B. 5036 was largely opposed. The Massachusetts Retailers Association, New England Convenience Store and Energy Marketers Association, and Massachusetts State Auto Dealers Association argued that requiring tariff disclosures on shelf tags or similar materials would be difficult or impossible to implement because tariffs and product costs change frequently and vary by item and manufacturer. They said the proposal would add burdens, create confusion, and potentially raise costs rather than help consumers. No votes were taken on either bill during the hearing.

Bills: SB2156

Keywords: campaign finance, disclosure, political contributions, election transparency, North Dakota Century Code, 908, all

Summary: The committee met to reconsider and further amend Senate Bill 2156, a campaign finance/reporting bill tied to Secretary of State filing requirements and new software implementation. Members and legislative counsel explained that the bill would keep current law in place for 2025, then take effect January 1, 2026, when the new system is expected to be ready. Discussion focused on hard reporting dates, how year-end and quarterly reports would be handled, which entities must disclose balances, and clarifying that some provisions apply to statewide political parties and certain political committees but not to candidates or candidate committees in the same way. Representative Steiner walked through the amendment, describing it as mostly technical and intended to align reporting deadlines with fixed calendar dates, simplify compliance, and preserve existing treatment for some balance disclosures. Members asked about public availability of certain filed information, the meaning of references to beginning and ending balances, and whether the new fines and other provisions would also be delayed until 2026. Legislative counsel said the bill’s effective date would cover the entire act and noted some disclosure questions were not clearly answered in current law. The committee adopted the amendment and then approved Senate Bill 2156 as amended on a do-pass motion. The roll call was unanimous, and the chair adjourned the meeting, noting the changes were intended to help the Secretary of State’s office and candidates transition to the new reporting system.

Bills: SB2156

Keywords: campaign finance, disclosure, political contributions, election transparency, North Dakota Century Code, 908, all

Summary: The subcommittee met to review amendments to a campaign finance bill, focusing on reporting requirements for ending balances and annual statements. Members and staff worked through whether the language should apply to all multi-candidate committees or only statewide multi-candidate committees, and whether the addition of non-statewide political parties created any unintended change from current law. Dustin Richard from the Secretary of State’s office explained that the draft needed to be tightened to mirror existing law by inserting “statewide” where appropriate, while keeping the new non-statewide political party provisions as intended. The committee also discussed an effective date and application clause. Staff explained that an effective date of January 1, 2026 would align with the new reporting requirements, and that 2025 transactions would still be reported under the old law while 2026 transactions would follow the new rules. Members asked for plain-language clarification about how the application clause would work and whether any statutory cleanup would be needed afterward. A motion was made, seconded, and approved to adopt the amendments, with the motion then rephrased to refer to the “Dustin amendments.” The meeting concluded with scheduling discussion about reconvening later in the week to keep the bill moving before the deadline, followed by adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• And this is on HB 2156, campaign finance disclosure as it relates to campaigns.
• Then Section 7 of the bill is repealing the campaign disclosure statements, so Section 4 is the meat
• And then also the disclosure requirements for county, city, and school district offices.
• occurred in January 1st through—if you're on the ballot for that year—you must file a campaign disclosure
• So 250 from Joe and 250 from Joe, it'll show 500 as a disclosure for an open records request.

Bills: SB2156

Keywords: campaign finance, disclosure, political contributions, election transparency, North Dakota Century Code, 908, all

Summary: The subcommittee met to review HB 2156, which reorganizes North Dakota campaign finance disclosure law by repealing Chapter 16.1 and moving the provisions into a new Chapter 16.2 with mostly technical cross-reference updates. Legislative Council and the Secretary of State’s office walked through the bill section by section, explaining that most language is carried over from current law, with some cleanup to definitions, reporting requirements, public access rules, and filing procedures. The committee discussed how the new chapter would apply to candidates, candidate committees, political committees, political parties, ballot measure groups, and conduits. Several substantive issues were raised and adjusted during the discussion. Members questioned the open-records language for expenditures and contributions over $250, the use of “deposit” versus “receipt” as the reporting trigger, and whether the 48-hour supplemental reporting deadline should be changed to three calendar days; the group ultimately favored keeping 48 hours and using “deposit” consistently. They also clarified reporting dates, including changing one special-election deadline from 40 days to 39 days, and confirmed that balances of campaign funds would be reported but not made publicly available. The Secretary of State’s office also explained that the bill would make late fees public and that the chapter-wide penalty for willful violations remains a Class A misdemeanor. The main policy change debated at length was the late-filing fee schedule. Members expressed concern that the existing penalties were too low to deter intentional non-filers, and after discussion the committee agreed to increase the final late fee from $100 to $500 while keeping the new public posting of delinquent filers. The committee also reviewed an inflation-adjustment provision for reporting thresholds and the “ultimate true source of funds” language, which was described as existing law being carried into the new chapter. The meeting ended with the understanding that additional drafting changes would be made and that the bill would be ready for further committee action later in the week.

Transcript Highlights:

• have, I believe it's around the technology component, and when those are renewed, it's kind of a disclosure
• level, which I'm sure you've all been the top source of, and you are frequently confronted with lobbyists
• if the reporting individual filed his or her financial disclosure late, but before the maximum automatic
• The maximum automatic fine for the late filing of the financial disclosure, and the reporting person
• The financial disclosure process and transparency compliance goals for our public officers and employees

Bills: S1622, S1178

Keywords: financial disclosure, statement of financial interests, ethics, late filing, late-filed disclosure, automatic fine, waiver, Florida Commission on Ethics, public officials, state officers, local officers, state employees, ethics enforcement, government transparency, sunshine law, reporting persons, penalty reduction, first-time offender, election ethics, general revenue fund

Summary: The committee met with a quorum present and first took up Senate Bill 1178, the Foreign Interference Restriction and Enforcement Act, sponsored by Senator Garcia. The bill would expand state restrictions on foreign countries of concern and designated foreign terrorist organizations, including creating a state registration framework for foreign agents, banning gifts to public officials from covered foreign entities, requiring ethics training on foreign influence, tightening procurement limits for information technology and critical infrastructure, restricting sister-city/sister-state encouragement, revising linkage institute rules and tuition provisions, and criminalizing certain conduct tied to foreign governments or unauthorized enforcement of foreign law. Members asked extensive questions about how the bill would affect election technology, software development, federal foreign-agent registration, educational exchanges, and the treatment of organizations such as CARE; the sponsor said the bill focused on ownership/control and foreign countries of concern, not specific components or general participation in events. An amendment by Senator Grall was adopted to clarify definitions, align penalties with willful violations, and specify that new ethics training content is additive. The committee then heard supportive testimony from Kelly Curry of State Armor and Rob Pierce of American Global Strategies, both of whom argued the bill would help Florida counter foreign influence, protect data and infrastructure, and improve transparency. CS for SB 1178 was reported favorably by roll call vote. The committee then considered Senate Bill 1622, which provides a one-time waiver of the automatic fine for a late-filed financial disclosure under specified conditions, including that the filer submitted the disclosure before the maximum fine accrued and had not previously received such a waiver. Carrie Stillman of the Commission on Ethics testified in support, saying the bill preserves transparency and compliance goals while making the fine and appeals process more workable. The bill was reported favorably by roll call vote. Finally, the committee took up confirmation hearings for appointments in tabs 3 through 26. No separate votes were requested, no public testimony was offered, and the block of appointees was recommended favorably to the full Senate by roll call vote. The meeting then concluded with no further business.

Bills: HB1325, HB1655, HB3312, HB5526, SB13, SB57, SB207, HB441, HB591, HB5019, SB27, SB843, SB 13, SB 27, SB 57

Keywords: student transfer, public servants, education code, peace officer, servicemember, judicial officer, school security, volunteer program, retired law enforcement, veterans, public safety, school safety, criminal background check, school libraries, library advisory councils, parental rights, library materials, educational content, challenging materials, emergency operations plan

Transcript Highlights:

• In fact, the state government hires lobbyists to represent Texas interests at the federal level.
• Full disclosure, I was a school board member in 2007.
• They hire lobbyists who advocate almost every single day here.
• Taxpayer funds, in fact, it's all state funds for Texas charter schools, and they hire lobbyists.
• In effect, they simply would not pay for third-party lobbyists that are available.

Bills: SB 13, SB 27, SB 57, HB1325, HB1655, HB3312, HB5526, SB13, SB57, SB207, HB441, HB591, HB5019, SB27, SB843

Keywords: lobbying, public funds, political subdivision, local government, county association, municipal lobbying, registered lobbyist, Texas Legislature, taxpayer lawsuit, injunctive relief, attorney's fees, government finance, county dues, state association of counties, sheriffs association, law enforcement officers, legislative advocacy, bill tracking, legislative alerts, Government Code Chapter 556

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:04:51.040><c> agreements</c> and vendor non-disclosure agreements and vendor non-disclosure agreements
• </c><00:09:23.839><c> agreements,</c> prohibits non-disclosure agreements, prohibits non-disclosure agreements
• </c><00:59:23.280><c> statement</c> underlining uh disclosure statement underlining uh disclosure statement
• current statute, lobbyist under current statute, lobbyist principles<01:03:05.200><c> that</c><01:03
• Uh we the board did lobbyist principle.

Bills: HF3698, HF4243, HF4239, HF4241, HF4242, HF4240

Keywords: libraries, electronic books, digital audiobooks, licensing agreements, public access, campaign finance, elections, political contributions, disclosure, reporting thresholds, economic interest statements, financial disclosure, ethics, public officials, local officials, metropolitan governmental unit, metropolitan area, candidate filings, principal campaign committee, political committee

Bills: HB229, HB3990, HB5082, HB5510, HB229

Keywords: biological sex, government information, definitions, sex-based distinctions, public health, flags, display, state law, municipalities, government buildings, drug enforcement, local control, home rule, municipal charter, county policy, ordinance preemption, state preemption, attorney general enforcement, civil penalties, mandamus

Bills: HB229, HB229, HB3990, HB5082, HB5510

Keywords: HB 229, Texas, political subdivision, local government, county dues, county association, state association of counties, lobbying, lobbyist, public funds, taxpayer lawsuit, injunctive relief, attorney's fees, Government Code Chapter 556, Local Government Code Section 89.002, legislative advocacy, municipal government, county government, city government, special district

Transcript Highlights:

• And for the people and not for the taxpayer funded lobbyists.
• Is there an incentive for Austin lobbyists to lie to protect their taxpayer-funded paycheck?
• To be very clear, I want to specifically speak on one taxpayer-funded lobbyist.
• Yes, we face the full weight of TAC, their lobbyists, their affiliates.
• Function to hire outside lobbyists with taxpayer funds. Aside from that, it's inefficient.

Bills: SB 18, SB 19, SB18, SB19, SB666, SB688, SB707, SB888

Keywords: Texas Water Code, TCEQ, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, water permit, water appropriation, dam permit exemption, reservoir, flood control, floodwater control, erosion control, sediment control, watershed protection, flood prevention, Natural Resources Conservation Service, NRCS, USDA, local sponsor, district, authority, water infrastructure