S. 369 revises South Carolina’s Commodities Code to shift primary administration and enforcement authority from the Secretary of State to the Attorney General. The bill updates the definition of “administrator,” changes multiple enforcement and review provisions, and makes conforming edits throughout Chapter 73 of Title 39. It also expands the Attorney General’s authority to issue cease-and-desist orders, impose civil penalties, seek court remedies such as injunctions, disgorgement, restitution, receiverships, and refer violations for criminal prosecution.
The bill also clarifies procedural rules for enforcement and judicial review. It provides that the Attorney General may bring actions in Richland County Court of Common Pleas, sets timelines and standards for review of final orders, makes enforcement orders public and searchable on the Attorney General’s website, and adds a severability clause. It further revises provisions governing commodity-related advertising and communications, including radio, television, and other electronic communications, and repeals an older administrative-proceedings section.
In practical terms, the bill would materially reassign regulatory oversight of commodity transactions, commodity contracts, and related fraud enforcement to the Attorney General’s office. It would affect commodity sellers, brokers, agents, investment adviser representatives, and others subject to the Commodities Code, while also giving the state a more centralized enforcement structure and a clearer path for collecting and using penalties to offset enforcement costs.
The general sentiment appears strongly favorable. The Senate Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee polled the bill out with a majority favorable report, and the Senate later gave it unanimous support on second reading, 43-0. That voting pattern suggests broad agreement with the enforcement and administrative changes.
There is little visible opposition in the available record, and no committee transcript is provided showing substantive debate. The main policy point embedded in the bill is the transfer of authority from the Secretary of State to the Attorney General and the expansion of enforcement tools, including the ability to retain a portion of fines and penalties. Those changes could be the most likely areas of concern for anyone worried about centralized prosecutorial power or the financial incentives tied to enforcement, but no explicit objections are documented in the materials provided.
The bill amends multiple sections of Chapter 73, Title 39 of the South Carolina Code, the state’s Commodities Code, to transfer administrative authority from the Secretary of State to the Attorney General and to update enforcement, penalty, and review procedures. It expands the Attorney General’s powers to issue orders, seek civil remedies in court, refer matters for criminal prosecution, retain a portion of collected penalties for enforcement costs, and publish orders publicly. It also repeals Section 39-73-355 and adds a severability clause, while making conforming changes to related provisions governing prohibited acts, judicial review, and communications-related offers to buy or sell commodities.
The available legislative record shows a favorable and largely noncontroversial reception. The Senate Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee reported the bill out with a majority favorable recommendation, and the Senate passed second reading unanimously, 43-0. No committee testimony or recorded floor debate is included, so the record does not show organized opposition or significant division.
The main substantive issue is the transfer of enforcement authority from the Secretary of State to the Attorney General, along with broader investigative and prosecutorial powers. Related points that could draw scrutiny include the Attorney General’s ability to retain up to $750,000 in fines and penalties each fiscal year to offset enforcement costs, the expansion of civil and criminal enforcement tools, and the public posting of orders on the Attorney General’s website. The bill also tightens and clarifies rules for commodity-related advertising and electronic communications, but no specific opposition to those provisions is documented in the available materials.