AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 48, Chapter 101, relative to the solicitation of charitable funds.
Summary
HB0379 amends Tennessee’s charitable solicitation law in Title 48, Chapter 101. The bill makes a narrow technical change to Tennessee Code Annotated § 48-101-501(b)(15) by deleting punctuation and removing a phrase that had specifically referenced “a person who plans, conducts, manages, carries on or advises a charitable organization in connection with the solicitation of contributions.” The measure appears to refine the statutory language governing who is covered by, or exempt from, the charitable solicitation provisions.
Because the bill is framed as a targeted amendment to existing definitions and exemptions, it does not create a new regulatory program or impose a broad new compliance regime. Instead, it adjusts the wording of the statute that governs solicitation of charitable funds, which may affect how charities, their officers, advisers, and related personnel are treated under Tennessee law. The act takes effect immediately upon becoming law.
Impact
The bill amends Tennessee Code Annotated § 48-101-501(b)(15) in Title 48, Chapter 101, which governs charitable fundraising and solicitation. By deleting a comma and removing language referring to persons who plan, conduct, manage, carry on, or advise a charitable organization in connection with solicitation, the bill changes the statutory text that defines or limits the scope of the provision. The practical effect is to clarify or narrow the application of the charitable solicitation statute for charities and individuals involved in fundraising activities.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been received positively and with little opposition. It advanced through a House subcommittee unanimously, passed the House State & Local Government Committee by a wide margin with only one dissenting vote, and then passed the House on third consideration by consent calendar with no recorded opposition. The voting pattern suggests broad agreement that the measure was a routine or technical cleanup of the charitable solicitation statute.
Contention
There is little evidence of substantive controversy in the available record. The only notable dissent came in the House State & Local Government Committee, where one member voted no, but no committee transcript is available to explain the objection. Given the bill’s narrow wording change, any concern likely centered on whether removing the referenced language could alter the scope of who is covered by the charitable solicitation law, particularly for advisers or managers connected to charitable organizations.