Tennessee House Bill HB1506

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/12/26
• Refer: 1/14/26
• Refer: 3/3/26
• Refer: 3/11/26
• Chaptered: 4/23/26
• Passed: 4/23/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 2, Chapter 10, Part 2 and Title 3, Chapter 6, Part 1, relative to training programs for members of the bureau of ethics and campaign finance.

Summary

HB1506 amends Tennessee law governing training programs for members of the bureau of ethics and campaign finance. The bill expands who may provide certain training by adding the bureau’s executive director and attorneys employed by the bureau to the list of authorized trainers, alongside any existing providers already allowed under the cited statutes. The measure makes parallel changes in two sections of the Tennessee Code, one in Title 2 and one in Title 3, so that the same expanded training authority applies across the relevant ethics and campaign finance provisions. It takes effect immediately upon becoming law.

Impact

The bill updates Tennessee Code Annotated Sections 2-10-214 and 3-6-116 to expressly permit the bureau’s executive director or a bureau-employed attorney to conduct training for bureau members. This broadens administrative flexibility for ethics and campaign finance training without changing the underlying substantive ethics or campaign finance rules, and it affects the bureau of ethics and campaign finance, its staff, and members subject to training requirements.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have been noncontroversial and broadly supported. It passed the House Elections & Campaign Finance Subcommittee 7-0, the House State & Local Government Committee 15-0, and the House floor on consent calendar passage with 81 yeas and 0 nays. The unanimous votes suggest general agreement that the change is a practical administrative adjustment.

Contention

There is little evidence of substantive opposition or debate in the available record. Because the bill only expands who may provide training, any potential concern would likely have centered on whether bureau leadership or in-house attorneys should be authorized to deliver training instead of outside providers, but no recorded committee discussion or dissent appears in the materials provided.