AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 48, Chapter 101, relative to the solicitation of charitable funds.
Summary
SB0454 makes a narrow technical change to Tennessee’s charitable solicitation law in Title 48, Chapter 101. The bill amends Tennessee Code Annotated § 48-101-501(b)(15) by removing punctuation after the phrase “for a charitable organization” and deleting a clause that references “a person who plans, conducts, manages, carries on or advises a charitable organization in connection with the solicitation of contributions.”
In practical terms, the bill appears to clarify or streamline the statutory language governing who is covered by, or exempted from, the charitable-fund solicitation provisions. Because the bill does not add new regulatory requirements or create a new program, its effect is limited to refining the wording of an existing exemption or definition within the charitable solicitation framework.
Impact
The bill amends Tennessee’s charitable solicitation statutes in Title 48, Chapter 101, specifically Tennessee Code Annotated § 48-101-501(b)(15). Its legal impact is to alter the scope or wording of an existing provision affecting charitable organizations and individuals involved in soliciting contributions on their behalf. The change may affect how regulators, charities, and advisors interpret compliance obligations under the state’s charitable fundraising laws, but it does not appear to impose new substantive duties or penalties.
Sentiment
The available legislative history suggests the bill was noncontroversial and broadly supported. It passed the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee 8-0 and later cleared a floor motion to adopt by a 32-0 vote, indicating unanimous support among those voting. No committee transcript objections or divided debate are provided, which is consistent with a technical or clarifying amendment rather than a policy dispute.
Contention
No notable contention is reflected in the available record. The bill’s sole changes are textual edits to an existing charitable solicitation provision, and the unanimous committee and floor votes suggest little disagreement about the need for clarification. If any issue existed, it would likely have concerned the precise legal effect of removing the referenced language and whether the amendment narrows or clarifies the category of persons covered by the statute, but no opposing arguments are documented here.