Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rulemaking Pac Account topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission tables proposed rule on PAC bank accounts after commissioners raise statutory‑construction concerns
Summary
A proposed rule to clarify when political action committees must maintain separate bank accounts and register under recently added OCGA language was tabled after commissioners questioned whether statutory exceptions apply to the new subsection; staff will revise the proposal.
The State Ethics Commission on Sept. 17 voted to table a proposed rule that would require political action committees to maintain an isolated bank account from inception, clarifying when a PAC must register and report under newly enacted statutory language (subsection commonly referenced in the meeting as "e 0.1").
Why it matters: The proposed rule would have tried to clarify how the statute applies to PACs and when committees must open segregated accounts and register with the commission. Commissioners said the draft conflated subsection exceptions in existing statute and that the proposal should be narrowed to avoid inadvertently expanding the statutory requirements.
What happened: Staff presented a draft rule stating that a PAC must maintain a separate bank account and that some registration requirements apply at $25,000 in aggregate activity (the threshold discussed in the statute). Several commissioners pushed back, saying the legislature placed exceptions in the earlier subsection and did not clearly extend them to the newly created subsection. Commissioners recommended limiting a rule to the narrow administrative point staff can declare with confidence—when a segregated bank account must be opened—and to leave the $25,000 registration threshold to the statute itself. The commission voted to table the rule for redrafting.
Key concerns raised - Statutory construction: Commissioners said if the legislature intended to subject the new subsection to the three exceptions in the earlier subsection it would have said so explicitly. The commissioners worried a rule could overreach and apply exceptions where the statute does not. - Practical bank requirements: Commissioners also noted practical issues—banks typically do not open accounts without an initial deposit; staff suggested guidance will be needed on how an account requirement will work in practice. - Effective date: Staff noted parts of the bill are effective Jan. 1, 2026, and commissioners asked staff to return with clarified language and implementation guidance before that date.
Next steps: The commission voted to table the draft rule. Staff said it will redraft the proposal to focus on the narrow point the commission can adopt administratively (the separate‑account requirement) and to remove language that appears to apply statutory exceptions beyond the scope of current code.
Ending: The motion to table was made, seconded and adopted; commissioners thanked staff for the draft and asked for a revised proposal at a future meeting.
