Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel hears bill to bar NHRS from investing in businesses owned by a sitting president; members raise drafting, index-fund concerns
Summary
Supporters of HB 10-24 told the committee the change would prevent conflicts or appearances of favoritism, while members and witnesses raised concerns that the bill as drafted could force the retirement system to avoid common index funds or require costly offsets; no vote was taken and the committee did not act.
Representative Tony Kaplan introduced HB 10-24 on Jan. 14, a bill that would prohibit the New Hampshire Retirement System from investing in businesses owned entirely or in majority by a sitting U.S. president or their immediate family.
Kaplan described the bill as a preventive measure to avoid the appearance of corruption or pressure on fiduciaries when federal executive power intersects with private business interests. "HB 10-24 is a proactive measure enabling the retirement system to steer clear of any potential encumbrances resulting from the powers of [a] U.S. president," he said.
Committee members raised practical concerns. Representatives asked how the measure would affect investments held through common index funds and whether the retirement system would be forced either to hold offsetting investments or to stop investing in broad-market index funds that include companies with any ownership ties to the president. Kaplan replied the intent is to bar investments in businesses owned entirely or in the majority by a sitting president, and that the drafters could consider clarifying language and ownership thresholds.
Several members suggested the bill's drafting might be both too broad and too narrow; one cosponsor said the intent is to avoid investment in firms where a sitting president or immediate family holds a significant ownership stake (suggested threshold cited in testimony: greater than 10 percent), not to exclude large public companies in which a president may own small parcels of stock.
The committee heard no formal motion to advance HB 10-24 and did not take action. Members signaled possible refinement of the bill's language to define ownership thresholds and to consider whether similar guardrails should apply to other elected officials.
What happens next: The drafting issues and practical effects on index funds and passive investments will likely prompt further work to refine ownership thresholds and exemptions; committee action depends on amended language and possible fiscal or legal analysis.
