State ethics panel finds reasonable grounds to pursue lobbying violations by Georgians for Integrity, splits on independent‑committee counts

The state ethics commission voted March 30 to find reasonable grounds that Georgians for Integrity violated Georgia’s lobbying-registration and reporting requirements and to send those allegations to the Office of State Administrative Hearings for adjudication.

Staff told the commission the group, incorporated in Delaware, purchased more than $1 million in broadcast and digital ad buys and used robo‑text campaigns and direct mail to criticize Lieutenant Governor Bert Jones on issues including pensions, eminent domain and data centers. Executive Director (staff counsel) said subpoenas were issued for bank and vendor records and that the respondent refused to comply with several subpoenas, limiting staff’s ability to identify payors and recipients.

“Who is Georgians for Integrity? The evidence shows a Delaware corporation using an out‑of‑state media buyer, an in‑state mail slot and extensive ad buys,” the Executive Director said during the presentation, arguing the communications and expenditures fit the commission’s longstanding advisory opinion that expenditures urging the public to influence officials can constitute lobbying.

Counsel for Georgians for Integrity, James Terrell of Dickinson Wright, urged the commission to dismiss the independent‑committee allegations and to reject staff’s jurisdictional theory. Terrell argued the ads did not include state law’s required express‑advocacy words — the so‑called “magic words” such as “vote for” or “vote against” — and that the commission lacked effective service or domesticating procedures to enforce subpoenas against an out‑of‑state entity.

“The ads criticize past votes and call for constituents to express displeasure; they do not contain the express advocacy required under state law,” Terrell said, emphasizing arguments about service and jurisdiction.

Commissioners debated whether Georgia’s test requires those specific words or permits a broader functional‑equivalent inquiry. One commissioner who dissented on parts of the independent‑committee findings, Commissioner Joe Kuzak, stated he did not believe the “magic words” standard was satisfied in the ads and said he would vote no on that count.

On the procedural vote, the commission approved a motion that there were reasonable grounds to believe Georgians for Integrity violated the lobby‑registration and reporting statutes (items 1–7) by a recorded voice vote described in the transcript as 4–1. The panel then took separate votes on the independent‑committee allegations; those motions passed by narrower margins (recorded in the transcript as 3–2 on one or more items), reflecting the split over whether the advertising rose to express advocacy under state law.

The office’s staff said it lacked full bank records and that further discovery at the administrative hearing could clarify expenditures and payors. The commission’s votes mean the contested allegations will go forward to an adjudicative hearing before an administrative law judge; the Attorney General’s office will represent the commission in that forum unless a conflict requires outside counsel.

The commission’s Executive Director noted recent legislation (House Bill 414) intended to speed the process for domesticating out‑of‑state subpoenas; staff said that measure should help streamline evidence collection in future out‑of‑state enforcement matters.

Next steps: the matters the commission advanced will be docketed with the Office of State Administrative Hearings for a preponderance‑of‑the‑evidence trial. The commission did not resolve the claims on the merits; it found only that reasonable grounds exist to proceed.