Connecticut 2013 Regular Session

Connecticut House Bill HB05358

Introduced
1/17/13  
Introduced
1/17/13  
Refer
1/17/13  
Refer
1/17/13  
Refer
3/28/13  
Refer
3/28/13  
Report Pass
4/5/13  
Refer
4/18/13  
Report Pass
4/24/13  
Engrossed
5/23/13  
Engrossed
5/23/13  
Report Pass
5/27/13  
Report Pass
5/27/13  
Chaptered
6/6/13  
Chaptered
6/6/13  
Enrolled
6/10/13  

Caption

An Act Prohibiting State Contracts With Entities Making Certain Investments In Iran.

Impact

The introduction of HB 5358 will notably amend state law by mandating a certification process for entities engaging in contracts with the state. This impacts various potential contracts by placing additional requirements on bidders, compelling them to disclose their investment activities related to Iran. The legislation aims to ensure that state funds are not used indirectly to support regimes not aligned with U.S. values, thus promoting foreign policy objectives alongside fiscal responsibility.

Summary

House Bill 5358, also known as 'An Act Prohibiting State Contracts With Entities Making Certain Investments In Iran', aims to restrict state agencies and quasi-public agencies from entering into large state contracts with entities that have made significant investments in Iran's energy sector. This bill arises from concerns over international relations, particularly regarding Iran's compliance with global sanctions. Effective from October 1, 2013, contractors wishing to engage with the state must certify their investment status concerning Iran, creating a framework for accountability and compliance.

Sentiment

The sentiment around HB 5358 appears largely positive among supporters who view it as a necessary step for state compliance with federal sanctions against Iran. Proponents argue that it reinforces the state's commitment to uphold ethical standards in governmental dealings. However, potential critics may express concerns regarding the administrative burden this may place on businesses, particularly smaller entities that may struggle to comply with the new regulations. Hence, while the bill is primarily viewed as a moral imperative, there are underlying apprehensions about its economic implications.

Contention

Notable points of contention likely revolve around the definitions and thresholds outlined in the bill, specifically concerning what constitutes a 'large state contract' and the criteria for filing a good faith certification. Some stakeholders may challenge the effectiveness and practicality of this legislation, questioning whether it would significantly deter foreign investments or unintentionally hinder legitimate business opportunities for U.S.-based companies. Additionally, ongoing discourse may involve how this aligns with broader legislative measures concerning foreign policy and economic development.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Previously Filed As

CT SB01075

An Act Concerning Payroll Service Providers For The Employment Of Personal Care Attendants.

CT HB05282

An Act Concerning Polling Place Challengers.

Similar Bills

CA AB954

Dental services: third-party network access.

DC B25-0265

Contract No. GAGA-2022-C-0259 with SodexoMagic, LLC Approval and Payment Authorization Emergency Act of 2023

TX SB543

Relating to oversight of and requirements applicable to state contracts and other state financial and accounting issues; authorizing fees.

TX HB1426

Relating to certain requirements applicable to contracts entered into by, and the contract management process of, state agencies.

CA SB681

Public employees’ retirement: contracting agencies: termination.

CA AB848

Public contracts: University of California: California State University: domestic workers.

CA AB2557

Local agencies: contracts for special services and temporary help: performance reports.

MI SB0281

Insurance: health insurers; granting third party access to a dental network contract; allow. Amends 1956 PA 218 (MCL 500.100 - 500.8302) by adding sec. 3406aa.