Iowa House Bill HSB180

Iowa 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/21/23
• Refer: 2/21/23

Caption

A bill for an act concerning public contracts with companies that boycott certain companies or that engage in nonpecuniary social investment policies.

Impact

If enacted, HSB180 would significantly alter the landscape for public contracting, particularly for state-managed investment funds. Public entities would be mandated to terminate contracts with companies deemed scrutinized within an 18-month period, thereby affecting partnerships with a range of industries from fossil fuels to firearms. This legislative action is designed to prevent the financial repercussions of companies' political actions on the state's financial health, ensuring public investments are purely based on economic soundness rather than political agendas. Overall, HSB180 emphasizes a shift towards maintaining a business-centric perspective in public procurement and pensions management.

Summary

House Study Bill 180 (HSB180) seeks to regulate contracts involving public funds with companies that engage in boycotts or nonpecuniary social investment strategies. The bill outlines that public funds, including various state-managed retirement systems and public entities, are prohibited from entering contracts with any company that appears on a 'scrutinized companies list' curated by these funds. The intent is to protect state finances from political or ideological influences that could compromise economic viability or taxpayer interests. The bill specifically defines terms, including 'boycott' and 'nonpecuniary social investment', to clarify its scope regarding partnerships with organizations that have political motives.

Contention

The bill has sparked debates regarding the tension between economic governance and potential biases against companies on the scrutinized list. Critics argue that this legislation could impose undue limitations on public fund investments and undermine efforts towards corporate social responsibility. Supporters, however, view it as a necessary safeguard against politically motivated financial decisions that do not align with the prudent management of public resources. Proponents claim that the bill enhances the fiduciary responsibility of public officials to prioritize financial returns without succumbing to social or environmental pressures.