Virginia House Bill HB643

Virginia 2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/9/24
• Refer: 1/9/24

Caption

Campaign fundraising; prohibited during legislative sessions, enforcement of civil penalty.

Impact

If enacted, HB 643 will amend the Code of Virginia by adding a new section specifically addressing campaign fundraising during legislative sessions. This change is expected to strengthen ethical standards among legislators and contribute to an environment where legislative decisions are less likely to be influenced by monetary contributions from political campaigns. Additionally, the bill introduces civil penalties for violations, reinforcing the significance of adhering to the outlined regulations related to fundraising. The civil penalty is set to be the greater of the amount of the prohibited contribution or $500, which further incentivizes compliance.

Summary

House Bill 643 aims to impose restrictions on campaign fundraising for members of the General Assembly and statewide officials during legislative sessions. The bill explicitly prohibits any solicitation or acceptance of campaign contributions from announced individuals or political committees from the start of a regular legislative session until it adjourns. It provides clarity on what constitutes a 'contribution' and outlines exceptions for contributions made from personal funds or for special elections. These regulations are intended to enhance transparency and integrity in legislative proceedings by minimizing potential conflicts of interest.

Contention

There are potential points of contention surrounding the bill, primarily regarding the enforcement and implications for political fundraising. Advocates for the bill argue that it fosters a greater sense of accountability and reduces the influence of money in politics, especially during critical legislative sessions. Conversely, opponents may raise concerns about the restrictions inhibiting legitimate political engagement and fundraising efforts. The introduction of civil penalties might also be seen as a double-edged sword, where it could deter candid political activities or grassroots campaigning, particularly for candidates with limited resources.