West Virginia House Bill HB3353

West Virginia 2023 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/8/23
• Refer: 2/8/23
• Refer: 2/16/23
• Engrossed: 2/23/23
• Refer: 2/24/23

Caption

Relating to the limitations on the financial relationships with foreign entities that have values antithetical to those of the State of West Virginia

Impact

Once enacted, HB3353 would significantly affect how state agencies conduct business, particularly regarding contracts and partnerships with companies. It mandates that public entities cannot enter into contracts with companies unless they receive written certification verifying that such companies do not provide direct financial benefits to the outlined foreign entities. This regulation would not only uphold local values but also aim to protect state interests against any perceived threats from foreign influences.

Summary

House Bill 3353 seeks to amend the Code of West Virginia to place limitations on financial relationships with foreign entities that possess values contrary to those of the state. The bill defines 'foreign entities' as nations identified as state sponsors of terrorism or those whose policies align with Communist ideologies. The legislation reflects a growing concern regarding the influence of non-aligned foreign entities on state governance and economic activities, aiming to uphold West Virginia's values in public sector dealings.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB3353 appears to be supportive within certain legislative factions, primarily among those who emphasize state sovereignty and security. Proponents argue that the bill is a necessary measure to protect the state's values and integrity. However, critics may express concerns about potential overreach and the implications for international trade and partnerships, raising questions about how these limitations could affect economic relationships and state growth.

Contention

A key point of contention in the discussions surrounding HB3353 is the definition of 'values antithetical to the State of West Virginia.' Critics may argue that this could lead to unnecessarily restrictive policies that hinder economic development and partnerships with international businesses that do not necessarily pose a direct threat. Furthermore, the application of these limitations could vary in interpretation, leading to ambiguity and challenges in the enforcement of the bill's provisions. Opponents may highlight the potential for unintended consequences, such as limiting favorable business opportunities that can benefit the state's economy.