Georgia Gov. Bryan Kemp has signed into law a bill that he maintains will protect Georgians from the influence of dangerous foreign actors and their governments; however, if vagueness in crafting language were an Olympic sport, Kemp’s allies in the General Assembly would take the gold.
In fact, the bill is a “word salad” that lacks any coherence as to its purpose, definitions of terms or how the new law will be enforced.
The bill purports to make Georgia safer by banning state agencies from purchasing products from companies tied to or owned by governments deemed “adversaries.”
According to the language of the new law, it requires “the Georgia Technology Authority to establish and maintain a list of companies and products produced and/or sold by citizens or governments the U.S. Commerce Department has designated as foreign adversaries.”
The law instructs the technology authority to follow the Commerce Department as a guide, but it does not prohibit the authority from compiling it’s own list of countries or companies, which could lead to corruption in the state bidding process.
Under the law, there is nothing to stop a clever company from having its competitors frozen out of the bid process for having ties to a country that the authority conveniently deems hostile, whether the country is on the Commerce Department’s list or not.
The seeming intention of protection offered by the bill is already covered under federal law. Known adversarial countries such as North Korea and Iran are banned from selling any products in the United States.
And what “products” are we talking about? We might assume the products have to do with software or other computer related items that can be sold with dangerous malware installed, but the hallmark of bad legislation are bills that allow for such assumptions. Under this bill, the “products” referenced could be anything from tech services to teddy bears.
The new law vaguely mentions levying fines for non-compliance, but it sets no parameters or limits on what the fines would be. Since the bill is aimed at purchases by state agencies, just who is in charge of levying a fine on a state agency? Is the state government going to create an agency in charge of imposing fines on the government?
Any bill that manages to sail through both houses of the state legislature in one session deserves deserves further scrutiny and this bill, with it’s indistinct language is a prime example of that time-worn adage.
This bill may amount to nothing other than window dressing, but it also might contain some dangerous unintended consequences.
Now that Kemp’s signature is dry on the new law, it is going to be up to the media and the public to follow-up anytime the bill is cited to make double sure it is not being used as an economic weapon.
