2023  
STATEHOUSE 
REPORT:
Right-Wing Attacks on the Freedom to Invest 
Responsibly Falter in Legislatures

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ................................................................... 3
The Coordinated Network Staging The Fight ........................ 7
The Real Costs ............................................................................. 9
The Playbook: A Flood of Bills ................................................. 12
Part 1: Weaponizing State Contracts ................................ 13
Part 2: Wagering Retiree Pensions ..................................... 20
Part 3: Obstructing Normal Business Practices with
Bans, Liability Threats, and Required Disclosures ......... 27
Part 4: Stoking fear through ESG Scores ........................... 30
Part 5: Opposing Federal Rules  .......................................... 32
What Happens Next .................................................................. 34
Case Studies ................................................................................ 37
This report was written by Connor Gibson and Frances Sawyer  
for Pleiades Strategy.

2023 STATEHOUSE REPORT
P 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2023 Republican lawmakers in 37 states introduced 165 pieces of legislation to 
weaponize government funds, contracts, and pensions to prevent companies and 
investors from considering basic, common-sense risk factors. The legislation is framed 
around restricting the use of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investment 
criteria, such as the safety and treatment of employees, the diversity of management 
and workforce, and readiness to withstand the impacts of climate change. Were they to 
become law, the inevitable result of the bills would be to manipulate the market to favor 
select industries, particularly the volatile fossil fuel and firearms sectors. 
This coordinated legislative effort, commonly referred to as the anti-ESG movement, 
generated massive backlash from the business community, labor leaders, retirees, and 
even Republican politicians. It is not an issue that resonates with the public. Despite 
all the hype, the vast majority of anti-ESG bills failed to progress through legislative 
chambers, including in ten states fully controlled by Republicans. At present, 21 laws 
and 6 resolutions in 16 states have made it through legislatures this year. Many of the 
finalized bills were heavily amended to reduce most of the substantive portions. Broad 
escape clauses were added to limit the most draconian prohibitions, which experts have 
warned legally contravene the basic tenets of fiduciary duty, creating a “liability trap.”
This report is the first comprehensive look at this legislative campaign and the broad 
effort to counter it. It follows the general arc of these 165 bills — where they came from, 
who sponsored them, who supported and opposed them, and how they fared. 
As of June, 2023, our tracking has concluded that:
•	 At least 165 distinct bills (including 9 resolutions) were introduced in 37 states.
•	 83 bills are dead, across 23 states:
•	 In 17 states where legislation was introduced, no laws passed. 10 of these 
states are controlled by Republicans.
•	 3 bills were vetoed by the governor in Arizona. 
•	 42 bills that did not pass will carry over into the 2024 legislative session.
•	 22 bills and 6 resolutions were approved by state governments:
•	 19 laws and 6 resolutions have passed in 14 states this year.
•	 3 enrolled bills await governor action in 3 states.
•	 12 active bills are pending. 6 have not had committee hearings. 
Check out our spreadsheet of all of the anti-ESG bills we tracked in 2023.  
Each bill is categorized, and traced to specific model legislation, when relevant.

2023 STATEHOUSE REPORT
P 4
In this report, we map the coordinated special interest groups that crafted model bills 
and lobbied for their introduction. We showcase the exceptionally diverse opposition 
to the bills, including the bankers, businesses, financial officers, labor advocates, and 
environmentalists who saw the campaign as an attack on the American economy 
itself. We also provide the first comprehensive analysis of the types of bills introduced, 
offering a taxonomy of bills, so that readers can understand the tactical options 
attempted by Republican legislators.
It is safe to assume that the interest groups behind this legislative push are revising 
their strategies by evaluating the success and failure of the bills so that new versions 
can be introduced across the country in 2024. To anticipate where this effort may 
go next, we find it critical to understand the network of actors behind this legislative 
push, the specific types of bills they proposed, and the ways they were received in the 
states. 
Delaying Climate Accounting — and Action   
The climate crisis presents material financial risks across sectors and is increasingly 
recognized by investors, executives, and regulators as a key threat to economic 
performance and stability. From floods and fires disrupting supply chains to high heat 
lowering workforce productivity to stranded asset risk as companies and governments 
alike set net zero emissions targets, climate risks are shaping economic fortunes today—
and threatening long term market value. 
Voluntary climate-related risk disclosure has brought significant transparency to these 
risks, enabling investors to make informed capital allocation decisions as they build a risk-
adjusted portfolio that meets their clients’ needs. U.S. and European regulators are now 
proposing mandatory disclosures of these key climate risks, so that investors in public 
equities have equal access to robust, useful information on which to base their decisions. 
As capital and regulators have become more climate-focused, fossil fuel companies 
recognize climate financial action as a potential threat to continued investment in their 
firms. The fossil fuel industry and their political allies claim there is “discrimination” against 
fossil fuel companies, yet to date the companies targeted as “boycotting” fossil fuels 
include some of the largest investors in fossil fuels worldwide. Bill language and testimony 
by anti-ESG proponents in several states suggests that these bills were written to prevent 
companies from taking climate risk seriously and to artificially boost continued investment 
in the fossil fuel sector.

2023 STATEHOUSE REPORT
P 5
THE OPPOSITION
Echoing a position taken by state banking associations across the country, Jay Kaprosy 
of the Arizona Bankers Association said in testimony on Arizona’s proposed SB 1138, 
“What you have in front of you is probably the most anti-free market bill that you’ll 
see this legislative session.” Because of the blatantly anti-free market nature of this 
legislative trend, business groups, chambers of commerce, and trade associations 
representing the financial sector led the charge against anti-ESG bills. Business 
lobbyists opposed anti-ESG legislation in at least 17 states: Arizona, Florida, Idaho, 
Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, 
North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming. 
Damning cost estimates shared in testimony 
and legislative fiscal notes showed how the 
bills would drive up the costs of borrowing 
and decrease public pension returns. In 
multiple states, fiscal notes have shown the 
bills could cost state investments billions of 
dollars. In some instances, detailed below, 
such cost estimates were overlooked, 
obscured, or even ignored. Other studies 
found the bills restrict competition in the 
municipal bond market, costing taxpayers 
hundreds of millions of dollars. These costs, 
estimated and real, helped to coalesce a 
broad opposition early in the legislative 
cycle in states across the nation.
Advocates for pension beneficiaries and working families spoke out at length against 
the legislation in numerous states. From Florida to Ohio to Texas, labor unions fought 
to protect the financial security of public sector pension beneficiaries by ensuring their 
ability to invest with asset managers that charge lower fees and offer higher yield. They 
also reminded legislators of their members’ right to invest their own money in ways that 
would benefit–and not harm–themselves and their communities. Investor advocates 
saw the bills as restrictive of their values and strategies, while environmental advocates 
saw them as an indirect subsidization of dirty energy and an attempt to delay solutions 
to the climate crisis.
“
What you have in front 
of you is probably the 
most anti-free market 
bill that you’ll see this 
legislative session.”
JAY KAPROSKY 
ARIZONA BANKERS ASSOCIATION

2023 STATEHOUSE REPORT
P 6
While lawmakers sometimes worked with corporate lobbyists behind the scenes 
to prevent the most dangerous bill provisions from becoming law, it is important to 
understand that even watered down bills will exact costs on the public. Weakened 
bills still pose threats to public revenue and pensions. In some states, bills restricting 
the activity of pension fund managers passed despite cost estimates in the millions 
of dollars, a direct threat to the hardworking public employees who rely on public 
pensions for their financial security. 
Whether through losses to public investments, or the forced investment in industries 
that carry heightened financial risks, anti-ESG laws could lead to reduced prosperity for 
the residents of states subject to them.
2023 ANTI-ESG BILLS AND LAWS
Bills (laws) were approved in the following states

2023 STATEHOUSE REPORT
P 7
THE COORDINATED NETWORK 
STAGING THE FIGHT
Corporate disclosures of risk factors enable prudent risk management by investors and 
improve the stability of financial systems. “Anti-ESG” bills muddy this basic principle 
of business, in order to shield risky industries from prevailing market trends. The 
campaign to target “Environmental, Social, and Governance” factors, or ESG, as a 
culture-war bogeyman is modeled on the fabricated hysteria over “critical race theory.” 
The strategy was designed to serve billionaire donors and fossil fuel companies. It has 
provided Republican lawmakers another platform to advance racist, transphobic, anti-
Semitic, and climate change-denying rhetoric.  
A network of right-wing organizations have long coordinated to stifle corporate action 
on climate change. As an extension of this movement, organizations like the American 
Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the Heritage Foundation, the Heartland Institute, 
and the Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA) crafted and circulated model 
bills that form the basis of the anti-ESG legislative strategy. Advocacy for the legislation 
has predominantly been conducted by the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), the 
Opportunity Solutions Project (OSP), and Heritage Action. Consumers’ Research has 
lobbied behind the scenes and waged complementary campaigns against companies 
and banks. Most of these groups are affiliated with the State Policy Network. 
Organizations representing elected officers have also instructed members to push this 
legislative agenda. The corporate-backed State Financial Officers Foundation (SFOF) 
encouraged member treasurers and comptrollers to support anti-ESG legislation and 
use executive powers to advance complementary strategies. Similarly, state attorneys 
general appear to be coordinating legal pressure through groups like the Republican 
Attorneys General Association and the Rule of Law Defense Fund.
While many of these organizations’ finances are obscured through donor-advised 
funds, there are clear connections between anti-ESG legislation, the fossil fuel industry, 
and right-wing figures. Fossil fuel companies, executives, consultants, and trade groups 
have advocated for the legislation detailed in this report. Involved right-wing activist 
groups have received funding from foundations controlled by executives from Koch 
Industries, which has significant fossil fuel operations. Many have received substantial 
funding from organizations controlled by Leonard Leo, including the Marble Freedom 
Trust, the 85 Fund and the Concord Fund. In potential violation of IRS nonprofit laws, 
Leo’s for-profit consulting firm, CRC Advisors, is a top contractor for many of the 
organizations. The founders of struggling “anti-woke” exchange traded funds, including 
Vivek Ramaswamy and activist businessman Andy Puzder, have also advocated for

2023 STATEHOUSE REPORT
P 8
bills that could boost their businesses’ profits.
Through consistent investments in lobbying, campaigns, advocacy, and policy 
development, this coordinated network has pushed legislation forward that undermines 
conservative free-market ideology, works against the public interest, and is unpopular 
with the public. Despite the sheer danger and poor logic underpinning it, this trend 
illustrates how right-wing influence groups are capable of steering Republican priorities 
in state legislatures, regardless of the impacts or popularity of their ideas.

2023 STATEHOUSE REPORT
P 9
THE REAL COSTS
Evidence suggests anti-ESG bills 
impose real costs on Americans
Bills that punish financial institutions for using ESG metrics are predicted to cost 
millions or even billions of dollars, according to in-house legislative analysts and 
pension fund managers. Already, the negative effects of laws passed in 2021 and 2022 
are becoming clear. Texas and Oklahoma now pay increased municipal bond rates 
because of contracting restrictions, and a similar impact is anticipated in Florida. 
The cost to the public is dependent upon the specifics of any given bill. But in 
reviewing press, fiscal notes, and state house testimony, we found several trends 
of anti-ESG bills increasing contracting costs (especially for municipalities), lowering 
pension fund returns, raising management fees, and imposing administrative burdens 
on government agencies. 
HIGHER COSTS TO MUNICIPALITIES 
Municipal officials have a duty to spend tax dollars wisely. Bills that weaponize state 
treasuries by targeting state investment contractors essentially force those officers to 
violate this duty. After Texas passed a pair of anti-ESG laws in 2021, five of the largest 
bond underwriters were forced out of the market, resulting in an estimated $303 
million to $532 million in higher interest payments on municipal bonds. 
An Econsult study extrapolated the methodology to six other states and found similar 
bills would cost taxpayers up to $700 million if they were to become law. One of the 
states considered in the study was Oklahoma. In 2022, Oklahoma passed HB 2034, 
which instructs the state’s Treasurer to create and maintain a financial blacklist that 
blocks the state from contracting with businesses that limit engagement with the fossil 
fuel sector. The Econsult study estimated that a boycott identical to Texas’ would cost 
Oklahoma $49 million annually in bond interest. 
It seems that costs are already accumulating in some of the state’s municipalities. 
Earlier this year, Stillwater, Oklahoma negotiated to borrow $13.5 million from Bank of 
America to make city improvements, including to traffic lights and water infrastructure. 
However, on May 3, Oklahoma State Treasurer and SFOF member Todd Russ included 
Bank of America on his blacklist under HB 2034. Suddenly unable to contract with 
Bank of America, Stillwater’s next best option would cost an additional $1.2 million

2023 STATEHOUSE REPORT
P 10
due to higher interest rates, resulting in less ambitious plans for infrastructure 
improvements. 
LOWER PENSION RETURNS AND  
HIGHER BUREAUCRATIC COSTS
Public worker pensions are a key target of many anti-ESG bills. Bills targeting pension 
management have threatened to impose a massive toll on state investments, the 
people managing them, and the people depending on them. 
The same bill in Oklahoma that drove up lending costs for Stillwater, HB 2034, could 
likewise produce negative impacts for Oklahoma’s pensions. The state’s blacklist could 
cost state retirement systems millions of dollars by forcing rapid pension divestment 
from asset managers offering services at lower cost. The blacklist includes large asset 
managers that currently manage almost two thirds of the Oklahoma Public Employees 
Retirement System’s (OPERS) assets. OPERS’ investment committee declared that the 
rapid divestment would violate fiduciary duty.
Retirees’ pension funds stood to lose billions of dollars due to reckless Republican 
bills in Texas (at least $6 billion over the next decade), Indiana ($6.7 billion) and Kansas 
($3.6 billion). The Texas bill failed, and the bills in Indiana and Kansas were amended to 
exempt pension fund managers from some of the most harmful limitations. 
But even after amendments, bills that became law in Indiana and Kansas are still 
expected to force states to waste millions of dollars in administrative costs in upcoming 
years, bloating the government in the name of an unpopular culture war. In a study 
of SB 224, Kansas determined it would need $300,000 per year for three full-time 
positions to implement the bill. SB 224 was a precursor bill to HB 2100, which became 
law after a fiscal note estimated annual costs of $915,000, a figure that has gone 
unreported. New administrative expenses or lower returns are expected in other states 
that passed laws, like Arkansas and Florida.
These increased costs likely contributed to the demise of bills in states like Wyoming 
and North Dakota. North Dakota estimated it would have needed at least 25 new 
full time employees to implement HB 1469, at a cost of $10.2 million per year. HB 
1469 ultimately failed. North Dakota also recognized the steep price of establishing 
a blacklist in the fiscal note for HB 1283, which also failed. The bill’s financial analysis 
estimated that the state would spend $1.5 million biennially to establish and maintain a

2023 STATEHOUSE REPORT
P 11
list of offending companies, plus an additional one-time setup cost of $172,734.  
Along with bloated administrative costs, anti-ESG proponents have inserted 
themselves into state advisory and proxy voting practices. The Indiana Public 
Retirement System’s (INPRS) Tony Green revealed that the system hired Strive 
Advisory, a consulting firm co-founded by Vivek Ramaswamy, to advise on its 
proxy voting strategy. Ramaswamy’s rate was set at $4,000 per hour. Democratic 
Representative Greg Porter, who sits on the financial committee, said, “One has to 
wonder whether the hysteria over ESG–in no small part manufactured and fanned by 
Strive Asset Management and Vivek Ramaswamy–is nothing more than a pretense to 
grift public retirement systems like ours.”
The full costs of these bills will be learned through additional experience in the states 
that have passed laws. But we already have sufficient evidence that anti-ESG bills 
directly harm workers, taxpayers, companies, and municipalities by politicizing state 
investments, blacklisting select financial firms, and hurting workers’ retirement security.

2023 STATEHOUSE REPORT
P 12
THE PLAYBOOK:  
A FLOOD OF BILLS
The architects of the anti-ESG campaign 
drafted model bills that change aspects of 
state financial regulation in order to prevent 
companies from advancing civil rights or 
responding to climate change as a matter of 
business strategy. These tactics range from 
limiting state contracting authority, restricting 
pension management, forcing disclosures 
under threat of liability, and combatting federal 
investment rules. Many states saw multiple bills 
introduced this session and while a majority of 
bills were not finalized, the bills that survived 
were often revised.
Missouri provides an example. This session, 
Missouri Republicans, who have a legislative 
supermajority, introduced 13 anti-ESG bills, 
none of which passed. One nonbinding 
resolution opposing federal ESG rules was 
approved. The 13 dead bills in Missouri 
included model legislation circulated by 
the American Legislative Exchange Council 
(ALEC), The Heritage Foundation, and the 
Heartland Institute, including those affecting 
pensions, contracts, proxy voting, and financial 
advisors. Multiple anti-ESG bills advanced 
through committee, where they were met 
with opposition from the Missouri Chamber of 
Commerce. One consolidated bill, HB 863, was 
approved by the House, but died in the Senate 
when the legislature adjourned.
In the following sections, we outline broad 
categories of legislation, along with distinct 
model bills, aimed to limit investor freedom 
and choice. These categories help chart the 
flow of ideas from organizations like ALEC, the 
Heritage Foundation, and The Foundation for 
Government Accountability into the halls of state 
power. The typologies that follow are meant to 
help understand the 2023 legislative session 
by identifying patterns within the legislation, 
its projected impacts to real people, and the 
support and opposition it drew.

2023 STATEHOUSE REPORT
P 13
WA
OR
ID
CA
NV
UT
AZ
NM
TX
HI
AK
LA
MS
AL
GA
SC
NC
TN
KY
IL
IN
OH
PA
NY
VT
NH
ME
WV
VA
MD
DE
NJ
CT
RI
MA
FL
AR
MO
OK
KS
WY
CO
MT
ND
SD
MN
WI
MI
IA
NE
PART ONE
WEAPONIZING STATE CONTRACTS
In 2023, Republican lawmakers introduced 42 bills to block states and local 
governments from contracting with financial institutions that limit engagement with 
certain industries by categorizing this refusal as a “boycott” or “discrimination.” These 
industries all donate disproportionately to Republican politicians, including fossil fuels, 
mining, agribusiness, timber and firearms. Many contracting bills direct a state authority 
to create a blacklist of financial institutions engaging in discrimination or boycotts and 
then subsequently ban the state from contracting with institutions taking such actions. 
Some versions of the bills even bar states from continuing existing contracts with 
blacklisted institutions. 
42 BILLS WERE CONSIDERED IN 23 STATES THIS YEAR
6 LAWS AND ONE RESOLUTION PASSED IN 6 STATES
Alabama SB 261
Arkansas HB 1307 + SB 62
Idaho H 190
Louisiana HCR 70 (resolution)
North Dakota HB 1429
Utah SB 97
BILLS WEAPONIZING STATE CONTRACTS

2023 STATEHOUSE REPORT
P 14
Contracting bills leverage state contracting authority to control private sector 
decisions. Sweeping definitions of “boycott” or “discrimination” obscure the fact that 
many of the largest banks and asset managers continue to hold massive investments 
in fossil fuels. 
Rather than respond to actual developments, these bills appear to attempt to 
preemptively chill climate action. From banking, to insurance, to asset managers, the 
combined pressure of the US anti-ESG movement has tempered ambition on corporate 
net zero pathways and even helped contribute to the weakening of voluntary net zero 
alliances. 
These bills present costs to state residents. In many cases, they raise the cost of 
borrowing money on the municipal bond market and decrease returns on state 
investments. If a bond underwriter is blacklisted, then states and municipalities cannot 
contract with that underwriter. Similarly, states cannot invest with any blacklisted asset 
managers. These costs are detailed thoroughly in sections above.
Across the country, business groups and banking associations opposed contracting 
bills, describing them as anti-free market and harmful to small businesses. At least 
nine of these bills in as many states were of explicit concern to business lobbyists, in 
Alabama, Arizona, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, 
and Wyoming.  
Like other anti-ESG legislation, contracting bills are tied to dark money operatives. 
Both the Opportunity Solutions Project and the Texas Public Policy Foundation publicly 
testified in support of these laws in multiple states. ALEC, the Heritage Foundation, and 
the Foundation for Government Accountability wrote or circulated model legislation 
that appeared to influence the text of many bills.

2023 STATEHOUSE REPORT
P 15
MODEL BILL:
Energy Discrimination Elimination Act
The Energy Discrimination Elimination Act is the name given to an ALEC-
circulated model bill based on a 2021 Texas law. Co-opting language 
of “discrimination,” the bills ignore actual discrimination in the financial 
sector, and instead attempt to make the case that financial institutions are 
“boycotting” proponents’ preferred industries at both the state and national 
level.
While no laws of this kind were approved in 2023, five states followed 
Texas and passed laws similar in previous years. In 2021, the first bills of this 
kind were introduced by legislators in North Dakota (SB 2291), Oklahoma 
(HB 2034), and Texas (HB 2189, SB 13), respectively. North Dakota was the 
first state to pass legislation, although it amended into a de-fanged study 
bill. Then in June, 2021, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed SB 13 into 
law. It barred state investments with businesses that “discriminate” against 
fossil fuel companies and became the basis for the Energy Discrimination 
Elimination Act model. 
Affiliates of the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) claimed a central 
role in writing SB 13. A 2021 TPPF report by billionaire fracking tycoon Bud 
Brigham called “energy discrimination” the “greatest threat to capitalism.” 
TPPF’s Jason Isaac circulated the bill text within ALEC at its December, 2021 
summit. While the ALEC board of directors did not approve the model bill 
text, it was widely circulated. In the year that followed, Kentucky, Oklahoma, 
Tennessee, and West Virginia enacted similar legislation. 
This model bill is now generally disfavored in comparison to the more 
expansive Eliminate Economic Boycotts Act, detailed below. 
9 BILLS WERE 
CONSIDERED IN  
6 STATES THIS YEAR: 
Arizona
Minnesota
North Carolina
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Texas 
___________
NO LAWS PASSED

2023 STATEHOUSE REPORT
P 16
MODEL BILL:
Eliminate Economic Boycotts Act
At the end of 2022, the organizations behind the Energy Discrimination 
Elimination Act (above) expanded the focus of their strategy. In the 2023 
legislative session, ALEC and the Heritage Foundation circulated new 
model bills titled the Eliminate Economic Boycotts Act, which broadened 
the scope of the original Energy Discrimination Elimination Act to protect 
the mining, agriculture, and timber industries. 
Activist businessman Andy Puzder and the TPPF promoted the new model 
bill through ALEC and the Heritage Foundation, two organizations with 
a long history of collaboration. As with the model Energy Discrimination 
Elimination Act, while ALEC task forces approved the proposed model, the 
ALEC board ultimately rejected it, reportedly amid opposition from banking 
lobbyists. Nonetheless, the model legislation was circulated to state 
lawmakers.
The ALEC and Heritage versions of the Eliminate Economic Boycotts Act 
are similar, but the Heritage version specifically includes firearms among 
favored industries, along with energy, mining, agriculture, and timber. The 
Heritage model also includes language condemning the refusal to finance 
companies that decline to “facilitate access to abortion, sex or gender 
change, or transgender surgery” in its definition of “economic boycott.” 
Notably, the model text does not include a blacklist clause, even though 
such language was included in many of the state bills.
Four states – Arkansas, Idaho, Utah, and Alabama– passed laws in 2023 
resembling the Eliminate Economic Boycotts Act that bar their state from 
contracting with certain firms. Hearings in Arkansas, Idaho, and Utah 
garnered little public business opposition. In Alabama, business leaders 
lobbied against the bill and the governor and state’s financial department 
gave a Democratic senator an amendment that exempted the municipal 
bond market from the bill’s provisions. North Dakota also saw a transformed 
bill. After business opposition, initial blacklist and boycott language was 
removed from HB 1429 and the final version no longer resembled the 
Eliminate Economic Boycotts Act bill.
31 BILLS WERE 
CONSIDERED IN  
18 STATES THIS YEAR
Alaska
Alabama
Arkansas
Colorado
Idaho 
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Nevada
Oklahoma
South Carolina
South Dakota
Texas
Utah
Wyoming 
___________
5 LAWS PASSED IN  
4 STATES
Alabama SB 261
Arkansas HB 1307 +   
   SB 62
Idaho H 190
Utah SB 97

2023 STATEHOUSE REPORT
P 17
In other states with substantial business opposition, no laws were passed. 
South Dakota’s HB 1208 failed to advance after it was opposed by at 
least seven local business associations, including lobbyists representing 
electric utilities, bankers, retailers, and the state chamber of commerce. 
South Dakota legislators sided against the bill’s proponents, which included 
the National Shooting Sports Foundation and the State Freedom Caucus 
Network, in a twelve to one vote.

2023 STATEHOUSE REPORT
P 18
MODEL BILL:
Protecting Free Enterprise and  
Investments Act
The Foundation for Government Accountability, a Florida-based 
conservative think tank funded by Leonard Leo and allied foundations, 
circulated this model in 2022. The bill combines aspects of the ALEC and 
Heritage Foundation model contracts bills (detailed above) and the ALEC 
and Heritage Foundation model pension bills (detailed below). To track 
this bill, we identified a limited number of unique phrases and particular 
combinations of provisions.
Similar to ALEC’s Energy Discrimination Elimination Act, this model calls 
for states to stop contracting with financial institutions engaging in so-
called “boycotts of energy companies.” This model calls on state treasurers 
to create a blacklist of such firms, as opposed to the model Eliminate 
Economic Boycotts Act, which excluded the blacklist provision. The model 
uses the distinct phrase “pecuniary factors” that is otherwise unique to 
the ALEC State Government Employee Retirement Protection Act (detailed 
below). It also uses a unique phrase, “reasonable business purpose,” as 
opposed to the “ordinary business purpose” 
referenced in other models.
A block of text applying restrictions on proxy 
votes and proxy advisors is almost identical 
to similar sections in the pension-focused 
model bills published by ALEC and the 
Heritage Foundation (detailed below). These 
provisions appear to be an attempt to block 
state-contracted pension fund managers 
from voting for a wide range of shareholder 
resolutions intended to combat corporate 
negligence against employees, ecosystems, 
or shareholders.
One unique clause in this model threatens 
to revoke an investment professional’s occupational registrations if they 
give investment advice based on factors outside the model’s definition of 
“pecuniary.” The clause mirrors a provision of Florida law, Chapter 517.161. 
Similar text appeared in Oklahoma’s 2023 SB 985, which was not heard in 
16 BILLS WERE 
CONSIDERED IN  
10 STATES THIS YEAR
Arkansas
Arizona 
Iowa
Idaho
Kansas
Louisiana 
North Dakota 
Oklahoma
Utah
Wyoming 
_________
3 LAWS AND ONE 
RESOLUTION PASSED  
IN 4 STATES
Arkansas HB 1307
Idaho H 190
Louisiana HCR 70
Utah HB 499
These provisions 
attempt to block state-
contracted pension fund 
managers from voting 
for a wide range of 
shareholder resolutions 
intended to combat 
corporate negligence 
against employees, 
ecosystems, or 
shareholders.

2023 STATEHOUSE REPORT
P 19
committee hearings but remains active for the 2024 legislative session.
Another unique clause explicitly empowers state attorneys general to 
investigate “any person, company, or financial institution found to be… 
restrain[ing] the trade or commerce of energy companies…” and empower 
any person whose business or property is harmed by such actions to file 
a civil lawsuit in the state circuit courts. Parts of the provision are similar to 
Utah’s unique HB 449 (as amended), which was sponsored by a longtime 
ALEC member, Representative Ken Ivory.
Arkansas legislators approved HB 1307, which appears to include parts of 
both the FGA and Heritage Foundation model contracts bills, along with 
provisions affecting retirement funds. Sponsoring Representative Jeffrey 
Wardlaw described the bill as an effort “to make sure that we’re following 
our beliefs in the state and making sure that nobody’s discriminating against 
the industries that are important to Arkansas.” In a committee hearing, 
Republican Senator Bryan King asked the sponsor for information on the 
bill’s fiscal impact: “Is it too much to ask for financial impact? I mean, if it’s 
gonna have an impact, I’d like to know what it is 
before I vote on it. [...] That’s not a hard question 
to ask. If you can’t know the answer, why would 
I want to vote on it?” Republicans wound up 
approving the bill, rejecting the findings of a 
disfavorable fiscal impact after it was published.
Idaho legislators approved H 190, which included 
an escape clause allowing the state treasurer to 
continue doing business with credit unions that 
“boycott” certain industries if doing otherwise is 
“inconsistent with the constitutional or statutory 
duties” of the state. In the Senate State Affairs 
committee hearing on March 21, 2023, Jonathan 
Oppenheimer of the Idaho Conservation League warned legislators the 
bill could expose state banks and credit unions to litigation. Oppenheimer 
flagged that the bill’s accompanying fiscal analysis came to the implausible 
conclusion that the bill posed no cost to the state: “When you reduce 
markets, when you reduce competition, you increase costs,” he said. 
“
When you reduce markets, 
when you reduce competition, 
you increase costs.”
JONATHAN OPPENHEIMER 
IDAHO CONSERVATION LEAGUE

2023 STATEHOUSE REPORT
P 20
PART TWO
WAGERING RETIREE PENSIONS
US public pension funds manage an estimated $5.6 trillion in assets. The largest 
subset of anti-ESG bills in 2023 sought to leverage state retirement funds to artificially 
favor investments in fossil fuels, mining, agriculture, and weapons manufacturers, 
regardless of their long-term investment risk. These bills prevent state and municipal 
retirement systems from investing funds with specific asset managers. Some bills 
that generally targeted state investment contractors (detailed above) also included 
provisions implicating state pension funds.
59 BILLS WERE CONSIDERED IN 30 STATES THIS YEAR
11 LAWS AND ONE RESOLUTION PASSED IN 10 STATES
Arkansas HB 1253 + HB 1307
Florida HB 3 + SB 110
Indiana HB 1008
Kansas SB 2100
Kentucky HB 236
Louisiana HCR 110 (resolution)
Montana HB 228
 
North Carolina H 750
Utah SB 96
West Virginia HB 2862
BILLS TARGETING RETIREE PENSIONS
WA
OR
ID
CA
NV
UT
AZ
NM
TX
HI
AK
LA
MS
AL
GA
SC
NC
TN
KY
IL
IN
OH
PA
NY
VT
NH
ME
WV
VA
MD
DE
NJ
CT
RI
MA
FL
AR
MO
OK
KS
WY
CO
MT
ND
SD
MN
WI
MI
IA
NE

2023 STATEHOUSE REPORT
P 21
Pension fund bills come in two main varieties of model legislation, written and 
promoted by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the Heritage 
Foundation. Both models focus on blocking fund investors from considering risks 
posed by pollution and other corporate practices. They both apply limitations on 
shareholder proxy voting, an attempt to block shareholder resolutions intended to 
combat corporate harm against employees, ecosystems, or shareholders. Much like 
the model contract bills (detailed above), these models carry the threat of enforcement 
actions by state attorneys general. Beyond these shared provisions, there are other 
clauses unique to each model bill, as detailed in the sections below.
These bills were most successful in states with Republican trifectas: Arkansas, Florida, 
Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Montana, Utah and West Virginia all passed anti-ESG 
pension laws. More pension bills that made progress in Republican-controlled states 
like Georgia, Iowa, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and South Carolina will carry over to the 2024 
legislative session. However, in two other Republican-controlled states, North Dakota 
and Wyoming, anti-ESG pension bills failed after state investment officials and business 
interests opposed them (detailed in the case studies, below). 
High Costs to Pensions Garner Pushback   
Fiscal analyses have shown that anti-ESG pension bills cost states, municipalities, 
and pensioners enormous sums. This legislation can drastically decrease pension 
funds’ projected returns, foist higher management fees onto funds, and raise 
administrative costs. When these or other factors cause public retirement systems 
to lose money, their assets to liability ratio decreases, which can raise required 
employer contributions. This year, multiple legislators had to amend anti-ESG 
pension bills after untenable fiscal assessments garnered national public scrutiny. 
In some cases, the bills’ fiscal notes failed to include massive anticipated losses 
to investments. Even when bills contained escape clauses allowing exceptions 
to investment restrictions, state investment officers warned that they still 
threatened to impose substantial costs on retirement systems. Anti-ESG attacks 
on pension funds are part of a political war of attrition on pension programs 
and other retirement benefits. This longstanding war has already had disastrous 
consequences, like the 2014 pension crisis in Kansas.

2023 STATEHOUSE REPORT
P 22
Dark money groups provided support to anti-ESG pensions bills, but public testimony 
from out-of-state groups affiliated with the State Policy Network (SPN) does not seem 
to have improved pension bills’ reception. With the exception of Indiana HB 1008, 
supported by the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), and Montana HB 228, 
supported by the Florida-based Opportunity Solutions Project, we are unaware of any 
pension laws that passed with the support of out-of-state SPN affiliates–noting that 
lobbying disclosure on specific state bills is usually insufficient.
Republican lawmakers generally ignored concerns about anti-ESG legislation posed by 
pension fund managers and unions. In at least 13 states – Arkansas, Colorado, Indiana, 
Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, Texas, West 
Virginia, and Wyoming – representatives from public pension systems raised concerns 
or outright opposed anti-ESG bills targeting pensions. Michael Payne of the West 
Virginia Investment Management Board warned legislators that HB 2862 “likely would 
have a dampening effect on certain sections of our investments to perform as well as 
they did in the past…I just want to say, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Legislators did not 
heed Payne’s advice, and HB 2862 became law with the governor’s signature.
Several major unions opposed bills restricting pension investments on the grounds 
that they threaten workers’ retirement funds. State and local chapters of the Service 
Employees International Union (SEIU), American Federation of Teachers (AFT), National 
Education Association (NEA), the American Federation of State, County and Municipal 
Employees (AFSCME), and the AFL-CIO testified 
against bills in Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, 
Missouri, Ohio and Texas. Jeff Derringer of SEIU 
District 1199 testified against SB 6 in Ohio, telling 
legislators that “this bill would cast a cloud of 
uncertainty and confusion and jeopardize returns 
by investors fearing subjective interpretation.” 
Rich Templin of the Florida AFL-CIO said in 
opposition to HB 3, “Our real concern here is 
what this is going to do to the way that our public 
pension funds invest and make money for their 
participants.” Tim Graham of the Kansas Education 
Association was more blunt: “I hate to sound 
provocative, but when it comes to our pensions, 
keep your culture wars out of them.”
“
I hate to sound 
provocative, but 
when it comes to our 
pensions, keep your 
culture wars out of 
them.”
TIM GRAHAM 
KANSAS EDUCATION ASSOCIATION

2023 STATEHOUSE REPORT
P 23
MODEL BILL:
State Government Employee Retirement 
Protection Act
The State Government Employee Retirement Protection Act is an ALEC 
model bill. It hinges upon narrowly-defined “pecuniary factors” as the 
means to limit certain risk assessments that might dissuade investment in 
certain industries. Pension managers have an existing legal duty to manage 
funds in their membership’s sole interest. This model bill does not actually 
offer any new protections to pension funds. Instead, it provides a definition 
“pecuniary” that politicizes fund managers’ risk assessment process and 
could complicate their ability to deliver the best returns for their members. 
The ALEC model’s unique approach is to establish a narrow definition 
of “pecuniary,” rooted in an attempt to redefine the well-established 
concept of materiality. Together, the two definitions preclude pension 
managers from considering risks that are “systemic” or “involve a high 
degree of uncertainty regarding what may or may not occur in the distant 
future.” Climate change relates to both of these kinds of risk assessments, 
according to the Financial Stability Board and other key financial decision-
making bodies. 
The ALEC model also dissuades the participation of financial institutions 
in industry working groups on topics that present material portfolio risks. 
Participation in such organizations may be used as evidence of basing a 
responsible decision on a “non-pecuniary” factor. 
Across the country, bills influenced by this model garnered opposition 
for the costs and risks they forced on state retirement systems. In places 
where the bills did pass, they often did so despite warnings from retirement 
systems, pensioners, and unions. In West Virginia, Craig Slaughter, the 
Executive Director of the state’s Investment Management Board, told 
legislators that HB 2862, which is now law, would force his office to make 
politicized decisions, which “undercuts returns.” As Slaughter warned the 
state House Judiciary Committee, “You’re starting to put handcuffs on us.” 
In Florida, the AFL-CIO and Amalgamated Transit Union testified against HB 
3, which appears to be based on provisions from the ALEC model, as well 
as the Heritage model pension bill (below). 
33 BILLS WERE 
CONSIDERED IN  
18 STATES THIS YEAR
Arizona 
Arkansas
Florida
Georgia
Iowa
Kentucky 
Maine
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Montana
North Carolina
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Oregon
South Carolina
Texas
West Virginia 
___________
7 LAWS PASSED IN  
6 STATES
Arkansas HB 1253
Florida HB 3 + SB 110
Kentucky HB 236
Montana HB 228
North Carolina H 750
West Virginia HB 2862

2023 STATEHOUSE REPORT
P 24
In addition to Florida, laws influenced by this ALEC model were passed 
amid opposition from banking lobbyists in Indiana, Kansas, New Hampshire, 
North Dakota, and South Carolina. In opposition to the original version of 
HB 457, Kristy Merrill of the New Hampshire Bankers Association warned 
legislators, “We think that the fiscal note on the legislation, particularly the 
part by the New Hampshire retirement system…describe[s] the language 
used in the bill as being vague and undefined, and that will be nearly 
impossible to enforce.” The New Hampshire bill was later gutted and 
replaced with unrelated language before it passed. The head of the South 
Carolina Bankers Association explained in a committee hearing on H 3690 
that it would forbid basic loan making criteria, concluding that the bill was 
“just is unworkable for the banking industry.” 
The South Carolina bill was supported by 
a high-profile politician from outside of the 
state’s borders. Vivek Ramaswamy, the 
founder and top shareholder of a right-wing 
asset management firm, helped introduce 
H 3690. More out-of-state interest 
groups were at work in North Dakota, 
where Brent Bennett of the Texas Public 
Policy Foundation testified in support of 
North Dakota HB 1469. State Securities 
Commissioner Karen Tyler and Todd 
Steinwand of the Bank of North Dakota 
reminded legislators that unlike Texas, 
North Dakota needs significant outside 
capital investment to build up carbon 
capture infrastructure. The Executive 
Director of North Dakota’s Retirement 
and Investment Office, Jan Murth, also contradicted Bennett’s testimony, 
explaining to legislators how Bennett greatly underestimated the costs of 
legislation by focusing on irrelevant data. Neither the North Dakota nor 
South Carolina bills passed, although the latter bill will carry over into 2024. 
“
The way the bill 
is written, it just 
is unworkable 
for the banking 
industry.”
FRED GREEN
SOUTH CAROLINA  
BANKERS ASSOCIATION

2023 STATEHOUSE REPORT
P 25
MODEL BILL:
State Pension Fiduciary Duty Act
States have introduced 21 bills incorporating aspects of the Heritage 
Foundation’s State Pension Fiduciary Duty Act. The Heritage model uses 
a restricted definition of “fiduciary commitment” to accomplish the same 
goal as the ALEC model pension bill: forcing investors to ignore certain 
risks in order to be eligible to contract with state pension funds. It explicitly 
targets companies deemed to support “access to abortion” or “transgender 
surgery” among prohibited non-financial investment considerations, 
demonstrating how Republican lawmakers are adapting model bills to 
incorporate up-to-the minute culture war signaling. The Heritage model 
also includes unique liabilities for companies that could be forced to pay 
specific damages to the state. 
In 2023, the bills carried price tags so enormous that they generated 
widespread negative headlines for Republican state legislators. Estimated 
lost investment returns reached the billions in states like Indiana, Kansas, 
and Texas. All of these bills bore a resemblance to the Heritage model 
pension bill. As detailed in sections above, the laws that passed continue to 
threaten pensions with lower returns and higher administrative costs even 
after significant amendments were made.
There was a breadth of opposition to these bills. In Kansas, the bills that 
culminated into HB 2100 were opposed by the state’s largest pension fund. 
They were even a source of concern for the SFOF-affiliated State Treasurer, 
Steven Johnson, as well as the Kansas Bankers Association. After estimated 
losses of $3.6 billion and other extreme provisions created resistance to 
HB 2436 and SB 291, a final compromise was created by inserting softened 
language into a previously-unrelated bill, HB 2100. It passed with no 
further opportunity for opponent testimony. HB 2100 became law without 
the governor’s signature. The bill’s final fiscal note estimated $915,000 in 
additional annual costs.
In Nebraska, conservative legislators expressed skepticism over LB 743, 
which did not advance out of committee before the session adjourned. 
Leadership at the Nebraska Investment Council chided legislators for 
not providing sufficient time to assess the bill’s impact in a fiscal note. 
The Council’s State Investment Officer, Michael Walden-Newman, urged 
the legislature to pause on the bill and allow his office time to assess its 
21 BILLS WERE 
CONSIDERED IN  
15 STATES THIS YEAR
Colorado
Florida
Indiana
Kansas
Mississippi 
Missouri
Nebraska 
Nevada
Ohio
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Wyoming 
___________
4 LAWS PASSED IN  
4 STATES
Indiana HB 1008
Florida HB 3
Kansas SB 2100
Utah SB 96

2023 STATEHOUSE REPORT
P 26
impact on state retirement funds. LB 743 faced outright opposition from 
the Nebraska Independent Community Bankers Association, the Nebraska 
Insurance Federation, and the Nebraska Bankers Association, whose 
lobbyist noted the estimated $6.7 billion in lower returns from a similar bill 
proposed in Indiana. Amy Thompson, a utilities lobbyist representing the 
Omaha Public Power District and Nebraska Power Association, warned that 
the bill could prohibit public funds from limiting high-risk investments: “in 
other words, to be forced to make imprudent investment decisions.”
Amy Bishop, Executive Director of Texas County District Retirement 
System (TCDRS), told lawmakers that a bill resembling the model Heritage 
Foundation pension bill, SB 1446, could result in a loss of $6 billion to 
TCDRS. As Bishop summarized in a previous Senate committee hearing, 
“We’re worried that conflicts in the bill would keep us from partnering with 
some of the best investment managers in the world over issues such as 
violation of fiduciary duty and protecting competitive advantage.” 
“
We’re worried that conflicts in the bill would 
keep us from partnering with some of the best 
investment managers in the world over issues 
such as violation of fiduciary duty and protecting 
competitive advantage.” 
AMY BISHOP
TEXAS COUNTY DISTRICT RETIREMENT SYSTEM

2023 STATEHOUSE REPORT
P 27
PART THREE
OBSTRUCTING NORMAL BUSINESS 
PRACTICES WITH BANS, LIABILITY 
THREATS, AND REQUIRED DISCLOSURES
This year, bills affecting liability and disclosures drew significant pushback. These 
model bills have not passed in any jurisdiction, even though 25 bills were introduced 
in 18 states. These bills open a distinct new front in the anti-ESG trend. While bills 
targeting state contracting authority or pension management leveraged funds directly 
managed by the government, these bills explicitly target private sector decisions 
between financial firms and the companies and individuals they do business with. 
Like blinders on a horse, these bills seek to prevent private financial institutions from 
considering certain types of information when evaluating the bankability or credit-
worthiness of individuals and businesses. These bills greatly limit the considerations 
a financial institution can use in making a lending decision, and so effectively restrict 
or ban bankers’ professional discretion. Some versions of these bills require public 
disclosures by any firm utilizing any “nonfinancial, nontraditional, and subjective 
measures,” including ESG factors or Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) metrics in their 
decision making. This disclosure can include pre-scripted disclaimers that must be 
signed by customers. 
There is a wide range of proposed language in these bills. Most of them share 
language to ban banks from utilizing thorough risk analyses to guide their business 
decisions. This opens new liabilities for businesses seeking to analyze risks that 
could be construed as political, such as climate risk, labor standards, or DEI practices. 
Ignoring these risks could leave firms exposed to significant short-, medium-, and 
long-term risks. Some of the bills are also accompanied by enforcement provisions 
that encourage civil litigation against financial institutions — or even make it a crime if 
institutions repeatedly utilize banned factors in their analyses. 
Business lobbyists and state investment officers warned that these bills would increase 
the cost of doing business in the state by adding administrative burdens, open up 
liability to “frivolous lawsuits,” and prohibit basic considerations for lenders and 
insurers. As Jay Kaprosy of the Arizona Bankers Association said in testimony against 
Arizona’s proposed SB 1138, “What you have in front of you is probably the most anti-
free market bill that you’ll see this legislative session.”

2023 STATEHOUSE REPORT
P 28
MODEL BILL:
Fair Access to Financial Services Act 
As of June, 2023, no state has passed a version of the Fair Access to 
Financial Services Act. Only two states moved a version of these bills 
through one legislative chamber: Arizona and Missouri. In both states, the 
bills failed to advance after opposition from local business lobbyists. Private 
sector lobbyists exhibited particular vigor against these bills, opposing at 
least ten of them in nine states: Arizona, Kansas, Maine, Missouri, Nebraska, 
New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Utah.
The first bill of this kind was New Hampshire’s HB 1469, introduced in 
2022. It received favorable testimony from the Heartland Institute’s Bette 
Grande, before being replaced entirely by a study bill. The Heartland 
Institute is perhaps best known for denying climate change science and 
comparing those who accept it with Ted Kaczynski, the terrorist known as 
the Unabomber. Heartland is circulating a version of the model bill copied 
and pasted from North Dakota’s 2023 HB 1283, which Grande provided the 
language for (see video at 8:08:53). In addition to Heartland, the supporters 
of these bills include firearms lobbyists and the Opportunity Solutions 
Project.
Republican sponsors of these bills have argued in committee that the 
legislation prevents discrimination. The title of these bills appears to be 
copied verbatim from congressional bills sponsored by Democrats in 2020 
and again in 2022. The federal bills sought to prevent racist discrimination 
in the financial sector, based on real-world evidence. The Republican state 
legislation could have the opposite impact by using “subjective” ESG or 
DEI investment criteria as a means to impose liability on private investment 
managers, advisors, and financial institutions.
Business and banking associations have strenuously opposed versions of 
this bill in hearings across the country. In Maine, Nebraska, and Tennessee, 
the bills failed to advance after vocal opposition from businesses and state 
investment officers. Some lobbyists compelled legislators to gut the original 
language in these bills before passing laws with entirely different text. The 
original version of Utah HB 449 was replaced with substitute language at 
the behest of the Utah Bankers Association. In Montana, a draft bill was 
discarded in favor of an unrelated non-binding resolution, at the request of 
the Montana Bankers Association. 
25 BILLS WERE 
CONSIDERED IN  
18 STATES THIS YEAR
Arizona 
Arkansas
Kansas 
Maine
Minnesota
Missouri
North Carolina
North Dakota
Nebraska
New Hampshire
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
West Virginia 
___________
NO LAWS PASSED

2023 STATEHOUSE REPORT
P 29
In Missouri, the state Chamber of Commerce opposed HB 863 which would 
mandate that customers of any financial services firm utilizing “subjective” 
factors, like ESG, to sign a disclosure form stating that the institution’s 
product will not be focused on maximizing returns. The Chamber’s Director 
of Legislative Affairs, Philip Arnzen, told legislators in a Senate Insurance 
committee that businesses would respond with excess caution and excess 
bureaucracy: “​many financial firms which are risk averse are just going 
to mandate that these [disclosure] forms be signed by every customer, 
regardless of what the investment strategy is. So we believe that it would 
be costly and will put a new mandate on any financial firm that does 
business in Missouri.”

2023 STATEHOUSE REPORT
P 30
PART FOUR
STOKING FEAR THROUGH ESG SCORES
Model legislation for a variety of bills banning the use of ESG “scores” has not yet  
been identified. Conspicuously similar bills in many states indicate that models are 
being circulated.
These bills target state and local governments, as well as the private sector. Many of 
the bills introduced this session focused on forbidding state governments from using 
ESG criteria in the selection of contractors. Some bills would preclude companies 
engaged in using ESG criteria from government procurement contracts. Other 
bills proposed bans on the use of ESG criteria by private companies as part of risk 
assessment before lending money, providing insurance, or making procurement 
decisions. 
23 BILLS WERE CONSIDERED IN 13 STATES THIS YEAR
5 LAWS PASSED IN 5 STATES
Florida HB 3
Idaho H 191
Texas SB 833
Utah HB 281 
North Carolina H 750
WA
OR
ID
CA
NV
UT
AZ
NM
TX
HI
AK
LA
MS
AL
GA
SC
NC
TN
KY
IL
IN
OH
PA
NY
VT
NH
ME
WV
VA
MD
DE
NJ
CT
RI
MA
FL
AR
MO
OK
KS
WY
CO
MT
ND
SD
MN
WI
MI
IA
NE
BILLS TARGETING ESG SCORES

2023 STATEHOUSE REPORT
P 31
This year, four states passed laws with unique variations of this approach. Florida’s HB 
3 is a broad law that affects pensions, but it also prohibits government bond issuers 
from entering “into a contract with any rating agency whose ESG scores for such issuer 
will have a direct, negative impact on the issuer’s bond ratings.” A law passed in Idaho, 
H 191, prohibits government contractors from being selected using ESG criteria. Texas 
SB 833 forbids the use of ESG criteria for private insurance companies. Utah HB 281 
appeared to be a rhetorical exercise, conflating quantitative summaries of ESG analysis 
and data with conspiracy theories about “social credit scores.” 
Misinformation was a common feature of advocacy in support of these kinds of 
bills. The specter of personal ESG Scores are being used as a way to engage the 
grassroots in this fight, as exemplified in the Heritage Action video, “DENIED: Is Your 
Credit Score Woke Enough?” In statehouses, bill sponsors insinuated that financial 
institutions collected personal data to discriminate against individual people based 
on political ideology. In an introduction of two bills attacking the intentionally misused 
concept of ESG, Texas Senator Bryan Hughes said, “[ESG] has become the shorthand 
nomenclature for scoring or evaluating how ‘good’ a company is, not unlike a social 
credit score in communist China.” 
Government agencies expressed concern over many of the bills focused on prohibiting 
ESG criteria by governments, because they anticipated decreased contracting 
opportunities and increased costs. Robin Hillyard of the Arizona County Supervisor 
Association warned that SB 1611 could be responsible for “delaying our procurement 
contracts,” due to the complications of verifying compliance. The bill was one of 
three bills vetoed by Democratic governor Katie Hobbs after being approved by the 
Republican-controlled legislature.
In Missouri, government employees flagged that several of the bills–all of which 
ultimately failed–could force them to pay higher contract fees. A fiscal note for SB 
177 revealed that officials from Kansas City believed the bill could negatively impact 
that city’s finances. Fiscal notes for HB 770, SB 50, and SB 316, flagged that the bills 
could block the state from continuing to do business with firms it already contracted, 
reducing the competitive pool, increasing costs, and lowering the quality of services. 
Similar concerns were unveiled in Idaho, where the fiscal note for H 191 contained 
glaring omissions: The Idaho Conservation League’s Jonathan Oppenheimer warned 
legislators, “I fear that the fiscal note for this bill only addressed the potential fiscal 
impact to the general fund, yet it applies to all units of state government.”

2023 STATEHOUSE REPORT
P 32
PART FIVE
OPPOSING FEDERAL RULES
State lawmakers have also introduced bills and resolutions aimed at positioning their 
states against a variety of federal rules, including those perceived to involve ESG. 
While no bills in this category passed in 2023, Louisiana, Missouri, and Montana 
have passed nonbinding resolutions that focus on the US Securities and Exchange 
Commission climate disclosure rule. 
All seven of the other bills shared language that appears to have been copied verbatim 
from a model bill, though it is unclear where the model came from and who might be 
circulating it. Texas SB 242 appears to have been prefiled before the other bills, in mid-
November, 2022, with Missouri and South Carolina pre-filing similar bills in the weeks 
that followed.
10 BILLS & RESOLUTIONS WERE CONSIDERED IN 8 STATES
NO LAWS PASSED. THREE RESOLUTIONS WERE APPROVED:
Louisiana HCR 59
Missouri HR 12
Montana HJ 11
WA
OR
ID
CA
NV
UT
AZ
NM
TX
HI
AK
LA
MS
AL
GA
SC
NC
TN
KY
IL
IN
OH
PA
NY
VT
NH
ME
WV
VA
MD
DE
NJ
CT
RI
MA
FL
AR
MO
OK
KS
WY
CO
MT
ND
SD
MN
WI
MI
IA
NE
BILLS OPPOSING FEDERAL RULES

2023 STATEHOUSE REPORT
P 33
The bills and resolutions are typically broad enough to stage resistance to other 
relevant federal rules, such as a recent Department of Labor rule that “confirms that 
fiduciaries should consider ESG factors in investment decisions just as they would any 
other financially relevant factor,” as Ceres summarized. This rule was challenged by 
Republicans in Congress under the Congressional Review Act, engendering the first 
presidential veto by the Biden Administration.
Notably, at least one proponent of Texas SB 242 appeared to encourage the 
consideration of violence at scale between states and the federal government. 
Chuck DeVore, a former California state legislator working at the Texas Public 
Policy Foundation, told members of the Senate State Affairs Committee, “Without 
the enforcement authority of state and local governments, the federal government 
is virtually powerless to work its will on the states and on the people. There’s 
approximately 1.2 million state and local law enforcement personnel versus about 
137,000 at the federal level.” When asked to clarify his comments contrasting the size 
of federal and local law enforcement, DeVore repeated the statistics, and elaborated, 
“there’s no way that the federal government by itself can enforce all of these edicts that 
come down from the federal level.” 
DeVore attempted to contrast his logic to escalation tactics used by Antebellum 
South enslavers in preparation for the Civil War. “Some critics have likened this to 
nullification…it is not at all like the situation that led to the nullification crisis in 1828 
through 1832.” DeVore is affiliated with the Claremont Institute. Claremont is known for 
laundering “white supremacist ideas,” and it is actively organizing sheriffs in politics. 
Claremont affiliates have stated that “we are in a kind of cold civil war,” and outright 
civil war is something the group’s leaders have predicted.

2023 STATEHOUSE REPORT
P 34
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT
In 2024, Republican state lawmakers across the country will undoubtedly introduce 
more of the model bills discussed above, as well as new iterations. Understanding 
what happened in the 2023 legislative sessions helps us understand what is likely to 
come next.   
We will be watching these developments: 
This fight is headed to the Hill. Members of Congress have 
introduced legislation, as detailed in the case study, above. 
Aspects of these bills are similar to some of the model bills 
discussed in this report. Within the span of a month, in the 
spring of 2023, there were two House Oversight hearings 
on ESG practices. Republican members of Congress offered 
anti-ESG advocates a national platform to reinforce the same 
manufactured narrative being pushed in the states. 
In both hearings, witnesses for the minority and moderate and 
progressive Democratic members delivered complementary 
messages about fiduciary duty, the need for corporate 
transparency, the dark money origins of anti-ESG, the 
importance of environmental and social responsibility, and the 
emptiness of Republican culture war signaling. Democratic 
members are demonstrating that this is an issue they can 
find common ground on, strike a variety of crucial points, and 
dismantle Republican witnesses and arguments with a broad 
array of messaging centered on extremist Republican attacks on 
freedom. At the second of these hearings, very few Republican 
committee members even attended to speak on behalf of the 
agenda their party set.
This fight will accelerate in the states in the run-up to the 
2024 legislative session. A majority of states operate on two 
year legislative calendars, and 42 bills that did not pass in 
2023 could carry over into the 2024 legislative session. In 
addition, bill authors will likely resubmit revised bills or submit 
new legislation. The consolidation and watering-down of bills 
may have the effect of weakening the business coalition that 
CONGRESS
THE STATES

2023 STATEHOUSE REPORT
P 35
opposed bills in 2023. However, weakened bills are still a threat 
to state finances, local and small businesses, clean energy 
development, racial and LGBTQIA justice, and gun control. Their 
full expected financial impact remains unknown.
Additionally, this continues to be a topic lawmakers know little 
about. As we saw in legislatures around the country, in some 
cases, even bill sponsors do not know how to defend the bills 
they introduced. This is the moment for lawmaker education, 
so that elected officials understand the broad threats of these 
bills. As lawmakers have a better understanding of these laws’ 
potential impacts, legislative dynamics will adjust to reflect that 
reality. These fights will only be supercharged in a presidential 
election year where most state legislators are also up for 
election, and we have every indication that anti-ESG and woke 
capitalism will be at the center of the Republican platform.
Multiple organizations helping to craft and circulate anti-ESG 
legislation – including ALEC and Heritage – have long histories 
of successfully advancing their preferred policies through 
experimental state legislation. We expect that these architects 
of this anti-ESG effort will continue to find new ways to legislate 
against sustainable business practices, and we expect 
insurance will be a critical new battleground. States may decide 
to follow Texas, which passed a law restricting insurance this 
year. Boldness from industry will be crucial to countering these 
bad bills. 
The insurance industry is on the front lines of the climate 
crisis, and anti-ESG advocates are likely to expand their efforts 
targeting the sector. Anti-ESG attacks on actuarial duty are 
not simply attacks on the industry, they also degrade the 
ability of vulnerable communities to find and afford coverage, 
starting with those directly in the way of climate impacts. This is 
especially true in states where topics related to insurance are at 
the top of the political conversation, including the states of the 
Gulf South. 
INSURANCE

2023 STATEHOUSE REPORT
P 36
With 50 U.S. states, the fossil-fuel funded interests behind this campaign were 
able to experiment, mounting multiple attacks on sustainable finance in a variety of 
political, economic, and regulatory contexts this year. Consistently, their efforts were 
marked by division, contention, and uncertainty— often within their own party and in 
confrontation with traditional political allies. Going forward, we expect these attacks 
will be turbocharged by the broader financial and political conversation in the months 
to come. 
The fate of 2024 state legislation — and broader campaign to weaponize state financial 
regulation to protect preferred industries — will be determined by the continued 
strength of the broad and diverse opposition speaking out against this manufactured 
crisis and standing up, from a variety of viewpoints, against the attacks on the freedom 
to invest and high costs these attacks would impose on the American economy.

2023 STATEHOUSE REPORT
P 37
TEXAS
CASE STUDY
Texas Republicans introduced 21 anti-ESG 
bills in 2023, one of which passed. The 
numerous forms of legislation proposed in 
Texas this year show the broad scope of 
ambition to coerce financial institutions to 
invest in coal and oil and gas. As part of the 
blitz, Texas lawmakers introduced an array of 
creative strategies to restrict the options of 
local governments and financial institutions, in 
addition to variations of most of the model bills 
detailed above.
Texas legislators field-tested a number of 
unique bills, most of which made no progress:
HCR 38 called for a Congressional 
investigation into BlackRock CEO Larry 
Fink. 
HB 2752 proposed state-enforced 
noncompliance with rules established 
by the National Association of Insurance 
Commissioners. 
HB 3661 attempted to require companies 
to report their use of ESG criteria to the 
Texas Comptroller, SFOF member Glenn 
Hagar, as the basis for publishing a 
database. 
HB 4794 attempted to give shareholders 
more power to challenge companies for 
incorporating ESG metrics into business 
decisions. 
SB 1060, a proposed prohibition on 
“political” shareholder proposals for 
insurance companies, was approved by 
the Senate. 
Many sponsors and supporters of the bills 
plainly stated their intent to favor the fossil 
fuel industry. State Senator Bryan Hughes 
indicated to members of his committee that 
a partisan strategy to protect fossil fuels was 
the motivation for two of his bills: “Companies 
are ‘encouraged’ to support liberal social 
positions and developing technologies and 
discouraged from traditionally conservative 
positions and disfavored technologies, like oil 
and gas.” 
Fossil fuel lobbyists at the Permian Basin 
Petroleum Association and two of the state’s 
oil and gas royalty owners associations 
testified in support of various bills using ESG 
as rhetorical leverage. But the most consistent 
and vocal proponents of the numerous 
kinds of bills were the Texas Public Policy 
Foundation (TPPF) and the Florida-based 
Opportunity Solutions Project (OSP). As 
Chase Martin of the OSP testified in support 
of SB 1060: “We think it’s an amazing bill that 
we’ll hope to essentially push back against 
discrimination against companies, especially 
Texas oil and gas.”  
Texas Republican state senators were so 
committed to passing bills favoring fossil fuel 
companies that they overlooked evidence 
about major anticipated costs to the state 
and its retirees. This was illustrated in the 
deliberations over SB 1446, a bill based on the 
Heritage Foundation’s State Pension Fiduciary 
Duty Act, which was approved by the Senate. 
Amy Bishop of the The Texas County and 
District Retirement System (TCDRS) told the 
legislature that SB 1446 would cost the state’s 
public funds $6 billion over the next decade. 
Bishop told the legislature that the bill would 
force the system to divest from multiple asset 
managers and therefore lower TCDRS’s 
projected return on investment by 1.5%. These 
staggering estimates were not mentioned in

2023 STATEHOUSE REPORT
P 38
the bill’s official fiscal note. 
Only one Texas law passed in the 2023 
regular session. SB 833 is an attempt to bar 
nearly the entire insurance industry, including 
health and property, from considering 
environmental or social concerns in their 
underwriting. Predictably, the insurance 
industry, which requires clear-eyed 
consideration of material risks to even 
function, did not favor the legislation.
The House companion to SB 833, HB 1239, 
was opposed by several business interests in 
a House committee hearing. The Reinsurance 
Industry Association of America’s Paul Martin 
told the committee that greenhouse gas 
emissions and the resulting consequences of 
climate change are material considerations for 
insurers. LeeAnne Alexander of the American 
Property Casualty Insurance Association 
(APCIA) said the bill language “would not allow 
companies actually to use those actuarially 
justified factors when deciding whether to 
offer coverage, or how to write coverage 
if offered,” a sentiment echoed by other 
insurance lobbyists. HB 1239 was abandoned 
in favor of SB 833. 
The final language of SB 833 included 
multiple escape clauses allowing use of ESG 
criteria if it is consistent with “sound actuarial 
principles,” based on an “ordinary business 
purpose,” or coincidental to risk assessment 
criteria. Even with these changes, the APCIA 
remained opposed to the law. Experts 
in global insurance markets predict that 
companies attempting to comply with SB 833 
could lose access to vital reinsurance on the 
global market, complicating recovery efforts 
for natural disasters. 
SB 833 was the last bill approved by the Texas 
legislature on May 24th, before the chaotic 
session adjourned at midnight. After the 
session concluded, Lieutenant Governor Dan 
Patrick sent Governor Greg Abbott a list of 
bills he wanted to revive in a special session, 
including the three bills that failed after being 
approved by the Senate: SB 1060, which limits 
shareholder activities, SB 1446, which restricts 
pension investments, and SB 2530, which 
restricts contracting.
CASE STUDY / TEXAS

2023 STATEHOUSE REPORT
P 39
CASE STUDY
In 2022, Indiana failed to pass a bill that 
attempted to leverage state retirement funds 
against financial institutions deemed to be 
engaged in “boycotts” of energy companies. 
In 2023, state Republicans resumed the 
attack, introducing three more bills that all 
resembled the Heritage Foundation’s State 
Pension Fiduciary Duty Act. 
One of the bills, HB 1008, became law, but 
only after amendments were added to lower 
the bill’s projected cost of $6.7 billion in lost 
pension fund returns over a decade. Indiana 
State Treasurer Dan Elliot, an SFOF member, 
supported the bill at its first public hearing. In 
the same initial House hearing, Tony Green 
of the Indiana Public Retirement System 
(INPRS) provided testimony in which he raised 
concerns over “unintended consequences” of 
the legislation. Green revealed that the system 
had hired Strive Advisory–an anti-ESG firm co-
founded by Vivek Ramaswamy–to advise on 
its proxy voting strategy. Ramaswamy’s rate 
was later revealed to be $4,000 per hour.
The original version of HB 1008, before 
amendments, was supported by gun 
lobbyists, several fossil fuel companies and 
affiliated advocacy groups. The coal mining 
companies Alliance Resource Partners and 
Hallador Energy supported the legislation 
in its first hearing. Reliable Energy, a coal 
trade association formed by consultants at 
Catalyst Public Affairs on behalf of Alliance 
and Hallador Energy, also supported the 
original bill. Supporters from the oil industry 
included Pioneer Oil and the Indiana Oil and 
Gas Association. 
Out of state policy groups financed by fossil 
fuel fortunes came into Indiana to provide 
testimony as well, including the Texas Public 
Policy Foundation (TPPF) and Heritage Action, 
the lobbying arm of the Heritage Foundation. 
Supporter Eric Bledsoe of the Opportunity 
Solutions Project previously worked for the 
Charles Koch Foundation.
Public opposition to the bill increased in early 
February after INPRS released a fiscal note 
estimating that HB 1008 would diminish state 
pension system returns by $6.7 billion over 
the next ten years. The Indiana Chamber 
of Commerce tweeted: “Safe to say we 
still oppose H.B. 1008.” Writers at many 
publications cited the $6.7 billion statistic, 
while opponents of similar bills cited the fiscal 
note during testimony in numerous other 
states.
After the backlash to the original bill’s 
estimated costs, legislators made two rounds 
of amendments to HB 1008. The amended 
bill exempted private equity managers from 
certain provisions. It cut out restrictions on 
external fund managers that are unrelated to 
pension investments and allowed pension 
funds to hold disfavored investments if no 
“comparable” alternative was available. 
However, the amended bill’s final fiscal note 
underplayed the anticipated negative effects 
of slightly lessened divestment. The final 
note did not account for how INPRS would 
complete an increased workload, and it 
assumed that INPRS could make up the costs 
of rapid divestment by simply finding new 
asset managers with lower fees and higher 
rates of return. While administrative costs to 
INPRS were estimated to increase by about 
$5.5 million, it is impossible to measure 
the bill’s intentional chilling effect aimed at 
investors and fund managers. 
The amendments did not quell opposition 
from business leaders and unions in the bill’s 
INDIANA

2023 STATEHOUSE REPORT
P 40
final Senate committee hearing on April 5th. 
Sally Sloan with the AFT said the bill was “a 
solution in search of a problem” and that “our 
members would be most comfortable if we left 
investing to the professionals.” Jerrel Blakely 
of the Indiana State Teachers Association 
condemned the “demonization” of ESG 
policies, and asked legislators why the bill 
sought to change such a successful pension 
system model: “By all accounts our state 
pension system is a model to replicate.”
The Indiana Chamber of Commerce opposed 
the bill throughout the entirety of the 
legislative session. At the April 5th Senate 
committee hearing, the Chamber’s lobbyist, 
Greg Ellis, said, “We believe [the bill] is 
anti-free markets and anti-free enterprise.” 
Ellis objected to Section 6 of the bill, which 
listed a wide variety of published materials 
politicians considered evidence of an “ESG 
commitment.” Ellis warned, “We think that this 
bill might have a chilling effect on the Indiana 
economy. If you look at some of the recent 
investments in Indiana such as around the 
electric vehicle [manufacturing in the] Kokomo 
area…we think this is an issue.” That text 
remained in the final version of the law.
CASE STUDY / INDIANA

2023 STATEHOUSE REPORT
P 41
CASE STUDY
In North Dakota, Republican legislators and a 
variety of interest groups appeared poised to 
fast-track a barrage of bills targeting banks, 
credit unions, and financial advisors for 
holding vague affiliations with ESG investment 
metrics. All five of the bills introduced were 
scheduled in committee hearings in the first 
two months of 2023. 
One by one, the bills were eviscerated by 
business lobbyists, state investment officers, 
and skeptical Republicans. By the end of the 
legislative session, only one heavily-amended 
bill was enrolled and sent to the governor. 
The general failure of anti-ESG bills in North 
Dakota is illustrative of a trend in Republican 
trifecta states in which persistent and coherent 
pushback from industry groups was enough to 
push legislatures to reject these bills. 
The first bill to fail was HB 1347, an attempt 
to restrict state investment contracts with 
language similar to the Foundation for 
Government Accountability’s model bill, the 
Protecting Free Enterprise and Investments 
Act. HB 1347 proposed a controversial 
blacklist of “restricted financial institutions.” 
In a January hearing, the chair of the House 
Industry, Business and Labor committee 
declared the bill “unworkable” after opponent 
testimony from the state financial institutions 
commissioner and the North Dakota Bankers 
Association. The House voted the bill down 
two weeks later.
The next bill to falter was HB 1283, a version 
of the model Fair Access to Financial 
Services Act. The bill’s text was provided 
by the Heartland Institute’s Bette Grande. 
The bill’s primary sponsor, Representative 
Anna Novak, indicated to the committee 
that her bill was about justice: “I believe that 
every single person in this room, and in the 
legislature, is opposed to discrimination in any 
form.” The majority of the hearing featured 
vigorous united opposition from the state’s 
financial institution commissioner, insurance 
commissioner, and multiple banks and credit 
unions. Rick Clayburgh of the North Dakota 
Bankers Association appeared to invoke 
Nazi Germany’s branding of Jewish-owned 
businesses: “it reminds me of, you know, let’s 
put a star in the window of the institution if 
it’s doing something legal, but you just don’t 
like what they’re doing.” The committee 
disapproved of the bill, and the House voted it 
down a month later.
A pensions-focused bill, HB 1469, resembled 
the American Legislative Exchange Council 
(ALEC) model State Government Employee 
Retirement Protection Act. HB 1469 was 
voted down by the House along with HB 
1283. In a House committee hearing, the 
state Director of Financial Institutions, Lise 
Kruse, told the legislature, “It’s my duty under 
law to let you know if there’s anything that 
could hamper the safety and soundness of 
our institutions, so that’s why I’m here today.” 
This warning was consistent with one from 
the bill’s own sponsor, Representative Anna 
Novak, who told the committee, “There’s a 
pretty large fiscal note attached to this bill. 
Honestly when I saw it, I about fell off my 
chair.” Despite attempts from the Texas Public 
Policy Foundation (TPPF) and Western Dakota 
Energy Association to support the bill, the 
committee was persuaded to reject HB 1469. 
Two bills managed to make it out of the 
House, both of which were heavily amended 
after aggressive pushback to specific 
provisions of the original bill text, including 
blacklist mandates. HB 1278 was initially an 
attempt to block the state Investment Board 
NORTH DAKOTA

2023 STATEHOUSE REPORT
P 42
from affiliating with groups deemed to be 
opponents of fossil fuels and agriculture. 
The bill received unflattering testimony from 
multiple state investment officers, including 
the state treasurer, Thomas Beadle, despite 
his membership in the State Financial 
Officers Foundation. Similarly, after pushback 
from state investment officers and banking 
lobbyists, HB 1429 was amended to remove 
language resembling the model “Eliminate 
Economic Boycotts Act.” 
Due to the similarities between both bills, 
HB 1278 was abandoned in favor of HB 1429, 
the only law North Dakota passed in 2023. 
Making minor amendments to a similar law 
from 2021, HB 1429 forbade state funds from 
using ESG or “social investments” unless they 
offered a “superior rate of return” or were part 
of a “prudent” risk assessment. The law added 
restrictions on proxy voting activity involving 
state investments, and it delegated a study on 
anti-ESG policy options to the Bank of North 
Dakota in preparation for the 2024 legislative 
session.
During comments in a Senate committee 
hearing, Jan Murtha of the state Retirement 
and Investment Office said the final version 
of HB 1429 simply codified her office’s current 
practices. Murtha noted that her office already 
provided proxy voting disclosures upon 
request, explicitly correcting the TPPF’s Brent 
Bennett, whom she said never attempted to 
contact her office to obtain such disclosures. 
CASE STUDY / NORTH DAKOTA

2023 STATEHOUSE REPORT
P 43
CASE STUDY
Wyoming Republicans, who control all 
branches of state government, turned out 
to be more skeptical of the impact of this 
legislative trend than North Dakota. Of the 
three bills considered in 2023, none became 
law, following a torrent of practical concerns 
from the state’s top investment officers, 
bankers, municipalities, and even the state 
petroleum association. 
While one of the bills targeting the state’s 
investment contracts never advanced 
out of committee (HB 210), two more bills 
were approved by the state Senate before 
faltering in the House. SF 159 was very 
similar to the Heritage Foundation’s model 
Eliminate Economic Boycotts Act, attempting 
to leverage state contract investments 
against financial institutions disfavored 
by Republicans. SF 172 was similar to the 
Heritage Foundation’s model State Pension 
Fiduciary Duty Act, focused on leveraging 
the state’s pension funds against the same 
disfavored financial institutions. Each of the 
bills were sponsored by state senator Bo 
Biteman, a landman with experience working 
for fossil fuel companies.
SF 159 and SF 172 were both supported by 
the National Shooting Sports Foundation, 
the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), 
and the Wyoming Mining Association. A 
bombardment of pointed criticism was offered 
by municipalities, pension fund officers, and 
the petroleum lobby. Most damning was the 
testimony delivered by members of the state 
treasurer’s office, including concerns voiced 
by Wyoming State Treasurer Curtis Meier. 
In his criticism of the contracts bill, SF 159, 
Meier was openly concerned about alienating 
himself from the State Financial Officers 
Foundation. 
Treasurer Meier left the most pointed criticism 
to his Chief Investment Officer, Patrick 
Fleming, who provided a litany of specific 
examples of how the bill could hamper the 
state’s investments. Fleming pointed to 
Johnson & Johnson as a typical Fortune 500 
company that the state invests in. Referencing 
the company’s hundreds of subsidiaries in 
dozens of countries around the world, Fleming 
asked, “What would be the possibility of one 
of these entities doing something that goes 
against this bill?” Consequently, Fleming said, 
“we would basically have to divest from most 
of these entities,” selling them at a significant 
loss of 10% under market value or even up to 
25% “during a time of stress,” according to two 
brokers he spoke with.
Fleming rebuffed the false notion that asset 
managers like BlackRock “boycott” fossil 
fuels, a myth attempted by the TPPF’s Jason 
Isaac. Fleming repeatedly told legislators that 
Blackrock had $292 billion in exposure to 
energy producing companies, as the company 
told him directly. Fleming warned that the bill’s 
liability provisions would scare away the most 
attractive investment contracts. “Bottom line…
it would probably cause us to sell just about 
everything we have other than US Treasuries,” 
Fleming stated in a Senate hearing presided 
over by Senator Biteman, the bills’ sponsor. 
“Mr. Chairman, please do not shoot the 
messenger,” Fleming told a frustrated Senator 
Biteman, assuring him that he was relaying 
concerns from experts.
In the subsequent House hearing, Fleming 
said that even with “escape clauses,” the 
liability risks posed by SF 159 could result 
in losing the largest, most cost-effective 
contracted fund managers. “JP Morgan is 
only really one of two large managers that 
WYOMING

2023 STATEHOUSE REPORT
P 44
could do the work that we do for a $25 
billion entity. It’s not like just going out and 
getting somebody else to do this,” he said. 
This point was reinforced by Scott Meier of 
the Wyoming Bankers Association, who told 
House committee members, “I listened to 
Mr. Fleming and I had to laugh a little bit to 
myself…None of your Wyoming banks, your 
community banks, can backfill on this baby. 
It’s just too big. So we have to rely on the big 
banks to take care of that. We just don’t have 
the capacity to do that.”
In stark contrast to the fossil fuel salute 
expressed in Senator Biteman’s bills, 
Fleming told legislators that the pension-
focused bill, SF 172, could have blocked 
state retirement investments in Peabody 
Energy, simply for publishing material about 
reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Peabody 
is the world’s largest private coal mining 
company, and it operates three large mines 
in Wyoming’s Powder River Basin. Ironically, 
the bill was supported by the Energy Policy 
Network, a Peabody-funded front group that 
was established by one of the company’s 
longtime lobbyists.
Fleming’s concerns were shared by other 
lobbyists attending the hearings. Pete 
Obermueller of the Petroleum Association 
of Wyoming (PAW) told state representatives 
that many of PAW’s member companies had 
prominently published ESG commitments. 
Obermueller provided three examples of 
companies that were making efforts to monitor 
and reduce methane emissions, or were 
recognized for ESG compliance, which could 
result in significant consequences if Biteman’s 
bills became law. 
By the end of a House Appropriations 
committee hearing on the bills, the 
committee’s chairman and other Republicans 
were skeptical. After surprising Senator 
Biteman with substitute language that gutted 
both of his bills, Biteman was incredulous: “To 
say I’m disappointed is an understatement. 
To treat a sitting fellow legislator like this 
in a public committee–which is actually a 
public execution, not a public committee–but 
nonetheless, to spring a substitute bill on 
me in committee without me even knowing 
about it, seeing it…I just say shame on you.” 
Both bills received a do not pass vote and 
proceeded no further.
CASE STUDY / WYOMING

2023 STATEHOUSE REPORT
P 45
CASE STUDY
Congressional Republicans have emulated 
their state-level counterparts’ attacks on 
socially responsible investing. Particularly as 
federal financial regulators have taken steps to 
acknowledge climate change as an “emerging 
and increasing threat” to the financial system, 
the federal-level campaign against ESG has 
sought to undermine steps taken to monitor 
and regulate systemic risks. 
In February, congressional Republicans 
approved a Congressional Review Act 
(CRA) resolution to overturn a rule by the 
Department of Labor (DOL) that allows—
but does not require— investment plans to 
consider ESG factors. The DOL rule expressly 
called for “appropriate regulatory neutrality” 
with respect to ESG considerations, yet was 
portrayed by congressional Republicans as 
forcing the pursuit of a “political agenda” 
through retirement plans. President Biden 
vetoed the CRA resolution.
In 2023, Congressional Republicans 
have introduced several pieces of federal 
legislation that strongly resemble model 
restrictions on the freedom to invest at the 
state level. US Representative Andy Barr (R-
KY) has introduced the Fair Access to Banking 
Act. The bill would amend the Federal 
Reserve Act to deny large financial institutions 
who refuse to offer financial services to a 
business that is in compliance with the law 
access to key programs, such as the Federal 
Reserve’s discount window. This sweeping 
approach would potentially restrict banks 
from making sound business decisions about 
exposure to physical, transition, and liability 
risks related to climate change. 
Another example is Representative Barr’s 
Ensuring Sound Guidance Act, which would 
modify the Employee Retirement Income 
Security Act of 1974 to ban retirement plan 
trustees from considering ESG factors. 
The legislation mimics the approach taken 
through numerous model state bills by 
requiring investment advisers to consider only 
“pecuniary factors” when making investment 
decisions. As legal scholars David Webber, 
David Berger, and Beth Young have pointed 
out in “The Liability Trap,” this bill creates an 
unworkable definition of what is considered 
pecuniary and non-pecuniary, and purports to 
focus investment advisers only on factors that 
have a “material effect” on firm values, even 
though ESG factors have had a demonstrated 
material effect on firm value over time.
FEDERAL