Bill
H 3600
Massachusetts bill would shield the Tourism Trust Fund from indirect cost charges, keeping more funds for tourism marketing.
Below is a concise, objective summary of the materials you provided. The file appears to contain two distinct draft bills combined under the same docket information. I summarize each separately and note where the record is inconsistent so you can confirm which bill you want carried forward.
Summary — Inconsistent Record
- Bill number given: H 3600; title listed: "Review of Presidential Executive Orders"; status: Referred to Committee on Judiciary; introduced: 2/27/2025.
- Included bill texts: (A) Massachusetts House bill (House No. 3600 / Docket 1777) — an amendment to MA General Laws chapter 23A, §13T regarding the Tourism Trust Fund; and (B) a South Carolina draft statute adding S.C. Code §1‑7‑95 to authorize legislative review of presidential executive orders and restrict state implementation of certain orders.
- Legislative actions list multiple committee referrals (Tourism, Arts and Cultural Development; Judiciary), a Senate concurrence entry, and a hearing scheduled for 10/21/2025 — further evidence of mixed/merged records.
I. Massachusetts bill excerpt (House No. 3600 / Docket 1777 — sponsor: Rep. Thomas P. Walsh)
Purpose and intent
- To increase funding available for tourism marketing by exempting the Commonwealth’s Tourism Trust Fund from certain centralized cost charges.
Key provision
- Amends Section 13T of chapter 23A (as in the 2022 official edition) by adding subsection (f): “Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, the fund shall not be subject to a charge for indirect costs or fringe benefit costs by the comptroller pursuant to section 5D of chapter 29.”
- In short: the state comptroller would be prohibited from assessing indirect overhead or fringe-benefit charges against the Tourism Trust Fund.
Who is affected / likely impact
- Directly affects: the Massachusetts Tourism Trust Fund and entities receiving/disbursing those funds for tourism and visitation marketing and promotion.
- Indirectly affects: the Office of the Comptroller and central accounting/indirect cost recovery mechanisms under chapter 29, §5D.
- Fiscal effect: retains a larger share of appropriated or dedicated tourism trust money for programmatic use (marketing/visitation promotion). Conversely, the comptroller/central treasury would retain less recovered overhead revenue; net fiscal impact depends on amounts historically charged under §5D.
Procedural notes
- Sponsor: Rep. Thomas P. Walsh (12th Essex). Docketed as House No. 3600 / HD 1777 (replaces). Similar prior filing: House No. 3251 (2023–24).
II. South Carolina draft (adding S.C. Code §1‑7‑95)
Purpose and intent
- To create a formal mechanism by which the State Legislature can review presidential executive orders (EOs) that were not enacted by Congress and request the Attorney General (AG) to evaluate their constitutionality, and to bar state entities from implementing certain EOs the AG finds unconstitutional.
Key provisions
- Standing authorities to request review: General Assembly (either chamber), a standing committee, the Speaker of the House, the President of the Senate, or at least five members of the General Assembly.
- Upon request, the State AG must review the presidential EO and within 30 days submit findings and recommendations to the General Assembly and Governor and publish the report on the AG’s website.
- If the AG determines an EO is unconstitutional under this process and it “restricts a person's rights,” then the State, local governments, political subdivisions, and other publicly funded organizations may not implement it when it relates to any of these subject areas:
1. pandemics or other health emergencies;
2. regulation of natural resources;
3. regulation of the agriculture industry;
4. land use;
5. regulation of the financial sector related to environmental, social, or governance (ESG) standards;
6. regulation of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
- Effective date: upon approval by the Governor.
Who is affected / likely impact
- Affects: state agencies, local governments, public universities/authorities, and other publicly funded organizations that might otherwise implement federal EOs.
- Potential consequences: could create legal and operational conflicts with federal executive actions and raise federalism and Supremacy Clause issues; likely to lead to litigation if state actors refuse implementation based on AG determinations. Could materially affect public-health responses, environmental/regulatory initiatives, agriculture policy, ESG-related financial guidance, and firearms-related federal actions at the state level.
Procedural notes
- Draft language appears to be a stand‑alone addition to the S.C. Code; includes a 30‑day reporting timeline for the Attorney General.
Recommendation / next steps
- Please confirm which jurisdiction and bill text you want summarized or advanced: (A) Massachusetts Tourism Trust Fund amendment (Rep. Walsh / House No. 3600) or (B) the South Carolina statutory draft authorizing legislative review of presidential executive orders. I can then produce a single focused, jurisdiction‑specific summary, impact analysis, or suggested amendments.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
