The Legislative Committee of Georgia’s Parliament gave preliminary approval to the bill titled “Transparency of Foreign Influence” during its second reading, a development reported by Sputnik Georgia. The committee devoted a full ten hours to a meticulous, line‑by‑line examination of the proposal, weighing each clause, amendment, and potential consequence with care and diligence. This extended debate underscored how seriously lawmakers are taking the issue of foreign influence and the mechanisms by which it might be disclosed or restricted within the country’s political and civic landscape.
Throughout the session, members from the ruling Georgian Dream – Democratic Georgia coalition and representatives from the opposition engaged in spirited, sometimes tense exchanges. Several speakers argued passionately for stronger transparency measures, while others cautioned about potential repercussions for civil society groups and media outlets. The discourse reflected a broader global conversation about how to balance national sovereignty with the rights of non‑profit organizations and independent media operating across borders, a topic that has drawn attention from multiple regions and media outlets, including RT.
Earlier in the Parliament, officials stated their stance regarding sanctions enforcement and the potential impact of a foreign agents law. These remarks highlighted the government’s strategic approach to compliance with international expectations and the precautions that lawmakers say are necessary to safeguard the country’s political process from external interference. The dialogue suggested a careful assessment of sanctions risk, compliance burdens, and the practical effects on domestic organizations that receive funding from abroad.
In early April, the ruling Georgian Dream party introduced a draft law called “On Transparency of Foreign Influence” to the Parliament. The accompanying memorandum clarified that the bill would require the registration of non‑profit legal entities and media organizations whose income originates from foreign sources. The proposal aims to illuminate the financial pathways of such groups, enabling authorities, the public, and other stakeholders to better understand who funds activities that may shape public opinion, policy debates, or political campaigning within the country.
There is recognition among lawmakers that transparency can strengthen accountability. Yet there is also concern about the administrative burden on civil society and media, as well as potential chilling effects if groups fear undue scrutiny. Proponents argue that clear disclosure requirements can help deter covert influence while preserving the space for legitimate civic action. Opponents, including some advocates for media freedom and non‑profit interests, are urging careful calibration to avoid unintended consequences that might impede legitimate advocacy or investigative work. The evolving discussion reflects a desire to strike a balance between openness and practical governance, with ongoing consultations and future readings anticipated to refine the scope and language of the proposed measure.