O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 21-5-1 (2019)

Short title

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

This chapter shall be known as and may be cited as the “Georgia Government Transparency and Campaign Finance Act.”

History

Code 1981, § 21-5-1, enacted by Ga. L. 1986, p. 957, § 1; Ga. L. 2022, p. 3, § 2/SB 120. The 2022 amendment, effective March 2, 2022, substituted “Georgia Gov-

ernment Transparency and Campaign Finance Act” for “Ethics in Government Act”.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case: State v. Agan, 384 S.E.2d 863 (Ga. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Agan, 384 S.E.2d 863 (Ga. 1989). · cites it 6× “” Regarding the Ethics in Government Act, OCGA § 21-5-1 et seq., the court charged: A campaign contribution means a gift, an advance or deposit of money or anything of value, conveyed or transferred for the purposes of influencing the nomination for election or election of any…”
Caldwell v. Bateman, 312 S.E.2d 320 (Ga. 1984). · cites it 8× “, as amended; OCGA § 21-5-1 et seq. (Code Ann. § 40-3801 et seq.”
Oxendine v. Gov't Transparency & Campaign Fin. Comm'n, 802 S.E.2d 310 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 4× “]” In June 2012, the 1 OCGA § 21-5-1. 2 OCGA § 21-5-41 (2009) regulates campaign contributions from persons, corporations, political committees, or political parties.”
Agan v. State, 380 S.E.2d 757 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 4× “, that the payments were campaign contributions made as part of a lobbying effort by Agan and the local Turkish-American association rather than as bribes, constituted reversible error.”
Agan v. Vaughn, 119 F.3d 1538 (11th Cir. 1997). “The Georgia Supreme Court interpreted the Georgia Court of Appeals’ holding to mean “in effect, that if money given to an office holder qualifies as a campaign contribution, requiring reporting under the Ethics in Government Act, OCGA § 21-5-1 et seq., then it cannot be a bribe.”
State Ethics Comm'n v. Long, 478 S.E.2d 618 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 6× “Permission to pursue a discretionary appeal was granted to the State Ethics Commission (“the Commission”) to answer the question whether the superior court erred in failing to award attorney fees under OCGA § 21-5-6 (b) (14) (C) (v), after the Commission prevailed in an…”
State Ethics Comm'r v. Moore, 447 S.E.2d 687 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “This is a discretionary appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Glynn County reversing a decision of the State Ethics Commission under the Ethics in Government Act, OCGA § 21-5-1 et seq. The Commission found that Moore, a candidate for a commissioner’s post in Glynn…”
Georgia Gov't Transparency & Campaign Fin. Comm'n v. State Mut. Ins., 740 S.E.2d 419 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “r Court ruling that the expiration of the applicable statute of limitation barred the Commission’s preliminary investigation into whether reasonable grounds existed to believe that State Mutual Insurance Company and Admiral Life Insurance Company (the Companies) made…”
New Georgia Proj., Inc. v. Carr (N.D. Ga. 2022). · cites it 4× “The Commission was established by the Georgia Government Transparency and Campaign Finance Act (the “Act”), O.C.G.A. §§ 21-5-1 to -76. Under the Act, members of the Commission have duties which include “mak[ing] investigations .”
Georgia Gov't Transparency & Campaign Fin. Comm'n v. State Mut. Ins. Co. (Ga. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “n County Superior Court ruling that the expiration of the applicable statute of limitation barred the Commission’s preliminary investigation into whether reasonable grounds existed to believe that State Mutual Insurance Company and Admiral Life Insurance Company made…”
Richard Jackson v. William Jones (11th Cir. 2026). “OCGA §§ 21-5-1, 21-5-2. The law imposes limits on the amount of money that candidates for statewide office can accept from individual contributors.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.