Skip to main content

Today, the Arizona House Committee on Government will hold a hearing on SB 1195, a bill which would ban public entities from spending money on a number of issues, including anything advocating for climate change mitigation.The legislation specifically states taxpayer funds cannot be used to reduce the consumption of meat or dairy products, replace motor vehicle travel with walking, or further Marxist ideologies including stakeholder capitalism.  

Spokesperson for Unlocking America’s Future Kyle Herrig said the following: 

“This draconian legislation will set back the state of Arizona if enacted. Extreme legislators are using conspiracy theories in order to push their radical agenda. Responsible investing is good for the country, good for the planet, and good for the pocketbooks of Arizonans. It’s clear legislators supporting SB 1195 are working against the best interests of their constituents.”


SB 1195 was introduced by Sen. Kern (R) and passed out of the Senate on February 29th along party lines. The bill prohibits public entities from spending public monies on anything that would “promote, advocate, or plan for, or become a member of an association or organization that promotes, advocates, or plans for” actions related to mitigating climate change. This would include reducing greenhouse gas  emissions or tracking and collecting information for determining consumption-based emissions; and producing or adopting a climate action plan.

E&E News: Arizona GOP echoes conspiracy theories in push to ban climate action. Arizona Republicans want to ban public spending on climate action under a sweeping proposal that targets mass transit and pollution data collection — as well as any attempts to replace meat with bugs, limit clothing ownership or promote “Marxist ideologies.” The state’s Republican-controlled House and Senate have passed various forms of the legislation, including a version that would bypass Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs and go directly on the November ballot. All versions of the bill would bar any public entity — from the state to cities to universities — from advocating, planning or joining an association that promotes a sprawling list of policies. Any registered voter in the state would be able to sue a public entity to enforce it.