Political hardball got Georgia tort damage limits passed. Now comes the collateral damage.
State Rep. Vance Smith, a Pine Mountain Republican, was ousted from his position as CEO of the Harris County Chamber of Commerce during a Friday afternoon Zoom call. He tearfully recounted his dismissal during a speech in the House chamber Tuesday. Ross Williams/Georgia Recorder (file photo)
Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp's big 2025 legislative push to pass lawsuit damage limits is ready for his victory lap, but as the dust settles in the wake of Thursday's razor-close House vote on Senate Bill 68, some legislators' nerves are still frayed and one longtime lawmaker lost his job over his vote.
Lawmakers in both parties are beginning to feel the fallout of their votes on the pivotal bill aimed at overhauling Georgia's civil litigation system as party leaders and powerful business interests take note of who toed the party line and who crossed it. In the House, where the bill passed along razor-thin margins, eight Republicans broke ranks to vote against the legislation and three Democrats joined the majority to secure the bill's passage. In the final Senate vote, two Democrats crossed party lines to vote in support of the legislation, and one Republican opposed it.
State Rep. Vance Smith, a Pine Mountain Republican, was ousted from his position as CEO of the Harris County Chamber of Commerce during a Friday afternoon Zoom call. He tearfully recounted his dismissal during a speech in the House chamber Tuesday.
Though SB 68 successfully cleared both chambers, Kemp repeatedly twisted arms throughout the session to coerce lawmakers into passing the bill. At the start of the 2025 session, he had pledged to drag lawmakers back to Atlanta for a special session if 'meaningful, impactful' changes were not made to the state's civil justice system by the end of the regular session on April 4. A key lieutenant also threatened the governor would use his substantial campaign warchest to back primary challengers to any Republicans who opposed the bill, and ahead of the final Senate vote, Republicans briefly paused floor proceedings to assemble for a caucus meeting attended by Kemp.
Republicans in both chambers might have to wait until the 2026 election season to see if Kemp makes good on his promise.
Smith, whose west Georgia district spans parts of Harris, Muscogee and Troup counties, first joined the Georgia Legislature in 1993. He has long been a reliable member of the Republican caucus, making his vote on Thursday somewhat unexpected. In an emotional speech on the House floor Tuesday morning, Smith made veiled references to the fallout from his decision.
'A lot of things have transpired since last week when we left,' he said, thanking his family and members of the house for their support over the past few days. He also tearfully quoted the Bible verse Jeremiah 29:11, ''for I know the plans I have for you,' declares the Lord, 'plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.''
Though Smith expressed surprise over the Harris County Chamber of Commerce's abrupt decision to fire him, he told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that he did not regret his vote. The Georgia Chamber of Commerce and local chambers formed a powerful alliance in the fight to get a bill passed intended to limit jury payouts for medical malpractice and negligent property owners.
House leaders also addressed the strong reactions to Thursday's vote, with House Majority Caucus Whip James Burchett, a Waycross Republican who sponsored the bill in the House, urging Georgia residents to 'hold legislators accountable for their votes under the Gold Dome at the ballot box – not by taking aim at their ability to support their families.'
'Numerous members have suffered threats to their livelihoods and independence because of their votes on Senate Bill 68,' Burchett said in a statement issued Tuesday afternoon. 'These retaliations undermine the strengths of our citizen legislature, which depends on members voting their conscience after fully weighing the issues and determining what they think is best for their communities and our state.'
Democrats are also grappling with the aftermath of SB 68's passage, with House minority leaders sharply criticizing the members of their caucus who broke ranks to vote for the legislation.
'We were sent here to make hard decisions, and hard decisions are hard because you have to look people in the eye that you disappoint,' said Rep. Stacey Evans, an Atlanta Democrat, shortly after the bill passed in the House. 'Those victims won't be here every day, but the chamber will be here. Insurance companies will be here, and I think too many of my colleagues were worried about walking down the hall and looking them in the eye and not worried about the people back home.'
Rep. Mack Jackson, a Sandersville Democrat who is Black with a history of splitting from his party on pivotal votes, criticized the House Democratic caucus in a speech on the House floor last Friday, comparing an unnamed Democratic colleague to segregation-era figures like Bull Connor and George Wallace.
'I realized that somewhere in her subconscious mind, she thought that she had bought me and my freedom to choose,' he said, referencing a conversation in which the unnamed colleague brought up her contribution to his most recent re-election campaign. 'I gave her her money back because I don't want anyone to think that they own me and can talk down to me as if I'm a child.'
He also described other conversations with fellow Democrats who expressed disappointment with his vote, and requested that their campaign contributions be refunded.
'I'll refund everything, because I don't ever want anybody to think that they own me,' he said.
Rep. Michelle Au, a Johns Creek Democrat and doctor who also voted in favor of the bill, took to social media to explain her decision, posting a two-page statement on the social media site X (formerly Twitter).
'It is by no means a perfect bill,' Au wrote. 'There are elements I object to. But on balance I think it protects our fair, equal access for all to our justice system while hopefully addressing the ways our litigation environment has become untenable for many.'
The second part of Kemp's tort package, Senate Bill 69 that would increase regulations around third-party lawsuit financing, passed the House Rules Subcommittee on Lawsuit Reform Tuesday evening. It is expected to come up for a vote on the House floor later this week.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘Coward' Elon Musk Mocked On His Own Platform After Bending The Knee To Trump
Elon Musk went into damage-control mode early Wednesday as he tried to mend fences with President Donald Trump after their spectacular falling-out last week. And his critics are mocking his public show of fealty on his own platform. Musk spent some $291 million during the 2024 election cycle, most notably to help Trump, according to and became a constant presence by his side. Once in office, Trump put Musk in charge of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency to cut government spending. But Musk left his role, attacked Trump's signature 'big, beautiful bill' as a 'disgusting abomination,' and went scorched-earth against his one-time ally in a series of posts on X last week. Musk wrote that Trump won't release the files of late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein because the president is named in them, shared a post in support of impeaching Trump and replacing him with Vice President JD Vance, and floated the creation of a third political party. Trump, in turn, threatened repercussions for Musk's businesses and warned him of 'serious consequences' if he backed Democrats for office. But Musk blinked on Wednesday. He wrote that he regretted some of his posts about Trump and said some of them 'went too far.' He also deleted many of those messages. His critics fired back: 'They Went Too Far': Elon Musk Just Walked Back Some Of His Explosive Criticism Of Trump Trump Reveals What's Next For That Tesla He Bought From Elon Musk Trump Mocked After Suffering Awkward Brain Fart While Trying To Insult Biden


Fox News
23 minutes ago
- Fox News
Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' cracks down on Biden's student loan 'scheme,' top Republican says
The chairman of a key Senate panel is claiming victory against former President Joe Biden's student loan plans as part of President Donald Trump's "one big, beautiful bill." "The Biden administration was attempting to forgive student loans for people who willingly took on the loan and required the taxpayer, including people who never went to college and would never make what the person who took the loan would ever have the hope to make," Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee Chairman Bill Cassidy, R-La., told Fox News Digital. "So we end that transfer of that student loan on the taxpayers, and that's probably our biggest savings." Cassidy's committee released its portion of the Trump agenda bill late on Tuesday. A press release for the legislation said it "ends Biden's student loan schemes that transfer debt onto the 87 percent of Americans who chose to not go to college or already paid off their loans" and "also prevents future Democrat administrations from implementing schemes." The bill specifically takes aim at Biden's expansion of Borrower Defense to Repayment regulations and Closed School Discharge regulations, which Republicans have held up as costly policies that shift federal student loan borrowers' burdens onto other taxpayers. Various versions of Biden's plans had previously been struck down in court. The bill would also eliminate federal Grad PLUS loans, a program used by graduate-level and professional students to pay for their studies, which can be used for graduate students' entire cost of attendance. It would instead keep in place a $20,500 annual limit for Federal Direct Unsubsidized Loans on graduate degrees, capped at $100,000 total, excluding undergraduate loans. For professional degrees, it keeps a $50,000 annual unsubsidized loan limit and a $200,000 total cap. The legislation is also aimed at cracking down on taxpayer funding subsidizing degrees from lower-performing universities. Colleges that see people with undergraduate degrees earn less than the typical high school graduate in their state, or graduate programs where attendees then earn less than the normal bachelor's recipient, would be blocked from federal student loan programs. "What we've got was a situation where people can borrow more money than they can effectively pay back, and that destroys their life, leaving them with a debt burden which keeps them unable to do other things in life. And there's at least some sense that universities offering these programs know that's the case. And so we attempt to fix that," Cassidy said. "So we have provisions that would say that if the degree being acquired does not end up paying more, the person receiving that degree doesn't get more on average than a person who did not get that degree, then the federal government is not going to lend them money." To encourage more people to pursue non-collegiate degrees, the bill would also establish a Workforce Pell Grant. Pell Grants are currently aimed at low-income students pursuing bachelor's degrees and are generally not repaid. "For example, a student gets a commercial driver's license. They're going to go out and make $100,000 a year after a couple of years of driving, I am told. And so we want to enable those people to accomplish that," Cassidy said. Foreign income would be taken into account when evaluating Pell Grants, while farm and small business assets would not, under the GOP bill. Those and several other measures in the legislation would add up to roughly $300 billion in taxpayer savings, Cassidy said. Senate Republicans are currently working through their version of Trump's massive agenda bill, which passed the House late last month. Republicans are using the budget reconciliation process to pass a sweeping bill advancing Trump's agenda on taxes, immigration, energy, defense and the national debt. They are also working to use it to bring down the national debt – nearing $37 trillion – with the aim of cutting $1.5 trillion in federal spending. Reconciliation allows the party in power to completely skirt the minority, in this case Democrats, by lowering the Senate's threshold to advance from 60 votes to 51. The legislation must adhere to a specific set of rules, however, including measures that deal with the budget, taxation, or the national debt. Both the House and Senate must agree to identical versions of the bill before it gets to Trump's desk for a signature. The House's version passed 215 to 214, and leaders there have implored the upper chamber to change as little as possible. Cassidy acknowledged there were some changes made but was optimistic about how they'll be met in the House. "There's several things, but one thing I think that they're going to like is that we do fully fund the Pell Grant program. You know, we address the shortfall there. And so I think they're going to like it," he said. "It's going to give low-income students access to career education. We need those kind of career type jobs to make sure that all this manufacturing and construction has a workforce to address it. And so we think it helps the needs of society. We think it helps the needs of the student." House and Senate GOP leaders had previously set a goal of having a bill on Trump's desk by the Fourth of July. Cassidy declined to comment on whether that was a feasible benchmark but argued that lawmakers should be ready to extend that timeline – and possibly shrink their summer recess – to get the final product. "As far as I'm concerned, the most important thing is to get it right. So if there is a delay, the president said it today – if there is a delay, that's not that big of a deal. The most important thing is we get it right," he said.


The Hill
28 minutes ago
- The Hill
House GOP advances first 2026 funding bill out of committee
House Republicans early Wednesday morning advanced legislation that calls for more than $450 billion to fund the Department of Veterans Affairs, military construction and other programs for fiscal year 2026. The bill advanced out of the GOP-led House Appropriations Committee along party lines, as Democrats came out in strong opposition to the plan. It marks the first of the 12 annual funding bills House GOP appropriators are hoping to move out of committee before Congress leaves for its August recess. The bill calls for about $152 billion in discretionary funding for fiscal 2026, marking a 3 percent increase compared to current levels. Overall, the bill would provide about $453 billion for the VA, including $300 billion for mandatory programs. Among the increases Republicans have highlighted in the measure are boosts to the VA, military construction and family housing, and funding for a new homelessness program. In his opening remarks on Tuesday, Rep. John Carter (R-Texas), the head of the subcommittee that crafts the annual funding bill, said the bill ensures 'veterans get the benefits and care they've earned.' 'The bill does that while also addressing other issues affecting veterans, including homelessness, mental health services and taking care of our women veterans,' he said. 'The bill also makes crucial investments totaling nearly $18 billion in the infrastructure of our service members need to work on to live.' Democrats, however, have railed against the plan, needling Republicans for not including advanced funding for the Toxic Exposure Fund in the proposal, which they also said falls nearly $1 billion short of the funding needed for military construction. Democrats have also accused Republicans of seeking to privatize medical care for veterans. 'This bill hurdles us towards VA privatization, a top project 2025, priority that undercuts what veterans consistently ask for, which is the high quality medical care at VA, by transferring record funding from VA medical services to community care,' Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.), the top Democrat on the veterans' funding subcommittee, said. House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) has emphasized as the committee ramps up its funding work that the legislation currently being considered will look different when eventual bipartisan spending talks begin. Senior GOP appropriators have also acknowledged that further changes are possible during the annual process as they await more information from the Trump administration about the president's vision for government funding for fiscal 2026 and beyond. 'As this process moves forward and we receive further documentation on the OMB budget, we will take it under consideration, put forward a product that best addresses the needs of our service members and veterans,' Carter said during the meeting on Tuesday, referring to the Office of Management and Budget. The bill comes about a week after hardline conservatives urged top appropriators to write bills 'consistent' with President Trump's budget request and to 'include adjustments initiated' by his Department of Government Efficiency. In a slim budget request released earlier this year, Trump called for cutting funding for domestic programs by more than $160 billion for fiscal 2026. As appropriators await more details from the administration, the committee also approved interim subcommittee allocations for a third of the annual funding bills. 'These interim allocations will allow us to begin our work. As we move forward, this committee is prepared to do the hard work – line by line – to uphold fiscal discipline and effective governance,' Cole said. However, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, criticized Republicans over the process, saying negotiators are 'beginning the appropriations process without a total funding level.' 'We are flying blind and handcuffed into the critical work of providing discretionary funding for programs and services across the government that help to grow the middle class, protect the working class, support small businesses, and grow our economy – this is important business that cannot be done responsibly without a complete vision for how we plan to fund the government.'