Proceedings of public official surety bonds arrange a variety of contacts with officials. They may volunteer to assist with political campaigns or call on public officials in their offices. The producers are required to speak to sureties well before elections. Sureties have the option to choose not to write public official bonds in a specific region if their experience has been unsatisfactory. Should the surety write a public official bond, a producer can visit with surety staff to achieve insight into the idiosyncrasies of this business in states where the bonds are necessary.
Producers who fulfill their customers’ bonding and insurance requests benefit from potent word-of-mouth advertising. The producers can tap joint friendships to achieve the attention of candidates for office or public officials and can solicit surety bonds directly from these officials. All producers serve themselves and their potential principals by proposing services in September once primary elections have concluded and the candidates are identified. The candidates gain by making early bond commitments because they can avoid additional bond solicitations.
A number of government entities acquire qualifying bonds directly from sureties and forward the commission savings to the public officials. In the majority of cases, procuring the surety bond and compensation for its cost are statutory privileges of the officeholder.
A new law was presented in Ohio State relating to oil wells. The new law is titled SB 165 and provides procedures for acquiring a momentary inactive status for an oil or gas well. Upon the third renewal of this status, a surety bond of no more than $10,000 for every inactive well is necessary. The new law provides for an additional surety bond to be required in relation to the forfeiture of bonds required under present law for oil and gas wells. Surety bonds are subject to forfeiture under present legislation for failures to properly refurbish or plug wells according to the law’s stipulations, or for failure to satisfy the conditions of the permit. Should the surety bond be forfeited, SB 165 states that the individual forfeiting the bond may be required to attain a new surety bond in the quantity of $15,000 for a single well, $30,000 for two wells and for $50,000 for three or more wells. 
SB 56 is a new study measure in the State of New Hampshire concerning the Commission to Study Issues Relative to Groundwater Withdrawals. SB 56 directs the Commission to Study Issues Relative to Groundwater Withdrawals to examine the amount of financial accountability that would be essential for hefty withdrawals of groundwater. The Commission must consider possible harm to the environment and adjacent wells, including unreasonable reductions in well capacity or contaminant migration from off-site sources. The bill initially stated that a financial instrument would have been required, including “bonding or insurance, in at least the quantity of $1 million.” The financial instruments would have been necessary to cover any environmental destruction, including groundwater corruption and unwarranted reductions in well capacity. The bill was transformed into a study measure in the Senate. 
SB 184 is a new law that was presented in Minnesota State relating to post-secondary institutions. The new law authorizes alternative types of security for the present surety bond required of post-secondary institutions that have dropped below the U.S. Department of Education’s minimum financial standards to partake in Title IV programs. The present legislation requires a surety bond in a minimum quantity of $10,000 or more than $250,000 conditioned on the performance of all agreements or contracts with students. SB 184 authorizes cash or securities to be deposited in the place of the surety bond. 
A new bill was enacted affecting real estate appraisal management companies in the State of Tennessee. The new bill, which is titled HB 3191, requires real estate appraisal management companies to register and acquire a $50,000 surety bond. The new legislation states that the particulars regarding the surety bond would be established by regulation. HB 3191 became active upon enactment for the purposes of implementing such regulations, but the registration requirements will not be active until July 1st, 2011. 
