Latest action: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Referred to one or more standing committees for review, hearings, and possible markup.
Specific committees not parsed from action data.
The committee may hold hearings, amend the bill, or let it die without action.
Next: Reported
Full chamber floor — Speaker / Majority Leader controls scheduling
Prevents government officials from receiving gifts or money while in office.
The problem
Government officials may receive improper gifts or payments that could influence their decisions or create conflicts of interest with their public duties.
The proposal
Restricts government officials from accepting gratuities, gifts, or financial benefits while serving in their positions.
The impact
Government officials face stricter rules about what they can accept. Citizens may see reduced corruption risks. Officials' personal interactions could be limited.
Preventing officials from accepting gifts makes it harder for special interests to influence government decisions through favors. This protects the integrity of government actions and public trust.
A specific law creates clear rules about what officials can and cannot accept. Officials know exactly what is banned, reducing confusion about ethics rules.
When officials cannot receive gifts, decisions are more likely based on what helps the public rather than who gave them money. This improves government fairness.
Citizens trust government more when they know officials are not receiving hidden payments or gifts. This strengthens democracy and civic participation.
The bill title does not explain what counts as a gratuity or gift. Without clear definitions, officials and courts may disagree about what is actually banned.
Proving someone received an improper gift is difficult. The government would need resources to investigate and enforce this rule fairly against all officials.
Overly strict rules could prevent officials from accepting normal, harmless items like coffee from family or modest gifts. This might create awkward workplace situations.
Without specific details in the bill, wealthy people could find ways around the rule through indirect payments or benefits. The law might not actually stop corruption.
Generated by AI from the bill text. Not a prediction and not legal or policy advice. The percentage is the model's own rating of each item — self-reported, and not a measure of how accurate it is.
Loading map…
Loading...
0 citizens have already voted
Free · No spam · See how your representatives voted
Be the first to weigh in
Your vote starts the conversation
How citizen engagement works
Citizens vote & comment
Public opinion data is aggregated and updated in real time.
Patterns become visible
Representatives can see constituent sentiment broken down by district.
Your voice on the record
Contact your rep directly — one constituent call can shift a staffer's priority list.
Research shows that constituent contacts — especially calls — are among the most effective ways to influence a legislator's position on active bills.
Individual contributions, grouped by employer · FEC
Where their individual donors work · 2026 cycle
Money from people who work there, not from the company. Not tied to this bill.
Itemized individual contributions via FEC, grouped by the employer each contributor self-reported. Companies and unions cannot contribute to federal candidates from their treasuries, so these totals are money from people who work at an employer — never from the organization itself. They are campaign contributions covering a full election cycle and are not connected to this bill.
Senate LDA lobbying disclosures
Couldn't load lobbying disclosures right now.