Latest action: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
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
Removes tax benefits for organizations that fund political activities secretly.
The problem
Some groups spend money on politics without showing who donates. Current tax laws may help these groups save money. Critics say this hides political influence from voters.
The proposal
The bill would end tax breaks for organizations that make political spending without revealing their donors. Groups doing secret political spending would lose tax-exempt status benefits.
The impact
Political groups, donors, and taxpayers affected. May change how political money flows and who funds campaigns. Could affect nonprofit organizations that do political work.
Voters would know more about who funds political campaigns and causes. This helps people make informed voting decisions. Secret money in politics would become less attractive.
Organizations doing political work would lose special tax benefits. This makes the tax system more fair and consistent. All groups doing similar activities would follow same rules.
Political donors could not hide behind anonymous groups as easily. Elected officials would know who actually wants their support. Public debate becomes more honest about funding sources.
Some argue transparency rules discourage people from political giving. Donors might face pressure or harassment if names are public. Groups say secret giving protects members' right to private beliefs.
Some legitimate nonprofits discuss policies without full donor disclosure. These organizations might lose tax benefits even if not primarily political. Small advocacy groups could be hurt more than large ones.
Hard to define what counts as political spending versus policy discussion. Different groups might be treated differently based on interpretation. Could lead to lawsuits over what qualifies as political activity.
Groups could restructure to keep tax benefits while hiding donors through other methods. Money might just move to different types of organizations. Problem could shift rather than disappear entirely.
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.