Bill Huizenga (R-MI)
Empowering Shareholders Act of 2026
A Republican bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The Empowering Shareholders Act of 2026 aims to amend the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. It establishes new requirements for how investment advisers vote proxies for passively managed funds. Under this bill, advisers can vote based on owner instructions, board recommendations, or abstain from voting. The act also creates a "safe harbor" to protect advisers from liability when they follow these specific voting methods. Additionally, it mandates certain information dissemination requirements for investment advisers regarding voting policies.
Yes· 3 of 9
- Scored +3
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?
Increases beneficial owners' control over how their shares in passively managed funds are voted.
- Scored +2
Would people over 65 be better off under this?
Many seniors hold passively managed funds for retirement and would gain more voting control.
- Scored +2
Would middle-income households be better off under this?
Provides retail investors in index funds more say in corporate governance.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Does this leave more decisions to the states?
Creates a federal safe harbor that protects advisers from state laws and regulations.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Increased Flexibility for Beneficial Owners: Investment advisers would be required to vote in accordance with the instructions or published voting policies of the beneficial owner of a security. This allows those with a stake in the fund to have more direct influence over how their shares are voted. (Section 2(a)(1)(A))
-
Liability Protection for Investment Advisers: The bill establishes a "safe harbor" that prevents investment advisers from being held liable under various laws, regulations, or contracts when they vote according to the specified methods, such as following owner instructions or board recommendations. (Section 2(b))
-
Streamlined Information Access: Investment advisers must provide a form to allow voting persons to select a published voting policy, and this information can be delivered electronically through websites or mobile applications. (Section 2(d)(1) and (2))
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Limited Scope for Routine Matters: The new voting requirements and the associated safe harbor protections do not apply to "routine matters," such as the election of directors, management compensation, or the selection of auditors. (Section 2(a)(2) and Section 2(e)(5))
-
Restrictions on Voting Policies: To qualify as a "published voting policy," the policy must not seek to set the day-to-day management decisions of an issuer, involve submitting shareholder proposals, nominate directors, or coordinate votes with other index managers. (Section 2(e)(3)(B))
-
Exceptions for Foreign Issuers: The specific requirements regarding proxy voting do not apply to foreign private issuers, provided their published voting policy is fully and fairly disclosed to beneficial owners. (Section 2(c))
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would billionaires be better off under this? — Increases direct control over proxy voting for their investments. Would high-income households be better off under this? — Increases control for beneficial owners of securities. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — Increases direct control over proxy voting for their investments. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Provides retail investors in index funds more say in corporate governance. Would retired people be better off under this? — Retirees using index-based retirement accounts gain more transparency and control over voting. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Many seniors hold passively managed funds for retirement and would gain more voting control. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — Increases direct control over proxy voting for their investments.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — Increases beneficial owners' control over how their shares in passively managed funds are voted.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — Amends the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to create new federal requirements for proxy voting. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — Creates a federal safe harbor that protects advisers from state laws and regulations.
- 4/14/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.