A Republican bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on House Administration, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
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 CITE Act of 2026 requires candidates for Federal office to manage their financial interests more transparently. Candidates must divest from all covered investments, such as publicly traded stocks or bonds, or place them in a qualified blind trust. This requirement applies to the candidate as well as their spouse and dependent children. These actions must be completed or certified within 90 days of the candidate's filing date. Furthermore, candidates are prohibited from acquiring new covered investments while seeking office. The Act includes specific exemptions for items like index funds and U.S. Treasury securities.
Yes
- Scored +7
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
The bill significantly increases transparency regarding the personal financial interests of federal candidates.
- Scored +5
Does this make elections run better?
By increasing financial transparency for candidates, the bill enhances the integrity of the electoral process.
- Scored +3
Does this limit or expose the money behind campaigns?
The bill acts as a form of campaign finance reform by regulating the financial interests of those seeking office.
The opposite· 3 of 6
- Scored -4
Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this?
The mandate for divestiture or blind trusts imposes significant administrative and financial management burdens on wealthy candidates.
- Scored -4
Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this?
The bill limits the freedom of ultra-high-net-worth candidates to manage their own investment portfolios.
- Scored -4
Would billionaires be better off under this?
The requirement to divest or use blind trusts restricts the financial autonomy of extremely wealthy candidates.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Increased Transparency and Oversight: The requirement for candidates to file written certifications with a supervising ethics office ensures that their financial holdings are verified. (Section 3(c))
-
Protection Against Conflict of Interest: By requiring the use of a qualified blind trust managed by an independent trustee, the bill aims to prevent candidates from having knowledge of or influence over specific investment decisions. (Section 3(b))
-
Financial Security through Exemptions: The bill allows individuals to keep certain stable assets, such as widely diversified mutual funds, index funds, and U.S. Treasury securities, which provides flexibility for personal financial management. (Section 2(4))
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Financial Burden on Spouses and Children: The mandate requires covered individuals to make good faith efforts to ensure the investments of their spouse or dependent children are also divested or placed in a blind trust. (Section 3(d))
-
Potential Conflicts in Independent Finances: A spouse who maintains legally independent finances may be unable to consent to the required divestiture or placement of assets. (Section 3(d))
-
Restrictions on Asset Acquisition: Candidates are prohibited from purchasing new covered investments from the time they file for office until they are no longer seeking or holding Federal office. (Section 4(a))
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? — The requirement to divest or use blind trusts restricts the financial autonomy of extremely wealthy candidates. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — The mandate for divestiture or blind trusts imposes significant administrative and financial management burdens on wealthy candidates. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — The bill limits the freedom of ultra-high-net-worth candidates to manage their own investment portfolios. Would high-income households be better off under this? — High-income individuals seeking office face significant restrictions on their ability to manage or acquire specific investments. Would children be better off under this? — The bill mandates that the assets of dependent children may need to be divested or placed in a blind trust.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill significantly increases transparency regarding the personal financial interests of federal candidates. Does this make elections run better? — By increasing financial transparency for candidates, the bill enhances the integrity of the electoral process. Does this limit or expose the money behind campaigns? — The bill acts as a form of campaign finance reform by regulating the financial interests of those seeking office. Does this protect people from being watched or searched? — The bill may reduce individual financial privacy for candidates and their immediate families due to disclosure and divestiture requirements.
- 7/30/2026
- Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on House Administration, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- Introduced in House