A Democratic bill with 3 Democratic cosponsors · See all 3 cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
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
This bill is called the Ban Corporate PACs Act. It amends the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to limit the authority of corporations to establish and operate separate segregated funds for political purposes. Under the text, only nonprofit corporations will have the authority to establish and operate these political funds. The bill also restricts the solicitation of contributions so that contributions can only be requested from executive and administrative personnel. Furthermore, the text applies similar nonprofit limitations to government contractors regarding political funds. Finally, existing political funds that do not belong to a nonprofit corporation are required to terminate and disburse their entire balance within one year.
Yes· 3 of 4
- Scored +8
Does this limit or expose the money behind campaigns?
The legislation directly amends federal campaign finance laws to restrict political fund creation solely to nonprofits.
- Scored +5
Does this make elections run better?
Supporters view limiting corporate PACs as a positive step toward reducing for-profit influence in elections.
- Scored +3
Does this limit the influence of paid lobbyists?
Restricting for-profit corporate political funds curtails a major avenue of corporate influence in the political process.
The opposite· 3 of 6
- Scored -6
Would business owners be better off under this?
For-profit business owners lose the authority to establish and operate corporate political action committees.
- Scored -5
Would billionaires be better off under this?
Billionaires and major corporate stakeholders lose access to corporate-sponsored political funds.
- Scored -4
Would high-income households be better off under this?
High-income individuals and stockholders lose their ability to be solicited for and contribute through for-profit corporate PACs.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 2(a) limits the authority to establish and operate separate segregated political funds strictly to nonprofit corporations. This could be seen as positive for people who want to restrict traditional for-profit corporate influence in politics, as for-profit entities lose this specific political committee avenue.
-
Section 2(b) restricts the solicitation of political contributions so that solicitations can only be made from executive and administrative personnel, removing stockholders and their families from the solicitation pool. This could be viewed positively by individuals who believe stockholders should not be targeted for political fund contributions by these entities.
-
Section 3(b) requires existing funds that do not meet the new nonprofit definition to terminate and disburse their entire balance within one year. This could be viewed as a positive step by citizens who favor a rapid wind-down of non-compliant political funds currently in operation.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Section 2(a) and Section 2(b) strip for-profit corporations of their authority to run political funds and eliminate stockholders and their families from being solicited for contributions. This could be viewed negatively by individuals who believe stockholders and for-profit corporate entities should retain their previous abilities to participate in the political fund process.
-
Section 2(c) limits government contractor political fund rules to nonprofit corporations. This could be considered a negative burden for any standard or for-profit government contractor that previously engaged in these activities, as they are no longer permitted to do so.
-
Section 3(b) forces existing funds that are not nonprofit corporations to terminate and disburse their entire balance no later than one year after enactment. This could be seen as a negative disruption for the personnel and operations tied to those existing funds that must abruptly shut down.
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 business owners be better off under this? — For-profit business owners lose the authority to establish and operate corporate political action committees. Would billionaires be better off under this? — Billionaires and major corporate stakeholders lose access to corporate-sponsored political funds. Would high-income households be better off under this? — High-income individuals and stockholders lose their ability to be solicited for and contribute through for-profit corporate PACs. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — High net worth individuals affected by corporate stock ownership face restrictions on corporate political fund participation. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — Ultra-high net worth individuals associated with for-profit corporations lose a key avenue for political contributions.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this limit or expose the money behind campaigns? — The legislation directly amends federal campaign finance laws to restrict political fund creation solely to nonprofits. Does this make elections run better? — Supporters view limiting corporate PACs as a positive step toward reducing for-profit influence in elections. Does this limit the influence of paid lobbyists? — Restricting for-profit corporate political funds curtails a major avenue of corporate influence in the political process. Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill imposes new federal campaign finance restrictions on for-profit corporations and government contractors. Does this protect the individual right to speak freely? — Critics argue that restricting for-profit corporations and stockholders from operating political funds limits political speech and participation.
- 7/29/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
- 3 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in Senate
2 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Andy KimDemocrat · New Jersey
Elissa SlotkinDemocrat · Michigan
Elizabeth WarrenDemocrat · Massachusetts