A Democratic bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
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 Preventing Payouts for Insurrectionists Act. It aims to stop payouts for people involved in specific historical events. The legislation blocks claims brought by individuals convicted of certain crimes. These crimes include acts related to the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. They also involve actions to disrupt the certification of the 2020 presidential election or interfere with the 2016 presidential election. The bill applies to claims pending or brought on or after January 20, 2025. Finally, it requires individuals who already received payments to return the money to the U.S. Treasury.
Yes· 3 of 6
- Scored +3
Does this make elections run better?
By penalizing and preventing payouts related to actions against election certifications and interference, the bill discourages attacks on democratic institutions.
- Scored +2
Does this make the government pay for what it commits to?
Recouping public funds paid out to individuals convicted of crimes related to election interference or insurrection promotes fiscal accountability.
- Scored +2
Does this leave more decisions to the states?
The legislation empowers state attorneys general to bring civil enforcement actions to recover funds and direct a percentage to state law enforcement.
The opposite
- Scored -3
Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts?
The bill restricts certain convicted individuals from bringing legal claims and retroactively forces the return of previously awarded settlements.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Recoupment of Funds for the Treasury: Section 2(c)(1) requires individuals who received any monetary payment, judgment, award, compromise, settlement, or interest from the United States related to these claims to return the full amount to the Treasury of the United States. This is positive because it ensures that public funds are returned.
-
Support for State Law Enforcement: Section 2(c)(2)(B)(ii) orders individuals to pay damages equal to 25 percent of the owed funds to the State to defray the costs of State law enforcement and the administration of justice. This is positive because it provides financial support to states.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Denial of Claims: Section 2(a) prevents individuals convicted of felonies or misdemeanors related to the January 6, 2021 attack, the 2020 election certification disruption, or the 2016 election interference from bringing claims. This is a burden because it completely blocks these individuals from receiving payouts.
-
Forced Return of Money: Section 2(c)(1) forces individuals who already received a payment, judgment, award, compromise, settlement, or interest between January 20, 2025, and the date of enactment to return the full amount. This is a negative consequence for those individuals who must give the money back.
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.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — Recouping public funds paid out to individuals convicted of crimes related to election interference or insurrection promotes fiscal accountability. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — The bill requires individuals to return previously disbursed government funds to the U.S. Treasury, modestly improving federal budget recovery.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make elections run better? — By penalizing and preventing payouts related to actions against election certifications and interference, the bill discourages attacks on democratic institutions. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — The legislation empowers state attorneys general to bring civil enforcement actions to recover funds and direct a percentage to state law enforcement. Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill expands federal restrictions on legal claims and mandates the return of funds to the U.S. Treasury. Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — The bill restricts certain convicted individuals from bringing legal claims and retroactively forces the return of previously awarded settlements.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this change how police departments operate? — The bill provides additional financial resources to state law enforcement agencies to help defray the costs of justice administration.
- 6/9/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
- Introduced in Senate