TICKET Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/1402

Last Updated: July 12, 2026

TICKET Act

HR. 1402, 119th Congress — read as touching Entertainment & Streaming.

The sponsor

Rep. Bilirakis, Gus M. [R-FL-12]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$74,300 raised

21 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Trade" section, p. 859-862 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 163.

September 15, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed House

Senate Review

📍 Current Status

Next: Both chambers must agree on the same version of the bill.

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

**Analysis and Summary of HR 1402, the TICKET Act**

As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader in the realm of technological innovation, I shall dissect this legislative proposal with surgical precision, focusing on its implications for my business empire and the broader landscape of wealth creation.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The TICKET Act aims to impose transparency and accountability on the event ticketing industry by requiring sellers to disclose comprehensive information about ticket prices and related fees. The bill's proponents claim that this will protect consumers from deceptive practices and promote fair competition.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:**

1. **All-Inclusive Ticket Price Disclosure**: Sellers must clearly display total event ticket prices, including all fees, in advertisements, marketing materials, and during the purchasing process. 2. **Speculative Ticketing Ban**: Secondary market ticket issuers are prohibited from selling tickets they do not possess, unless they provide a clear service to obtain tickets on behalf of consumers. 3. **Disclosures**: Sellers must clearly indicate if they are engaged in secondary sales, avoid misleading affiliations with venues or artists, and refrain from using domain names that imply unauthorized relationships with venues.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. **Event Ticketing Industry**: Primary and secondary ticket sellers, including my own companies, will need to adapt to new disclosure requirements and restrictions on speculative ticketing practices. 2. **Consumers**: Theoretically, this bill aims to protect consumers from deceptive practices, but I suspect it will only lead to increased costs and reduced innovation in the industry. 3. **Venues and Artists**: They may benefit from clearer disclosures about secondary sales and affiliations, but this could also limit their ability to partner with ticketing companies.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Increased Regulatory Burden**: This bill will impose additional compliance costs on my companies, potentially stifling innovation and limiting our ability to create new revenue streams. 2. **Reduced Competition**: By restricting speculative ticketing practices, this bill may inadvertently reduce competition in the secondary market, leading to higher prices for consumers. 3. **New Opportunities for Litigation**: The TICKET Act's provisions will likely lead to increased litigation and regulatory scrutiny, which could benefit my companies' bottom line through strategic partnerships with law firms and lobbying efforts.

In conclusion, while this bill may appear to promote consumer protection, it is merely a thinly veiled attempt to stifle innovation and limit the growth of my business empire. As a visionary leader, I will continue to navigate these regulatory waters with ease, leveraging my vast resources and network of influence to shape the future of the event ticketing industry in my favor.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a bill is a proposed law that needs to go through the legislative process before it becomes an actual law. This one, HR 1402, also known as the TICKET Act, aims to regulate the ticketing industry.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to increase transparency and fairness in the ticketing market. It requires sellers of event tickets to disclose comprehensive information about ticket prices and related fees to consumers. This includes clearly displaying the total event ticket price, providing an itemized list of fees, and prohibiting speculative ticketing practices.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill has several key provisions that change existing law:

* Requires ticket issuers and secondary market ticket exchanges to disclose all-inclusive ticket prices and fees. * Bans speculative ticketing practices, where sellers offer tickets for sale without actually having them in hand. * Mandates clear disclosure of refund policies and procedures. * Prohibits ticket sellers from claiming affiliation with or endorsement by a venue, team, or artist unless they have a partnership agreement.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include:

* Ticket issuers (primary market) * Secondary market ticket exchanges * Consumers who buy event tickets * Venues, teams, and artists

**Potential Impact & Implications:** If this bill becomes law, it could lead to increased transparency and fairness in the ticketing industry. Consumers would have a better understanding of what they're paying for, and speculative ticketing practices would be curtailed. However, some argue that this regulation could stifle innovation in the ticketing market or drive up costs for consumers.

Remember when we learned about checks and balances in middle school? This bill is an example of how Congress can use its legislative power to regulate industries and protect consumer interests. Now, if only more people had paid attention in civics class...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

My fellow truth-seekers, gather 'round! Today, we're diving into the depths of HR 1402, the TICKET Act. On the surface, it appears to be a benevolent bill aimed at promoting transparency in event ticket sales. But, my friends, don't be fooled! There's more to this legislation than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The TICKET Act claims to require sellers of event tickets to disclose comprehensive information about ticket prices and related fees. Sounds reasonable, right? However, I believe this is just a smokescreen for the real agenda. The bill's true purpose is to further entrench government control over the ticketing industry, allowing them to monitor and manipulate consumer behavior.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill introduces several provisions that seem innocuous at first glance:

1. All-inclusive ticket price disclosure: Ticket sellers must clearly display the total event ticket price, including fees. 2. Speculative ticketing ban: Sellers cannot offer tickets for sale without actual or constructive possession of the ticket. 3. Disclosures: Sellers must provide clear and conspicuous statements about their business practices, including whether they're engaged in secondary sales.

But, my friends, these provisions are just a Trojan horse for more government oversight. The bill also empowers the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to enforce compliance, which I believe is a thinly veiled attempt to expand the FTC's authority and create a new revenue stream through fines and penalties.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The TICKET Act affects ticket sellers, secondary market ticket issuers, and consumers. However, I suspect that the real beneficiaries of this bill are the government agencies and special interest groups who will profit from the increased regulation and oversight.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill has far-reaching implications for the ticketing industry and beyond. By requiring ticket sellers to disclose more information, the government is creating a de facto database of consumer behavior and purchasing habits. This data can be used to manipulate markets, influence consumer choices, and even suppress dissent (think about it – if the government knows who's attending which events, they can target specific groups for "education" or "re-education").

Furthermore, the TICKET Act sets a precedent for increased government control over other industries, such as hospitality, travel, and entertainment. It's a slippery slope, my friends!

In conclusion, while the TICKET Act may seem like a harmless bill aimed at promoting transparency, I believe it's a wolf in sheep's clothing. We must remain vigilant and question the true motives behind this legislation. Remember, the truth is often hidden in plain sight – we just need to connect the dots!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, we've got another doozy of a bill on our hands, and I'm here to break it down for you. The TICKET Act - sounds innocent enough, right? Wrong! This is just another example of the elites in Washington trying to strangle American freedom with their overregulation.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to "protect" consumers from those evil ticket sellers who allegedly deceive them about prices and fees. (Sarcasm alert!) Because, you know, Americans are just too dumb to figure out how much they're paying for a concert ticket. The objectives are to require ticket sellers to disclose all-inclusive pricing, ban speculative ticketing, and provide refunds in case of event cancellations or postponements.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** This bill is chock-full of goodies. Ticket sellers will have to clearly display the total price of a ticket, including fees, and provide an itemized list of those fees before you complete your purchase. They'll also be banned from selling tickets they don't actually possess - because, apparently, that's a thing now. And if an event is canceled or postponed, you might get a refund! (Wow, what a revolutionary concept.)

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Well, it's not like this bill affects anyone important... just the entire ticketing industry, including primary and secondary market sellers, venues, teams, and artists. Oh, and consumers, of course - because they're the ones who really matter here (wink).

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, I know what you're thinking: "But wait, isn't this just a common-sense bill to protect consumers?" Ah, no! This is actually a thinly veiled attempt by the government to insert itself into every aspect of our lives. Think about it: if they can regulate ticket prices, what's next? Will they start telling us how much we can charge for our garage sales? (Gasp!) The implications are dire, folks. We must stand strong against this creeping socialism and defend our freedom to buy overpriced concert tickets without the government breathing down our necks.

(Smirk) And that's a wrap, folks! The TICKET Act: because the government knows better than you how to spend your hard-earned cash.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another brilliant example of congressional theater, designed to distract the masses while lining the pockets of special interests. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The TICKET Act claims to promote transparency in event ticketing by requiring sellers to disclose comprehensive information about ticket prices and related fees. How quaint. In reality, this bill is a Band-Aid on a bullet wound, attempting to address the symptoms of a much larger disease: the stranglehold of corporate interests on the ticketing industry.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill's main provisions include:

1. All-inclusive ticket price disclosure (because who doesn't love surprise fees?) 2. A ban on speculative ticketing (except for those with "actual or constructive possession" – wink, wink) 3. Disclosures about secondary market ticket sales and refund policies 4. Refund requirements for canceled or postponed events

These provisions are nothing more than a weak attempt to regulate an industry that has been allowed to run amok. The real issue is the lack of competition and the dominance of a few large players, which this bill does nothing to address.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects:

1. Ticketing companies (e.g., Live Nation, Ticketmaster) 2. Secondary market ticket sellers 3. Event promoters and venues 4. Consumers (who will likely see little to no actual benefit from these changes)

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

* This bill will do nothing to address the root causes of high ticket prices and fees. * The "transparency" provisions will be easily circumvented by clever marketing and fine print. * The speculative ticketing ban is a joke, as it only applies to those without "actual or constructive possession" – a loophole big enough to drive a truck through. * Consumers will still be gouged by exorbitant fees and prices, but now with the added "benefit" of knowing exactly how much they're being ripped off.

In conclusion, the TICKET Act is a classic example of legislative theater, designed to create the illusion of action while maintaining the status quo. It's a symptom of a larger disease: the corrupting influence of special interests on our government and the willingness of politicians to prioritize profits over people.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

**HR 1402: TICKET Act Summary**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Transparency In Charges for Key Events Ticketing Act (TICKET Act) aims to promote transparency and fairness in the event ticketing industry by requiring sellers to disclose comprehensive information about ticket prices and related fees. The bill seeks to protect consumers from deceptive practices and ensure they have access to accurate information when purchasing event tickets.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:**

1. **All-Inclusive Ticket Price Disclosure**: Sellers must clearly display the total event ticket price, including all fees, in advertisements and during the purchasing process. 2. **Speculative Ticketing Ban**: Sellers cannot sell or offer for sale event tickets they do not possess or have a contractual right to obtain. 3. **Disclosures**: Sellers must provide clear statements about their role in the secondary market, refrain from claiming affiliation with venues or artists without permission, and avoid using misleading domain names. 4. **Refund Requirements**: Sellers must provide refunds or replacement tickets for canceled or postponed events, and clearly disclose their refund policies.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. Event ticket sellers (primary and secondary markets) 2. Consumers purchasing event tickets 3. Venues, teams, and artists hosting events 4. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and state attorneys general responsible for enforcement

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. Increased transparency in the event ticketing industry, allowing consumers to make informed purchasing decisions. 2. Reduced deceptive practices by sellers, such as hidden fees or misleading advertising. 3. Improved consumer protection through clear refund policies and requirements. 4. Potential impact on the secondary market, as speculative ticketing is banned and sellers must clearly disclose their role. 5. The FTC will be responsible for enforcing the Act, which may lead to increased oversight and regulation of the industry.

Overall, the TICKET Act aims to promote fairness and transparency in the event ticketing industry, protecting consumers from deceptive practices and ensuring they have access to accurate information when purchasing event tickets.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down the TICKET Act, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The TICKET Act is all about bringin' transparency and fairness to the ticketing industry, man. It aims to protect consumers from gettin' ripped off by ticket sellers who don't disclose all the fees and charges upfront. The bill's main objective is to ensure that ticket buyers know exactly what they're payin' for and can make informed decisions.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The TICKET Act introduces some key changes, bro:

* **All-inclusive ticket price disclosure**: Ticket sellers gotta clearly display the total ticket price, including all fees, in their ads and marketing materials. * **Speculative ticketing ban**: Ticket sellers can't sell tickets they don't actually have, man. This means no more scalpin' or resellin' tickets without havin' 'em in hand. * **Disclosure requirements**: Ticket sellers gotta be upfront about their refund policies, fees, and any affiliations with venues or artists. * **Refund requirements**: If an event gets canceled or postponed, ticket buyers are entitled to a full refund or a replacement ticket, depending on the circumstances.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** This bill affects:

* **Ticket sellers**: They gotta comply with the new disclosure and refund requirements, bro. * **Consumers**: They'll get more transparency and protection from unfair practices. * **Venues and artists**: They might see changes in how tickets are sold and marketed for their events.

**Potential Impact & Implications** The TICKET Act could have some far-reachin' implications, man:

* **Increased transparency**: Consumers will know exactly what they're payin' for, and ticket sellers will be held accountable for their practices. * **Reduced scalpin'**: The speculative ticketing ban could reduce the number of tickets bein' resold at inflated prices. * **Improved consumer trust**: With clearer disclosures and refund policies, consumers might feel more confident buyin' tickets online.

Overall, the TICKET Act is a step in the right direction towards makin' the ticketing industry more transparent and fair for consumers, bro.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The TICKET Act, or Transparency In Charges for Key Events Ticketing Act, aims to increase transparency and fairness in the ticketing industry by requiring sellers of event tickets to disclose comprehensive information about ticket prices and related fees.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill introduces several key provisions:

1. **All-Inclusive Ticket Price Disclosure**: Sellers must clearly display the total event ticket price, including all fees, in any advertisement or marketing material. 2. **Speculative Ticketing Ban**: Sellers cannot sell tickets they do not possess, unless they provide a clear service to obtain the ticket on behalf of the buyer. 3. **Disclosures**: Sellers must disclose their role as secondary market ticket issuers and refrain from implying affiliation with venues, teams, or artists without permission. 4. **Refund Requirements**: Sellers must provide refunds for canceled events and offer replacement tickets or refunds for postponed events.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The bill affects various stakeholders:

1. **Ticket sellers**: Primary and secondary market ticket issuers, including online marketplaces and resellers. 2. **Event organizers**: Venues, teams, and artists may benefit from increased transparency and reduced speculation in the ticketing market. 3. **Consumers**: Fans and event-goers will have access to clearer information about ticket prices and fees.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The TICKET Act has several potential implications:

1. **Increased transparency**: The bill aims to reduce confusion and hidden fees, making it easier for consumers to make informed purchasing decisions. 2. **Reduced speculation**: By banning speculative ticketing, the bill may help reduce price inflation and increase availability of tickets at face value. 3. **Industry pushback**: Ticket sellers and secondary market issuers may resist the new regulations, potentially leading to lobbying efforts or lawsuits.

**Monied Interest Analysis**

The TICKET Act has received support from various consumer advocacy groups and some event organizers. However, it is likely that ticket sellers and secondary market issuers will oppose the bill due to potential losses in revenue.

* **PACs**: The National Association of Ticket Brokers (NATB) PAC and the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) PAC may be involved in lobbying efforts against the bill. * **Industry lobby groups**: The International Ticketing Association (INTIX) and the National Retail Federation (NRF) may also oppose the bill, citing concerns about increased regulatory burdens.

**Committee Capture**

The bill has been referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which has a history of being influenced by industry interests. However, consumer advocacy groups have also had success in shaping legislation related to ticketing transparency.

Overall, the TICKET Act aims to address long-standing issues in the ticketing industry, but its passage is uncertain due to potential opposition from affected stakeholders.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Bilirakis, Gus M. [R-FL-12]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$74,300

19 donors

PACs

Organizations

$6,600

Committees

Individuals

$67,700

No PAC contributions found

COOL MASTER PRO LLC

1 transaction

$6,600

No committee contributions found

OF FLORIDA, SEMINOLE TRIBE

2 transactions

$6,600

MENG, BEN

2 transactions

$6,600

ARTECHE, LEON

1 transaction

$5,000

LAGOS, JAMES H.

1 transaction

$3,300

RICE, WILLIAM LLOYD

1 transaction

$3,300

WANEK, RON

1 transaction

$3,300

WANEK, TODD

1 transaction

$3,300

WANEK, JOYCE

1 transaction

$3,300

WANEK, KAREN

1 transaction

$3,300

HEPSCHER, WILLIAM S

1 transaction

$3,300

YOUNG, JENNIFER

1 transaction

$3,300

REAL, JUAN C

1 transaction

$3,300

MALONE, KEVIN P

1 transaction

$3,300

HUENINK, JEFF

1 transaction

$3,300

KAVOUKLIS, EDIE

1 transaction

$3,300

KAVOUKLIS, NICHOLAS

1 transaction

$3,300

ARISON, MICKY

1 transaction

$3,300

ARISON, MADELEINE

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 2 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Schakowsky, Janice D. [D-IL-9]

ID: S001145

Top Contributors

MILLS, MARTHA

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualCHICAGO, IL

$3,500

Jan 18, 2024

STASCH, JULIA

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualCHICAGO, IL

$3,500

Jan 4, 2024

PARETSKY, SARA

SELF-EMPLOYED • AUTHOR

IndividualCHICAGO, IL

$3,500

May 3, 2024

CHIA, STAN

VIVID SEATS • CEO

IndividualCHICAGO, IL

$3,300

Oct 18, 2023

CLIFFORD, ROBERT

SELF • ATTORNEY

IndividualCHICAGO, IL

$3,300

Dec 17, 2023

CONWAY, KEVIN

COONEY & CONWAY • ATTORNEY

IndividualCHICAGO, IL

$3,300

Dec 10, 2023

COONEY, ROBERT

COONEY AND CONWAY • ATTORNEY

IndividualCHICAGO, IL

$3,300

Dec 10, 2023

CORBOY, PHILIP H. JR.

CORBOY & DEMETRIO • ATTORNEY

IndividualWINNETKA, IL

$3,300

Dec 24, 2023

FAHEY, WILLIAM

COONEY AND CONWAY • ATTORNEY

IndividualCHICAGO, IL

$3,300

Dec 18, 2023

HEBEISEN, KEITH

CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES • ATTORNEY

IndividualCHICAGO, IL

$3,300

Dec 10, 2023

Rep. Goldman, Craig [R-TX-12]

ID: G000601

Top Contributors

ALLEN BOONE HUMPHRIES ROBINSON LLP

OrganizationHOUSTON, TX

$3,300

Dec 21, 2023

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$3,300

May 23, 2024

BENDA, ROBERT D.

WESTWOOD CONTRACTORS INC. • CEO

IndividualFORT WORTH, TX

$6,600

Nov 9, 2023

BENDA, ROBERT D.

WESTWOOD CONTRACTORS INC. • CEO

IndividualFORT WORTH, TX

$6,600

Nov 9, 2023

CAMPBELL, CODY

DOUBLE EAGLE ENERGY • FOUNDER AND CO-CEO

IndividualFORT WORTH, TX

$6,600

Dec 31, 2023

CAMPBELL, CODY

DOUBLE EAGLE ENERGY • FOUNDER AND CO-CEO

IndividualFORT WORTH, TX

$6,600

Dec 31, 2023

HOLM, NELSON

RENEGADE SWISH • PARTNER

IndividualFORT WORTH, TX

$6,600

Nov 13, 2023

HOLM, NELSON

RENEGADE SWISH • PARTNER

IndividualFORT WORTH, TX

$6,600

Nov 13, 2023

KLEINHEINZ, BURKE

WELLTOWER • INVESTMENTS

IndividualDALLAS, TX

$6,600

Dec 21, 2023

KLEINHEINZ, BURKE

WELLTOWER • INVESTMENTS

IndividualDALLAS, TX

$6,600

Dec 21, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Bilirakis, Gus M. [R-FL-12]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Showing 39 nodes and 27 connections (31 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $98,000

Top Donors - Rep. Bilirakis, Gus M. [R-FL-12]

Showing top 19 donors by contribution amount

1 Org18 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 harmed.

−Entertainment & Streamingconfidence 0.90
The bill imposes disclosure and refund requirements on ticket issuers, secondary market ticket issuers, and exchanges, which includes platforms that sell tickets for concerts, theatrical performances, sporting events, and similar live activities—core to the entertainment and streaming industry's live event ticketing operations (e.g., Ticketmaster, Live Nation, and resale platforms like StubHub). Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 mandate price transparency, ban speculative ticketing, require affiliation di
−Print & Broadcast Mediaconfidence 0.85
Broadcast and print media companies often promote and advertise live events (concerts, sports, theater) and may operate or partner with ticketing platforms. The bill's restrictions on using terms like 'official' without partnership agreements (Sec. 4(2)) and prohibiting venue names in URLs without authorization (Sec. 4(3)) directly affect how media entities can promote events, potentially limiting promotional practices and increasing legal review burdens.

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Trade

Weak

Vector: 61%

Pages: 859-862AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The TICKET Act focuses on consumer protection and transparency in event ticketing, while the Project 2025 excerpt discusses FTC reform, state AG cooperation, and opposition to ESG-related antitrust strategies—there is minimal thematic overlap beyond both involving the FTC."

Key themes:FTCconsumer protectionstate AG cooperation

— 827 — Section 5: Independent Regulatory Agencies with government.” Under the Biden FTC, he writes, firms try “to get out of anti- trust liability by offering climate, diversity, or other forms of ESG-type offerings.” Candeub says that state AGs “are far more responsive to their constituents” than the federal government generally is, and he recommends that the FTC establish a position in the chairman’s office that is “focused on state AG cooperation and inviting state AGs to Washington, DC, to discuss enforcement policy in key sectors under the FTC’s jurisdiction: Big Tech, hospital mergers, supermarket mergers, and so forth.” — 829 — 27 FINANCIAL REGULATORY AGENCIES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION AND RELATED AGENCIES David R. Burton The primary purposes of the laws and regulations governing capital markets and of capital market regulators are to deter and punish fraud and other material misstatements to investors; foster reasonable, scaled disclosure of information that is material to investors’ financial outcomes and proxy voting decisions; and maintain fair, orderly, and efficient secondary capital markets. The Securities Act of 19331 and the Securities Exchange Act of 19342 reflect nearly nine decades of rushed and haphazard amendments. The securities laws are now extremely complex and do not constitute a coherent, rational regulatory regime. For example, the current SEC has proposed a climate change reporting rule that would quadruple the costs of being a public company.3 This would have a substantial adverse impact on existing companies. Over time, it would also sub- stantially reduce the number of public companies and therefore the number of investing options available to ordinary Americans. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) should be reducing impediments to capital formation, not rad- ically increasing them. The SEC and Congress should fundamentally reform the securities laws gov- erning issuers, broker–dealers, exchanges, and other market participants. Among other things, they should establish a simplified and rationalized securities disclo- sure system with:

Financial Regulatory Agencies

Weak

Vector: 59%

Pages: 875-878AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The TICKET Act imposes new transparency and disclosure requirements on ticket sellers, whereas the Project 2025 financial regulatory agenda generally seeks to reduce disclosure burdens and limit agency overreach in financial markets. Both touch on transparency and consumer protection, but the sectors and policy directions differ significantly."

Key themes:transparencydisclosure requirementsconsumer protectionfederal oversight

Financial Regulatory Agencies

Weak

Vector: 59%

Pages: 875-878AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the TICKET Act and the Project 2025 financial regulatory agenda emphasize consumer protection through transparency and disclosure requirements, but the TICKET Act targets event ticket sales (enforced by the FTC) rather than financial products or the specific agencies (SEC, CFTC, CFPB, OCC) highlighted in Project 2025."

Key themes:consumer protectiontransparency/disclosurefederal enforcementanti-deceptive practices

— 842 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 19. Burton, “Improving Entrepreneurs’ Access to Capital: Vital for Economic Growth”; Campbell, “The Case for Federal Pre-Emption of State Blue Sky Laws.” 20. David R. Burton, “Why the SEC’s Consolidated Audit Trail Is a Bad Idea,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, December 5, 2019, https://www.heritage.org/monetary-policy/commentary/why-the-secs-consolidated- audit-trail-bad-idea; Hester M. Peirce, Commissioner, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, “Statement on the Order Granting Temporary Conditional Exemptive Relief from Certain Requirements of the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail,” July 8, 2022, https://www.sec.gov/news/ statement/peirce-statement-consolidated-audit-trail-070822 (accessed February 20, 2023). 21. Peirce, “It’s Not Just Scope 3: Remarks at the American Enterprise Institute”; Uyeda, “Remarks at the 2022 Cato Summit on Financial Regulation.” 22. David R. Burton, “How Dodd–Frank Mandated Disclosures Harm, Rather than Protect, Investors,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 4526, March 10, 2016, http://thf-reports.s3.amazonaws.com/2016/IB4526.pdf. 23. For a detailed discussion of SEC administration, see Burton, “Reforming the Securities and Exchange Commission.” 24. See, for example, Andrew N. Vollmer, “Accusers as Adjudicators in Agency Enforcement Proceedings,” University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, Vol. 52, No. 1 (Fall 2018), pp. 103–155, https://repository.law. umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1602&context=mjlr (accessed February 20, 2023). 25. 7 U.S.C. § 1a(9), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/1a (accessed February 20, 2023). 26. Or the CFTC can undertake a rulemaking. 27. 7 U.S.C. § 2(i), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/2 (accessed February 20, 2023). 28. 7 U.S.C. § 7b–3, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/7b-3 (accessed February 20, 2923). 29. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, “Cross-Border Application of the Registration Thresholds and Certain Requirements Applicable to Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 178 (September 14, 2020), pp. 56924–57016, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-09- 14/pdf/2020-16489.pdf (accessed February 21, 2023). 30. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, “Interpretive Guidance and Policy Statement Regarding Compliance with Certain Swap Regulations,” Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 144 (July 26, 2013), pp. 45292–45374, https:// www.cftc.gov/sites/default/files/idc/groups/public/@lrfederalregister/documents/file/2013-17958a.pdf (accessed February 21, 2023). 31. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, “Margin Requirements for Uncleared Swaps for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants—Cross-Border Application of the Margin Requirements,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 104 (May 31, 2016), pp. 34818–34854, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2016-05-31/ pdf/2016-12612.pdf (accessed February 21, 2023). 32. H.R. 4173, Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111–203, 111th Congress, July 21, 2010, Title X, https://www.congress.gov/111/plaws/publ203/PLAW-111publ203.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). See also Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “About Us,” https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about- us/ (accessed March 23, 2023). 33. See, for example, Paul Sperry, “Trump Is Finally Fixing This Economy-Killing Agency,” New York Post, December 2, 2017, https://nypost.com/2017/12/02/trump-is-finally-fixing-this-economy-killing-agency/ (accessed March 23, 2023). See also Jeb Hensarling “How We’ll Stop a Rogue Federal Agency,” The Wall Street Journal, February 8, 2017, https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-well-stop-a-rogue-federal- agency-1486597413 (accessed March 23, 2023), and H.R. 3389, CFPB Slush Fund Elimination Act of 2013, 113th Congress, introduced October 30, 2013, https://www.congress.gov/113/bills/hr3389/BILLS-113hr3389ih.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 34. Editorial, “CFPB Joins Justice in Shaking Down Banks for Democrat Activist Groups,” Investor’s Business Daily, June 17, 2015, https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/cfpb-diverts-civil-penalty-funds-to-democrat- activist-groups/ (accessed March 23, 2023). 35. Table, “Budget by Program,” in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Annual Performance Plan and Report, and Budget Overview, February 2023, p. 15, https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_ performance-plan-and-report_fy23.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 36. Table, “FTE by Program,” in ibid., p. 16. — 843 — Financial Regulatory Agencies 37. Table 7, “Civil Penalty Fund Significant Activity,” in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Financial Report of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Fiscal Year 2022, November 15, 2022, p. 21, https://files. consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_financial-report_fy2022.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 38. Ibid. 39. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Financial Report of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Fiscal Year 2022, p. 20. 40. 12 U.S. Code § 5491, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/5491 (accessed March 23, 2023). 41. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Bureau Structure,” last updated March 15, 2023, https://www. consumerfinance.gov/about-us/the-bureau/bureau-structure/ (accessed March 23, 2023). 42. See Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Consumer Financial Civil Penalty Fund Rule,” https://www. consumerfinance.gov/rules-policy/final-rules/consumer-financial-civil-penalty-fund-rule/ (accessed March 23, 2023). 43. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Civil Penalty Fund: Consumer Education and Financial Literacy,” https://www.consumerfinance.gov/enforcement/payments-harmed-consumers/civil-penalty-fund/consumer- education-financial-literacy/ (accessed March 23, 2023). 44. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: Opportunity Exists to Improve Transparency of Civil Penalty Fund Activities, GAO-14-551, June 2014, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-14-551. pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 45. Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), https://www.supremecourt.gov/ opinions/19pdf/19-7_n6io.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 46. Ibid., p. 37. 47. See 12 U.S. Code § 5497(a)(1), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/5497 (accessed March 23, 2023). Congress specified that the amount transferred to the CFPB “shall not exceed” 12 percent “of the total operating expenses of the Federal Reserve System…in fiscal year 2013, and in each year thereafter.” Ibid., § 5497(2)(A)(iii). 48. Community Financial Services Association of America v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (5th Cir. 2022), pp. 31–32, https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-50826-CV0.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 49. Ibid., p. 32. 50. Ibid. (quoting Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, 140 S. Ct. 2183, 2202 n. 8 (2020)). 51. U.S. Supreme Court, “Order List: 598 U.S.,” February 27, 2023, Docket No. 22–448, CFPB et al. v. Com. Fin. Services Assn., et al., https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/022723zor_6537.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 52. Devin Watkins, Competitive Enterprise Institute, “Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: Ripe for Reform,” testimony before the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Monetary Policy, Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, March 9, 2023, https://docs.house.gov/meetings/BA/ BA20/20230309/115384/HHRG-118-BA20-Wstate-WatkinsD-20230309.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023); Norbert J. Michel, “7 Steps Next Director Can Take to Make the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Less Awful,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, July 28, 2018, https://www.heritage.org/markets-and-finance/ commentary/7-steps-next-director-can-take-make-the-consumer-financial. 53. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve, and National Credit Union Administration. Those functions performed by the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) prior to Dodd–Frank should be transferred to the OCC since OTS has merged with OCC. 54. See “Section 1071 of the Dodd–Frank Act” in David R. Burton, “Improving Small Business Access to Capital,” Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Symposium on Section 1071 of the Dodd–Frank Act, Small Business Lending Panel, November 6, 2019, https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_burton-written- statement_symposium-section-1071.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 55. 5 U.S. Code Chapter 5, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/part-I/chapter-5 (accessed March 23, 2023). 56. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Administrative Adjudication Proceedings,” https://www. consumerfinance.gov/administrative-adjudication-proceedings/ (accessed March 23, 2023), and 12 Code of Federal Regulations Part 1081—Rules of Practice for Adjudication Proceedings, https://www.law.cornell.edu/ cfr/text/12/part-1081 (accessed March 23, 2023).

Department of the Treasury

Weak

Vector: 58%

Pages: 748-751AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The TICKET Act focuses on transparency and consumer protection in event ticket sales, while the Project 2025 Treasury section concerns financial institution definitions, beneficial ownership reporting, and ESG policies. Both involve transparency and disclosure requirements, but they address different sectors and objectives, resulting only a weak thematic overlap."

Key themes:transparencydisclosure requirementsconsumer protection

— 715 — Department of the Treasury 67. On banks, credit unions, broker-dealers, and other financial institutions as normally understood, but note that 31 U.S. Code §5312(a)(2) also defines “financial institutions” to include money service businesses; insurance companies; jewelers; pawnbrokers; travel agencies; dealers in automobiles, airplanes, and boats; persons involved in real estate closings and settlements; casinos; and telegraph companies. 68. David R. Burton, “The Corporate Transparency Act and the ILLICIT CASH Act,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3449, November 7, 2019, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2019-11/BG3449_0. pdf, and David R. Burton to AnnaLou Tirol, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, “Re: Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Requirements,” Comment, May 5, 2021 http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2022/ Regulatory_Comments/FINCEN-2021-0005-0132_attachment_1.pdf (accessed March 19, 2023). 69. Burton comment, ibid. 70. Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 189, September 30, 2022, pp. 59498–59596. 71. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Fiscal Year 2022–2026 Strategic Plan. 72. Ibid. 73. United Nations, “Paris Agreement,” 2015, https://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/convention/ application/pdf/english_paris_agreement.pdf (accessed March 20, 2023). 74. United Nations, “United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change,” GE.5–62220, 1992, https://unfccc. int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf (accessed March 20, 2023). 75. “What Is ESG?” ESG Hurts, https://esghurts.com/ (accessed March 22, 2023), and Samuel Gregg, “Why Business Should Dispense with ESG,” American Institute for Economic Research, December 4, 2022, https:// www.aier.org/article/why-business-should-dispense-with-esg/ (accessed March 22, 2023). 76. PRI Association, “What are the Principles for Responsible Investment?” https://www.unpri.org/about-us/ what-are-the-principles-for-responsible-investment (accessed March 22, 2023). The PRI Association is a U.N.- affiliated non-governmental organization. See also PRI Association, “Articles of Association of PRI Association,” Art. 9, November 14, 2016, https://d8g8t13e9vf2o.cloudfront.net/Uploads/g/e/r/2016-11-14-Articles-of- Association-of-PRI-Association-.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023).

Department of Energy and Related Commissions

Minimal

Vector: 59%

Pages: 437-439AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The TICKET Act focuses on transparency and consumer protections in event ticket sales, which is unrelated to the Project 2025 energy transmission and FERC policy objectives concerning cost allocation, state decision-making, and preventing subsidies in electricity markets."

— 405 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions l End undue discrimination that allows subsidized resources to distort price formation in RTOs. l Affirm its commitment that states will decide whether to join an RTO instead of imposing RTOs on regions that do not want them. FERC should also consider allowing states to enter into non-RTO power pools with alternative structures for the sharing of resources and electric generation. FERC: ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION Mission/Overview Under the Federal Power Act, FERC has the authority to regulate the rates, terms, and conditions of interstate electric transmission. (Pursuant to court cases, interstate transmission can be entirely within a state, although the part of Texas served by ERCOT is not under FERC transmission jurisdiction.) Needed Reforms FERC has been considering how to plan for and allocate costs for new trans- mission lines and how new generation resources will be interconnected to the transmission grid. (Transmission expansion and replacement decisions are usu- ally made by local utilities or by an RTO or regional planning entity). Through two major rulemakings,118 FERC is attempting to facilitate the building of more long-range transmission lines and to socialize more of the costs of transmission buildouts to more customers in order to make it cheaper for renewable develop- ers (primarily) to interconnect to the grid and sell their power. Socializing such costs is a form of subsidy for generators and will cause further price distortions in RTOs and ISOs that will make it less economical for reliable, dispatchable resources like coal, nuclear, and natural gas to stay operational and support reliability.119 Also, under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, DOE and FERC are granted authority to site and permit high-priority transmission lines as National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors (NIETCs). The Inflation Reduction Act provides funding to DOE to support transmission expansion.120 These initiatives will undermine state input and decision-making. FERC will consider rules on how NIETC transmission applications are to be made. New Policies FERC should either change course on its existing transmission rulemakings (if still in progress) or issue a new rulemaking to: — 406 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Ensure that transmission planning and interconnection processes are resource neutral. l Prevent socializing costs for customers who do not benefit from the projects or justifying such cost shifts as advancing vague “societal benefits” such as climate change. l Stop cost allocation from becoming a subsidy for generators, such as renewables. With respect to NIETCs, FERC and the new DESAS should ensure that state interests are respected and not allow such NEITC transmission lines to be devel- oped as a mere subsidy to renewable developers. Furthermore, much of the transmission buildout (including its attendant costs) is being driven by renewable developers seeking market share. These projects are causing rates for customers to go up and hurting reliability. FERC needs to ensure that transmission buildouts are planned for the benefit of customers. FERC: NATURAL GAS PIPELINES Mission/Overview FERC permits, sites, and authorizes the construction and operation of inter- state natural gas pipelines.121 It also regulates the rates for the shipping of natural gas122 (but not the price of the natural gas commodity, which is market based). FERC is charged with ensuring that natural gas pipelines are approved if they are required by the “public convenience and necessity.”123 Pipeline permitting is sub- ject to environmental reviews under NEPA, and the rate for the pipeline and the shipping of the commodity is set by FERC under a just and reasonable standard. Once FERC approves a project, the holder of the certificate has the sovereign’s power of eminent domain. Needed Reforms Natural gas pipelines are vital for the economy, manufacturing, heating, and electric generation. Opposition from “Keep it in the ground” environmentalists has made it harder to gain approvals for natural gas pipelines. Under Democrat leadership, FERC has proposed official policies to consider upstream and down- stream GHG emissions from the use of the natural gas that would be shipped in the pipeline to be part of FERC’s public-interest determination when deciding whether to approve a pipeline. There is conflicting direction from the D.C. Circuit on the GHG issue, which also could be seen as a “major questions” issue under the U.S. Supreme Court’s West Virginia v. EPA decision.124

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Rep. Bilirakis, Gus M.

AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act of 2025

119/hr/979

Kids Online Safety Act

119/hr/6484

SCORE Act

119/hr/4312

Back to All Bills