Repealing Big Brother Overreach Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/425

Last Updated: August 19, 2026

Repealing Big Brother Overreach Act

HR. 425, 119th Congress — read as touching Private Equity & Hedge Funds.

The sponsor

Rep. Davidson, Warren [R-OH-8]

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

The money

$105,400 raised

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

The alignment

95% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of the Treasury" section, p. 748-751 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 609.

June 17, 2026

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

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:

The Repealing Big Brother Overreach Act, HR 425, is a congressional bill that aims to repeal the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA). As a self-serving billionaire political analyst, I will provide an objective summary of the bill's main purpose and objectives, key provisions and changes to existing law, affected parties and stakeholders, and potential impact and implications.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of HR 425 is to repeal the CTA, which requires certain corporations and limited liability companies to report beneficial ownership information to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). The bill's sponsors argue that the CTA imposes unnecessary burdens on businesses and infringes upon their right to privacy.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 5336 of title 31, United States Code, by inserting "foreign" after "Beneficial" and "beneficial" in various places. This change narrows the scope of the CTA to only apply to foreign beneficial owners. Additionally, the bill requires FinCEN to delete all beneficial ownership information collected pursuant to Section 5336 with respect to non-reporting companies and individuals who are not foreign beneficial owners.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The repeal of the CTA would primarily affect corporations, limited liability companies, and other similar entities that are currently required to report beneficial ownership information. Foreign beneficial owners and non-reporting companies would also be impacted by the changes to the law. Furthermore, the bill's provisions may have implications for law enforcement agencies and financial institutions that rely on the reported information to combat money laundering and terrorist financing.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The repeal of the CTA could lead to a decrease in transparency and an increase in illicit activities, as beneficial ownership information would no longer be readily available. On the other hand, the bill's sponsors argue that the repeal would reduce regulatory burdens on businesses and promote economic growth. As a self-serving billionaire political analyst, I must consider the potential implications of this bill on my own business interests and the broader economy.

In conclusion, HR 425 is a significant piece of legislation that aims to repeal the Corporate Transparency Act. While the bill's provisions may have both positive and negative consequences, it is essential to carefully consider the potential impact and implications of the repeal on various stakeholders and the economy as a whole. As a billionaire political analyst, I will continue to monitor the progress of this bill and assess its potential effects on my business interests and the broader economic landscape.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

The Repealing Big Brother Overreach Act, HR 425, aims to repeal the Corporate Transparency Act. As I taught you in 8th grade civics, a bill's purpose is typically straightforward, but this one seems to be trying to undo previous legislation. Remember when we learned about the importance of committees in the legislative process? This bill was referred to the Committee on Financial Services, which is responsible for reviewing and amending the bill before it reaches the full House.

The main objective of HR 425 is to repeal the Corporate Transparency Act, which requires certain companies to report beneficial ownership information to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. As we covered in middle school, this type of information is crucial in preventing money laundering and other financial crimes. The bill's sponsors seem to be trying to roll back these regulations, which could have significant implications for financial transparency.

Key provisions of the bill include amendments to Section 5336 of title 31, United States Code, which would insert "foreign" after "Beneficial" and "beneficial" in various places, effectively narrowing the scope of the reporting requirements. The bill also requires the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network to delete all beneficial ownership information collected pursuant to section 5336 with respect to non-reporting companies or individuals who are not foreign beneficial owners.

The affected parties and stakeholders include corporations, limited liability companies, and other similar entities that would no longer be required to report beneficial ownership information. This could also impact law enforcement agencies and financial institutions that rely on this information to prevent financial crimes. As we learned in civics class, the system of checks and balances is designed to ensure that power is distributed evenly among the branches of government. However, in practice, this can lead to a complex web of interests and motivations that influence the legislative process.

The potential impact and implications of HR 425 are significant. If passed, the bill could reduce transparency and increase the risk of financial crimes, such as money laundering and terrorism financing. This would be a step backward from the progress made in recent years to strengthen financial regulations and prevent illicit activities. As I emphasized in class, it's essential to consider the long-term consequences of legislative actions and ensure that they align with the public interest.

In conclusion, HR 425 is a bill that aims to repeal the Corporate Transparency Act, which could have far-reaching implications for financial transparency and regulation. It's crucial to understand the main purpose and objectives of the bill, as well as its key provisions and changes to existing law. By analyzing the affected parties and stakeholders, we can better comprehend the potential impact and implications of this legislation. As I always say, "a well-informed citizenry is essential to a functioning democracy," and it's our responsibility to stay informed and engaged in the legislative process.

Related Topics

Federal Budget & Appropriations

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

The Repealing Big Brother Overreach Act, HR 425 - now this is a bill that's got my conspiracy senses tingling! On the surface, it seems like a straightforward repeal of the Corporate Transparency Act, but let me tell you, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to repeal the Corporate Transparency Act, which requires certain companies to report beneficial ownership information to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). But what's really going on here? Is this just a coincidence that it's being repealed now, or is there something more sinister at play? I think it's no accident that this bill is being pushed through during a time of great economic uncertainty.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 5336 of title 31, United States Code, by inserting "foreign" after "Beneficial" and "beneficial" in various places. This seems like a minor change, but trust me, it's a clever move. By narrowing the definition of beneficial ownership to only include foreign individuals and entities, the government is essentially creating a loophole for domestic companies to operate under the radar. And what about the deletion of data relating to non-reporting companies? Is this just a convenient way to erase evidence of past wrongdoing?

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include corporations, limited liability companies, and other similar entities that are currently required to report beneficial ownership information. But who's really behind this bill? Is it the corporations themselves, or is it the government trying to shield its own interests? I think it's a combination of both - the corporations are pushing for this repeal because they want to maintain their secrecy, and the government is happy to oblige because it wants to keep its own dealings under wraps.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this bill is huge. By repealing the Corporate Transparency Act, the government is essentially giving companies a free pass to operate in secret. This could lead to increased money laundering, tax evasion, and other financial crimes. And what about the national security implications? With foreign entities able to operate undetected, it's a recipe for disaster. But that's exactly what they want you to think - that this bill is just a harmless repeal of an outdated law. Don't be fooled, folks. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

Now, I know what you're thinking - "But Uncle, this is just a simple bill to repeal an outdated law." Ah, no, my friends, it's much more than that. It's a cleverly crafted piece of legislation designed to keep the truth from us. Wake up, sheeple! The government is hiding something, and it's up to us to uncover the truth. So, let's dig deeper and see what other secrets we can uncover. After all, as I always say, "The truth is out there

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(With a healthy dose of sarcasm and a wink) Oh, folks, gather 'round! We've got a real doozy of a bill on our hands here - the "Repealing Big Brother Overreach Act" (HR 425). I mean, who doesn't love a good name like that? It's like they're speaking directly to my freedom-loving heart. (Smirk)

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill aims to repeal the Corporate Transparency Act, because, you know, transparency is just so... overrated. (Rolls eyes) The main objective here is to limit the reporting requirements for beneficial ownership information, essentially making it easier for companies to keep their owners' identities under wraps. Because, you know, freedom! (Air quotes)

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 5336 of title 31, United States Code, by inserting "foreign" into various places, because who needs clarity when we can have more complexity? (Chuckles) It also deletes beneficial ownership information collected on non-reporting companies and individuals who aren't foreign beneficial owners. Because, you know, the elites don't want us to know what's really going on behind closed doors. (Wink)

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill affects corporations, limited liability companies, and other similar entities that are currently required to report beneficial ownership information. But let's be real, folks, this is all about protecting the little guy - you know, the small business owner who just wants to keep their money hidden from those pesky tax authorities. (Smirk) I mean, who needs accountability when we can have freedom? (Sarcasm alert)

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this bill is huge, folks! It could lead to increased financial secrecy, making it easier for bad actors to launder money and engage in other illicit activities. But hey, who needs transparency when we can have... well, not transparency? (Laughs) The elites will love this one - more power to them, right? (Wink)

In all seriousness, folks, this bill is a masterclass in doublespeak. It's like they're trying to convince us that less transparency is actually more freedom. (Chuckles) But hey, who am I to question the brilliant minds behind this legislation? (Sarcasm alert) After all, it's not like they have any ulterior motives or anything... (Wink)

So, there you have it - the "Repealing Big Brother Overreach Act" in all its glory. Because, you know, freedom! (Air quotes) Stay vigilant, folks, and remember: if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Unless, of course, it's a bill that benefits the elites, then it's just... freedom. (Smirk)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the geniuses in Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The "Repealing Big Brother Overreach Act" (HR 425) claims to repeal the Corporate Transparency Act, allegedly to protect American businesses from overreaching government surveillance. How quaint. In reality, this bill is a thinly veiled attempt to gut anti-money laundering regulations and allow corporations to operate with even greater secrecy.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 5336 of title 31, United States Code, by inserting "foreign" into various sections, effectively narrowing the scope of beneficial ownership reporting requirements. It also mandates the deletion of existing data on non-reporting companies and individuals who are not foreign beneficial owners. This is a cleverly crafted loophole to exempt domestic corporations from transparency requirements.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The real beneficiaries of this bill are corporate interests, particularly those with something to hide. By repealing the Corporate Transparency Act, Congress is essentially giving a free pass to companies that want to launder money, evade taxes, or engage in other illicit activities without fear of detection. The losers, as always, are the American people, who will be left with even less transparency and accountability from the corporations that supposedly serve their interests.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a recipe for disaster. By weakening anti-money laundering regulations, Congress is inviting corruption, tax evasion, and other financial crimes to flourish. The potential impact on the economy, national security, and law enforcement will be severe. It's akin to removing the brakes from a speeding car and expecting it to somehow magically avoid crashing.

In conclusion, HR 425 is a brazen attempt to undermine transparency and accountability in corporate America. The sponsors of this bill should be ashamed of themselves for peddling such blatant nonsense. But hey, who needs integrity when you have campaign contributions and lobbying dollars to grease the wheels of corruption? It's just another day in the swamp that is Washington D.C.

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

**Summary of HR 425: Repealing Big Brother Overreach Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of HR 425 is to repeal the Corporate Transparency Act, which requires certain companies to report beneficial ownership information to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). The bill aims to eliminate this reporting requirement and delete existing data collected under the Act.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 5336 of title 31, United States Code, by inserting "foreign" after "Beneficial" and "beneficial" in various places, effectively narrowing the scope of the reporting requirement to only foreign beneficial owners. Additionally, the bill requires FinCEN to delete all beneficial ownership information collected with respect to non-foreign individuals and non-reporting companies within 90 days of enactment.

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

* Small businesses and corporations that are currently required to report beneficial ownership information under the Corporate Transparency Act * Foreign beneficial owners who will still be subject to reporting requirements * FinCEN, which will need to delete existing data and implement changes to its reporting system * Law enforcement agencies and regulatory bodies that use beneficial ownership information for anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing purposes

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact and implications of HR 425 include:

* Reduced compliance burdens on small businesses and corporations that are no longer required to report beneficial ownership information * Potential increased risk of money laundering and terrorist financing activities, as beneficial ownership information will no longer be available for non-foreign individuals and companies * Changes to FinCEN's reporting system and data collection practices, which may require significant resources and updates * Potential impact on law enforcement agencies' ability to investigate and prevent financial crimes, as they will have limited access to beneficial ownership information.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's dive into this bill, bro! HR 425, also known as the Repealing Big Brother Overreach Act, is all about repealing the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA). The main purpose of this bill is to roll back some of the reporting requirements for companies and individuals, making it easier for them to keep their beneficial ownership info on the down low.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of HR 425 is to repeal the CTA, which was enacted to combat money laundering and terrorist financing by requiring companies to report their beneficial owners. The bill's sponsors argue that the CTA is an overreach of government power, and that it imposes unnecessary burdens on small businesses and individuals.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill makes some significant changes to existing law, bro. It amends Section 5336 of title 31, United States Code, by inserting "foreign" after "Beneficial" in various places, which limits the reporting requirements to only foreign beneficial owners. This means that domestic companies and individuals won't have to report their beneficial ownership info anymore. Additionally, the bill requires the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) to delete all beneficial ownership information collected under the CTA for non-reporting companies and individuals who are not foreign beneficial owners.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill affects a bunch of parties, dude. Companies, especially small businesses and limited liability companies, will be impacted by the changes to reporting requirements. Individuals, including domestic and foreign beneficial owners, will also be affected. Law enforcement agencies, like FinCEN, will have to adapt to the new rules and delete existing data. Moreover, this bill may also impact anti-money laundering (AML) efforts, as it reduces the amount of information available to law enforcement.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of HR 425 is pretty significant, bro. On one hand, it could reduce the regulatory burden on small businesses and individuals, making it easier for them to operate without excessive government oversight. However, it also raises concerns about increased risk of money laundering and terrorist financing, as less information will be available to law enforcement agencies. Furthermore, this bill may undermine AML efforts, potentially leading to more illicit activities going undetected.

In conclusion, HR 425 is a complex bill with far-reaching implications, dude. While it aims to reduce government overreach, it also raises concerns about the potential consequences for national security and anti-money laundering efforts. As we move forward, it's essential to carefully consider the potential impact of this bill on various stakeholders and the broader economy, bro.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

The Repealing Big Brother Overreach Act, HR 425, aims to repeal the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), a law enacted to combat money laundering and terrorist financing by requiring certain companies to disclose their beneficial ownership information. The main purpose of this bill is to roll back the CTA's reporting requirements, which some argue are overly burdensome and infringe upon individual privacy.

Key provisions of HR 425 include amending Section 5336 of title 31, United States Code, to limit the definition of "beneficial owner" to foreign individuals and entities. The bill also requires the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) to delete all beneficial ownership information collected under the CTA for non-reporting companies and individuals who are not foreign beneficial owners.

The affected parties and stakeholders include small businesses, limited liability companies, and other entities that would no longer be required to report their beneficial ownership information. The bill's sponsors, including Rep. Davidson and numerous Republican co-sponsors, argue that the CTA's reporting requirements are excessive and stifle economic growth. On the other hand, law enforcement agencies, financial institutions, and anti-money laundering organizations may oppose the repeal, as they rely on the CTA's reporting requirements to combat financial crimes.

The potential impact of HR 425 is significant, as it could undermine efforts to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing. By limiting the definition of "beneficial owner" to foreign individuals and entities, the bill may create loopholes for domestic companies to conceal their ownership structures. Additionally, the deletion of existing beneficial ownership information could hinder ongoing investigations and make it more challenging for law enforcement agencies to track illicit financial activities.

Notably, the bill's sponsors have received significant campaign contributions from industries that would benefit from the repeal, including the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The NFIB's PAC has donated over $1 million to Republican candidates in the 2024 election cycle, while the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has spent millions on lobbying efforts to roll back financial regulations. These contributions suggest that special interest groups are driving the push to repeal the CTA, rather than a genuine concern for individual privacy or economic growth.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Davidson, Warren [R-OH-8]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$105,400

19 donors

PACs

Organizations

Committees

Individuals

$105,400

No PAC contributions found

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

PHELAN, BRENT J

2 transactions

$11,600

CASCARILLA, CHARLES

1 transaction

$6,600

CASCARILLA, MARISSA

1 transaction

$6,600

FISHER, KENNETH

1 transaction

$6,600

FISHER, SHERRILYN

1 transaction

$6,600

GROW, RICHARD

1 transaction

$6,600

ROBINSON, ROBERT S

1 transaction

$6,600

BEAMAN, LEE

1 transaction

$6,600

RICKETTS, J. PETER

1 transaction

$6,600

UIHLEIN, RICHARD

1 transaction

$5,800

BECKETT, JOHN

1 transaction

$5,000

BECKHAM, JEFFREY

1 transaction

$5,000

WEAVER, TIMOTHY J

1 transaction

$5,000

BROPHY, DAN

1 transaction

$3,500

BROPHY, CARLEEN

1 transaction

$3,500

PETRELLI, JOSEPH L.

1 transaction

$3,300

GREWAL, PAUL

1 transaction

$3,300

JOHN, POWELL

1 transaction

$3,300

SMITH, KRISTIN

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Balderson, Troy [R-OH-12]

ID: B001306

Top Contributors

THORP FOR SHERIFF

OrganizationNEWARK, OH

$500

Oct 7, 2024

FRIENDS OF MARK FRAIZER

OrganizationCOLUMBUS, OH

$250

Jun 15, 2023

FRIENDS OF MARK FRAIZER

OrganizationCOLUMBUS, OH

$200

Sep 3, 2024

STEMMER, THOMAS A

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualBYESVILLE, OH

$5,800

Feb 28, 2024

STEMMER, THOMAS A

IndividualBYESVILLE, OH

$5,800

Feb 28, 2024

BORKOWSKI, BRIAN

LACO HOLDINGS • CEO

IndividualBELLEAIR BEACH, FL

$3,300

Oct 22, 2024

MACKINNON, JEFFREY

FARRAGUT PARTNERS • LOBBYIST

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$3,300

Nov 5, 2024

DICKERSON, RICHARD D

UTILITY TECHNOLOGY INT'L CORP • CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

IndividualWEST JEFFERSON, OH

$3,300

Oct 26, 2023

LEMMON, THEODORE

SHELLY COMPANY • SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT

IndividualNEW PLYMOUTH, OH

$3,300

Dec 15, 2023

DICKERSON, JOAN

HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER

IndividualWEST JEFFERSON, OH

$3,300

Oct 26, 2023

Rep. Bergman, Jack [R-MI-1]

ID: B001301

Top Contributors

MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS

OrganizationSHELBYVILLE, MI

$3,300

Dec 8, 2023

SAGINAW CHIPPEWA INDIAN TRIBE

OrganizationMT. PLEASANT, MI

$3,300

Dec 8, 2023

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

Jun 17, 2024

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

Jun 30, 2023

PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS

OrganizationTEMECULA, CA

$3,000

Dec 31, 2023

SAULT STE MARIE TRIBE OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS

OrganizationSAULT SAINTE MARIE, MI

$2,900

Dec 7, 2023

DRESNER, LINDA

DRESNER DESIGNS • CEO

IndividualBIRMINGHAM, MI

$6,600

Dec 6, 2023

LEVY, EDWARD

WEST BAY BEACH RESORT • PRESIDENT

IndividualBIRMINGHAM, MI

$6,600

Dec 6, 2023

TAYLOR, MARGARETTA J. MS

NONE • RETIRED

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Mar 5, 2024

GREENBLATT, SCOTT

VETERANS GUARDIAN VA CLAIM CONSULTING • CEO

IndividualPINEHURST, NC

$6,600

Jun 29, 2023

Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5]

ID: B001302

Top Contributors

TAYLOR, MARGARETTA J

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Dec 15, 2023

TAYLOR, MARGARETTA J

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Dec 15, 2023

MCCLEVE, LONNIE

SELF EMPLOYED • DEVELOPER

IndividualQUEEN CREEK, AZ

$3,300

Oct 16, 2023

BENSON, LEE

LEE BENSON • CEO

IndividualMESA, AZ

$3,300

Oct 18, 2023

FAUST, ANNE R

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualNEWTOWN SQUARE, PA

$3,300

Oct 6, 2023

BENSON, LEE

LEE BENSON • CEO

IndividualMESA, AZ

$3,300

Oct 18, 2023

BROPHY, DANIEL

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualJACKSON, WY

$3,300

Dec 21, 2023

LONDEN, PRISCILLA

LONDEN INSURANCE GROUP • EXECUTIVE

IndividualPHOENIX, AZ

$3,300

Mar 7, 2023

ALLEN, GWYNDA S

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualSUN LAKES, AZ

$3,300

Mar 22, 2023

COOLEY, WILLIAM

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualWEST PALM BEACH, FL

$3,300

Mar 7, 2023

Rep. Buchanan, Vern [R-FL-16]

ID: B001260

Top Contributors

RICHARDS, CHRISTINE

CVP • CUST/BUS TRANS

IndividualBARTLETT, TN

$3,300

Oct 28, 2024

RICHARDS, DANIEL

DR. CONSULTING • CPA

IndividualBARTLETT, TN

$3,300

Oct 28, 2024

GARCIA, MARIO

EMSI - TAMPA • PRESIDENT/CEO

IndividualTAMPA, FL

$3,300

Nov 28, 2023

BENJAMIN, STEPHEN

VALIDUS SENIOR LIVING • CEO

IndividualODESSA, FL

$3,300

Nov 10, 2023

GARCIA, IVIS

HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER

IndividualTAMPA, FL

$3,300

Nov 28, 2023

GARCIA, MARIO

EMSI - TAMPA • PRESIDENT/CEO

IndividualTAMPA, FL

$3,300

Nov 28, 2023

GARCIA, IVIS

HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER

IndividualTAMPA, FL

$3,300

Nov 28, 2023

JOHNSON, TRAVIS

1607 STRATEGIES • FOUNDER

IndividualARLINGTON, VA

$3,300

Dec 6, 2023

COPELAND, GERRET

TERREG MANAGEMENT LLC • CEO

IndividualSARASOTA, FL

$3,300

Feb 7, 2023

COPELAND, KYM

HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER

IndividualSARASOTA, FL

$3,300

Feb 7, 2023

Rep. Burlison, Eric [R-MO-7]

ID: B001316

Top Contributors

OZARK SHOOT-DON'T SHOOT SOLUTIONS LLC

OrganizationHIGHLANDVILLE, MO

$250

Oct 11, 2024

CARNES, CAROL

SELF EMPLOYED • REAL ESTATE AGENT

IndividualSPRINGFIELD, MO

$3,300

Oct 28, 2024

WATTS, BARRY

SAVINGYOUTAXES.COM • FINANCIAL ADVISOR

IndividualROGERSVILLE, MO

$3,300

Nov 4, 2024

JOHN, STACK

ISAGENIX • INDEPENDENT BUSINESS OWNER

IndividualSPRINGFIELD, MO

$3,300

Nov 20, 2023

BRAUER, BEAU

HUNTER ENGINEERING • PRESIDENT

IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO

$3,300

Jan 4, 2024

BRAUER, BEAU

HUNTER ENGINEERING • PRESIDENT

IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO

$3,300

Jan 4, 2024

BRAUER, SUZY

IndividualBRIDGETON, MO

$3,300

Jan 4, 2024

BRAUER, SUZY

IndividualBRIDGETON, MO

$3,300

Jan 4, 2024

KAMAT, SONA

WEST COUNTY RHEUMATOLOGY • RHEUMATOLOGIST

IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO

$3,300

Jan 12, 2024

WHIRE, DEBBIEJO

KANAKUK • CAMPING

IndividualBRANSON, MO

$3,300

Feb 15, 2024

Rep. Cammack, Kat [R-FL-3]

ID: C001039

Top Contributors

PASS THE HAT

OrganizationATHENS, GA

$3,610

Jul 15, 2024

SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA

OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL

$3,300

Aug 14, 2024

S & K BARRINGTON FARMS

OrganizationMAYO, FL

$600

Mar 31, 2024

83 FARMS, LLC

OrganizationBELL, FL

$283

Mar 31, 2023

RADIANT CREDIT UNION

OrganizationGAINESVILLE, FL

$250

Jun 30, 2023

ADOLFSSON, MARCUS

RETIRED

IndividualGULFPORT, FL

$6,600

Jun 30, 2023

KEMMERER, JOHN

KEMMERER MANAGEMENT CORP • EXECUTIVE

IndividualJACKSON, WY

$6,600

Apr 18, 2023

KEMMERER, KAREN

NONE • RETIRED

IndividualJACKSON, WY

$6,600

May 11, 2023

HOROWITZ, BEN

ANDREESSEN HOROWITZ • ANDREESSEN HOROWITZ

IndividualLAS VEGAS, NV

$6,600

Apr 11, 2024

GASTON, BILL FAYE

BUSINESS OWNER

IndividualGAINESVILLE, FL

$5,205

Feb 29, 2024

Rep. Ciscomani, Juan [R-AZ-6]

ID: C001133

Top Contributors

SALT RIVER PIMA MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY

PACSCOTTSDALE, AZ

$1,000

Jun 14, 2024

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$3,300

Oct 31, 2024

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC

$3,300

Nov 5, 2024

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$3,300

Jun 30, 2024

DELTA AIRLINES

OrganizationATLANTA, GA

$2,500

Jul 30, 2024

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$2,000

Oct 8, 2024

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

OrganizationATMORE, AL

$1,834

Jun 30, 2024

MS BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS

OrganizationCHOCTAW, MS

$1,000

Nov 5, 2024

COLORADO RIVER INDIAN TRIBES

OrganizationPARKER, AZ

$1,000

Jun 30, 2023

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$1,000

Jun 30, 2023

Rep. Cloud, Michael [R-TX-27]

ID: C001115

Top Contributors

BUTLER CONSULTING

OrganizationPORT LAVACA, TX

$250

Oct 25, 2024

BURDGE, THOMAS R

VP OF ACCOUNTING

IndividualVICTORIA, TX

$6,600

Oct 3, 2024

BORCHERS, CHARLA

RANCHING • INVESTMENTS

IndividualVICTORIA, TX

$6,600

Oct 2, 2024

BURDGE, THOMAS R

VP OF ACCOUNTING

IndividualVICTORIA, TX

$6,600

Oct 3, 2024

ATNIP, CHAR

IndividualCORPUS CHRISTI, TX

$3,300

Sep 30, 2024

ATNIP, CLIF

IndividualCORPUS CHRISTI, TX

$3,300

Oct 28, 2024

BURDGE, TAMI

IndividualVICTORIA, TX

$3,300

Oct 28, 2024

RAMIREZ, PHILIP

TURNER, RAMIREZ & ASSOCIATES, INC. • ARCHITECT

IndividualCORPUS CHRISTI, TX

$3,300

Jan 4, 2024

PARKER, ROBERT E.

REPCON INC. • PRESIDENT

IndividualCORPUS CHRISTI, TX

$3,300

Jan 12, 2024

TROXLER, JOSEPH G.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualCORDOVA, TN

$3,300

Jan 16, 2024

Rep. Clyde, Andrew S. [R-GA-9]

ID: C001116

Top Contributors

SYFAN, STEPHEN

SYFAN LOGISTICS • EXEC VP

IndividualGAINESVILLE, GA

$6,600

May 31, 2024

SCOTT, ROBERT S.

RAC PROPERTIES • REAL ESTATE

IndividualBOGART, GA

$6,600

Oct 11, 2024

FOWLER, CHARLES W. JR.

GLOBAL DEFENSE MGMT • PRESIDENT

IndividualLONGWOOD, FL

$3,500

Oct 29, 2024

BECK, SAMUEL

BECK FUNERAL HOME • FUNERAL DIRECTOR

IndividualCLAYTON, GA

$3,300

Oct 24, 2024

HINMAN, ROY H

SELF EMPLOYED • PHYSICIAN

IndividualSAINT AUGUSTINE, FL

$3,300

Nov 5, 2024

FROST IV, EDWIN BRANT

SELF EMPLOYED • FINANCIAL SERVICES

IndividualNEWNAN, GA

$3,300

Dec 24, 2024

FROST, KRISTA

NONE • HOMEMAKER

IndividualNEWNAN, GA

$3,300

Dec 24, 2024

ACTON, MICHAEL

SELF EMPLOYED • DEVELOPER

IndividualHOMER, GA

$3,300

Nov 7, 2023

JEPSON, JEFFREY

EVANS GENERAL CONTRACTORS • CONSTRUCTION

IndividualPOOLER, GA

$3,300

Nov 19, 2023

MATHENY, DAVID

SILENCER SHOP • OWNER

IndividualLEANDER, TX

$3,300

Nov 16, 2023

Rep. Crane, Elijah [R-AZ-2]

ID: C001132

Top Contributors

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ

$3,300

Mar 31, 2024

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ

$3,300

Sep 16, 2024

STALLINGS, KYLE MR.

IndividualMIDLAND, TX

$10,000

Oct 14, 2024

HILL, VERNON

IndividualMOORESTOWN, NJ

$7,318

Jul 11, 2024

STALLINGS, KYLE MR.

IndividualMIDLAND, TX

$6,600

Mar 1, 2023

MIRELES, OMAR

HSL PROPERTIES • REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER

IndividualTUCSON, AZ

$6,600

Mar 29, 2023

ADAMS, MICHAEL A.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualMCLEAN, VA

$6,600

Jun 30, 2024

ADAMS, MICHAEL A.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualMCLEAN, VA

$6,600

Jun 30, 2024

HINMAN, ROY H. MR. II

ISLAND DOCTORS • FOUNDER/CEO

IndividualST. AUGUSTINE, FL

$6,600

Apr 4, 2023

KEMMERER, KAREN

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualJACKSON, WY

$6,600

Apr 6, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Davidson, Warren [R-OH-8]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 46 nodes and 44 connections

Total contributions: $44

Top Donors - Rep. Davidson, Warren [R-OH-8]

Showing top 19 donors by contribution amount

19 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 4 helped.

+Private Equity & Hedge Fundsconfidence 0.90
Repealing the Corporate Transparency Act removes beneficial ownership reporting requirements, reducing compliance burdens for private equity and hedge fund entities that often use complex ownership structures.
+Big Tech Platformsconfidence 0.85
Repeal reduces regulatory scrutiny and reporting obligations for large tech companies with intricate subsidiary structures, easing compliance costs.
+Real Estateconfidence 0.80
Real estate developers and REITs frequently use LLCs for property holdings; repeal lessens disclosure requirements, benefiting privacy and reducing administrative load.
+Crypto & Fintechconfidence 0.75
Crypto and fintech firms often utilize layered corporate structures; repeal of CTA reduces beneficial ownership reporting, aiding operational flexibility.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Davidson, Warren [R-OH-8])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HELPS

Crypto & Fintech$13,200
from 4 contributions
- ARMSTRONG, BRIAN$6,600
- GREWAL, PAUL$3,300
- SMITH, KRISTIN$3,300

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.

Department of the Treasury

Very Strong

Vector: 62%

Pages: 748-751AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 425 directly repeals the Corporate Transparency Act, which aligns with Project 2025's Treasury Department objective to reduce regulatory burdens on businesses and limit beneficial ownership reporting requirements."

Key themes:Corporate Transparency Actbeneficial ownership reportingregulatory burden reductionDepartment of TreasuryFinCEN

— 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).

Financial Regulatory Agencies

Strong

Vector: 61%

Pages: 872-874AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 425 aligns with Project 2025's goal of reducing regulatory burdens on businesses by repealing the Corporate Transparency Act's beneficial ownership reporting requirements, which Project 2025 critiques as overreach by financial regulators. The bill reflects a shared objective of limiting federal data collection and easing compliance for small businesses."

Key themes:regulatory burden reductionfinancial regulatory reformbeneficial ownership reportingsmall business reliefFinCEN oversight

— 840 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise ENDNOTES 1. H.R. 5480, Securities Act of 1933, Public Law No. 73-22, 73rd Congress, May 27, 1933, https://govtrackus. s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/48/STATUTE-48-Pg74.pdf (accessed February 20, 2023). 2. H.R. 9323, Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Public Law No. 73-291, 73rd Congress, June 6, 1934, https:// govtrackus.s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/48/STATUTE-48-Pg881a.pdf (accessed February 20, 2023). 3. Mark T. Uyeda, Commissioner, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, “Remarks at the 2022 Cato Summit on Financial Regulation,” November 17, 2022, https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/uyeda-remarks- cato-summit-financial-regulation-111722 (accessed February 20, 2023); Hester M. Peirce, Commissioner, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, “It’s Not Just Scope 3: Remarks at the American Enterprise Institute,” December 7, 2022, https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/peirce-remarks-american-enterprise-institute-120722 (accessed February 20, 2023); comment letter from David R. Burton to Vanessa A. Countryman, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, “Re: The Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors [File No. S7-10-2; Release No. 33-11042; RIN 3235-AM87],” June 17, 2022, https://www. sec.gov/comments/s7-10-22/s71022-20131980-302443.pdf (accessed February 20, 2023). 4. Size would probably be measured best by public float or the number of beneficial owners. 5. See David R. Burton, “Securities Disclosure Reform,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3178, February 13, 2017, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2017-02/BG3178.pdf; David R. Burton, “Offering and Disclosure Reform,” Chapter 11 in Reframing Financial Regulation: Enhancing Stability and Protecting Consumers, ed. Hester Peirce and Benjamin Klutsey (Arlington, VA: Mercatus Center at George Mason University, 2016), pp. 277–315, https://www.mercatus.org/research/books/reframing-financial-regulation (accessed February 20, 2023); Andrew N. Vollmer, “Investor-Friendly Securities Reform to Increase Economic Growth,” Securities Regulation & Law Report, Bloomberg BNA, Vol. 49, June 5, 2017. 6. See, for example, David R. Burton, “Reforming the Securities and Exchange Commission,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3378, January 30, 2019, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2019-01/ BG3378.pdf; Andrew N. Vollmer, “Testimony on Workforce Management Disclosures and Other SEC Issues,” submitted to the Subcommittee on Investor Protection, Entrepreneurship, and Capital Markets, Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, December 6, 2022, https://www.congress.gov/117/ meeting/house/115227/witnesses/HHRG-117-BA16-Wstate-VollmerA-20221208.pdf (accessed February 20, 2023); David R. Burton, “Reforming FINRA,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3181, February 1, 2017, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2017-02/BG3181.pdf; Hester Peirce, “The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority: Not Self-Regulation After All,” Mercatus Center at George Mason University Working Paper, January 2015, https://www.mercatus.org/research/working-papers/financial-industry-regulatory- authority-not-self-regulation-after-all (accessed February 20, 2023); Thaya Brook Knight, “Transparency and Accountability at the SEC and at FINRA,” Chapter 11 in Prosperity Unleashed: Smarter Financial Regulation, ed. Norbert J. Michel, (Washington: The Heritage Foundation, 2017) https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/ files/2017-02/11_ProsperityUnleashed_Chapter11.pdf. 7. Reorganization Plan No. 10 of 1950, U.S. Code Title 5—Appendix, Reorganization Plans, http://uscode.house. gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title5a-node84-leaf114&num=0&edition=prelim (accessed February 20, 2023). 8. The board or commission should evaluate the regulatory functions of the National Securities Exchanges, Registered Securities Future Product Exchanges, Registered Clearing Agencies (such as the Depository Trust Company (DTC), the National Securities Clearing Corporation (NSCC) and the Options Clearing Corporation (OCC)), the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) and the National Futures Association (NFA). This board or commission should have a broad composition and permit minority reports. 9. Boyden Gray & Associates, Comments Submitted on Behalf of Alliance for Fair Board Recruitment Concerning the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change to Adopt Listing Rules Related to Board Diversity, Amendment No. 1, File No. SR-NASDAQ-2020-081, April 6, 2021 https://www.sec.gov/ comments/sr-nasdaq-2020-081/srnasdaq2020081-8639478-230941.pdf (accessed February 20, 2023); David R. Burton, “Nasdaq’s Proposed Board-Diversity Rule Is Immoral and Has No Basis in Economics,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3591, March 9, 2021, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/ files/2021-03/BG3591_0.pdf. The SEC is contemplating at least two rules that can be expected to require differential treatment based on race, sex, ethnicity, and so on. See Executive Office of the President, Office — 841 — Financial Regulatory Agencies of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, “Fall 2022 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions: Active Regulatory Actions Listed by Agency,” https://www.reginfo.gov/ public/do/eAgendaMain (accessed February 20, 2023); “Human Capital Management Disclosure,” RIN: 3235- AM88, https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202204&RIN=3235-AM88 (accessed February 20, 2023); “Corporate Board Diversity,” RIN: 3235-AL91, https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202204&RIN=3235-AL91 (accessed February 20, 2023). 10. 15 U.S. Code § 77z–3, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/77z-3 (accessed February 20, 2023); 15 U.S. Code § 78mm, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/78mm (accessed February 20, 2023). 11. S. ___, Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2022, discussion draft, 117th Congress, 2nd Session, https:// www.banking.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/the_jobs_act_4.0discussiondraft.pdf (accessed February 20, 2023); David R. Burton, “Entrepreneurial Capital Formation,” Testimony before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate, April 5, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/testimony/entrepreneurial- capital-formation; “Removing Barriers to Small Business Capital Formation and Expanding Investor Opportunities,” Section 6 in Nicholas Anthony, Norbert J. Michel, Jennifer J. Schulp, George Selgin, and Jack Solowey, “Sound Financial Policy: Principled Recommendations for the 118th Congress,” ed. Norbert J. Michel and Ann Rulon, Cato Institute, 2022, pp. 22–27, https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2022-10/sound- financial-policy-118th-congress.pdf (accessed February 20, 2023); David R. Burton and Norbert J. Michel, Proposals to Foster Economic Growth and Capital Formation, Submission to Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate, March 18, 2021, https://www.banking.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/David%20 Burton%20and%20Norbert%20Michel%20-%202021-3-18.pdf (accessed February 20, 2023); David R. Burton, “Improving Entrepreneurs’ Access to Capital: Vital for Economic Growth,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3182, February 14, 2017, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2017-02/BG3182.pdf. 12. The small issues exemptive authority has been in the Securities Act since its initial enactment. 13. The crowdfunding exemption was created by Title III of the 2012 JOBS Act. See H.R. 3606, Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, Public Law No. 112-106, 112th Congress, April 5, 2021, Title III, § 302, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-112publ106/pdf/PLAW-112publ106.pdf (accessed February 20, 2023). 14. Burton, “Improving Entrepreneurs’ Access to Capital: Vital for Economic Growth”; Rutheford B. Campbell Jr., “The Case for Federal Pre-Emption of State Blue Sky Laws,” Chapter 6 in Prosperity Unleashed: Smarter Financial Regulation, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2017-02/06_ProsperityUnleashed_ Chapter06.pdf. 15. Andrew N. Vollmer, “Abandon the Concept of Accredited Investors in Private Securities Offerings,” Securities Regulation Law Journal, Vol. 49, No. 5 (Spring 2021), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_ id=3719280 (accessed February 20, 2023); Thaya Brook Knight, “Your Money’s No Good Here: How Restrictions on Private Securities Offerings Harm Investors,” Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 833, February 9, 2018, https:// www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa833.pdf (accessed February 20, 2023); David R. Burton, “Congress Should Increase Access to Private Securities Offerings,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 4899, August 29, 2018, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2018-08/IB4899.pdf; Andrew N. Vollmer, “Evidence on the Use of Disclosure Documents in Private Securities Offerings to Accredited Investors,” Mercatus Center at George Mason University Working Paper, October 22, 2020, https://www.mercatus.org/publications/financial-regulation/ evidence-use-disclosure-documents-private-securities-offerings-0 (accessed February 20, 2023). 16. For a detailed discussion, see “Micro-Offerings,” Section IId in Burton and Michel, Proposals to Foster Economic Growth and Capital Formation, pp. 15–17. 17. David R. Burton, “Let Entrepreneurs Raise Capital Using Finders and Private Placement Brokers,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3328, July 10, 2018, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2018-07/ BG3328.pdf; Andrew N. Vollmer, “Make It Easy for Startups to Sell Stock,” Mercatus Center at George Mason University Discourse, September 21, 2020, https://www.mercatus.org/bridge/commentary/make-it-easy- startups-sell-stock (accessed February 20, 2023). 18. See H.R. 531, S-Corp Access to Crowdfunding Act, 115th Congress, introduced January 13, 2017, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-115hr531ih/pdf/BILLS-115hr531ih.pdf (accessed February 20, 2023); David Burton, “The Tax Law Makes It Almost Impossible for ‘S Corporations’ to Use Equity Crowdfunding,” The Daily Signal, April 19, 2016, https://www.dailysignal.com/2016/04/19/the-tax-law-makes-it-almost-impossible-for- s-corporations-to-use-equity-crowdfunding/.

Financial Regulatory Agencies

Moderate

Vector: 62%

Pages: 872-874AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 425 seeks to repeal beneficial ownership reporting requirements to reduce compliance burdens on small businesses, which aligns with Project 2025's broader goal of rolling back financial regulations (e.g., repealing Dodd‑Frank §1071) that impose data collection and reporting costs on small firms. Both initiatives share a theme of limiting federal data‑collection mandates, though they target different agencies (FinCEN vs. CFPB)."

Key themes:regulatory burden reductionsmall business reliefdata collection repealfinancial regulation rollback

— 839 — Financial Regulatory Agencies On February 27, 2023, the Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of certiorari.51 The Court should issue its final decision by 2024. The CFPB is a highly politicized, damaging, and utterly unaccountable federal agency.52 It is unconstitutional. Congress should abolish the CFPB and reverse Dodd–Frank Section 1061, thus returning the consumer protection function of the CFPB to banking regulators53 and the Federal Trade Commission. Provided the Supreme Court affirms the Fifth Circuit holding in Community Financial Ser- vices Association of America, the next conservative President should order the immediate dissolution of the agency—pull down its prior rules, regulations and guidance, return its staff to their prior agencies and its building to the General Services Administration. Until this can be accomplished, however, Congress should: l Ensure that any civil penalty funds not used to recompense wronged consumers go to the Department of the Treasury. The funds should not be retained by the Bureau to be dispensed at the pleasure of the Director— potentially to political actors. Moreover, the CFPB should not have a financial incentive to impose penalties. l Repeal Dodd–Frank Section 1071. This section, which relates to small- business data collection, imposes requirements on financial institutions’ lending to small firms, raises costs, and limits small businesses’ access to capital.54 l Require that no CFPB funds are spent on enforcement actions that are not based on a rulemaking that complies with the Administrative Procedure Act.55 l Require that respondents in administrative actions be allowed to elect whether an adjudication occurs in an administrative law court or an ordinary Article III federal court.56 l Specify the nature of “deceptive, unfair, and abusive” practices to define the scope of the CFPB mission more precisely. — 840 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise ENDNOTES 1. H.R. 5480, Securities Act of 1933, Public Law No. 73-22, 73rd Congress, May 27, 1933, https://govtrackus. s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/48/STATUTE-48-Pg74.pdf (accessed February 20, 2023). 2. H.R. 9323, Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Public Law No. 73-291, 73rd Congress, June 6, 1934, https:// govtrackus.s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/48/STATUTE-48-Pg881a.pdf (accessed February 20, 2023). 3. Mark T. Uyeda, Commissioner, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, “Remarks at the 2022 Cato Summit on Financial Regulation,” November 17, 2022, https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/uyeda-remarks- cato-summit-financial-regulation-111722 (accessed February 20, 2023); Hester M. Peirce, Commissioner, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, “It’s Not Just Scope 3: Remarks at the American Enterprise Institute,” December 7, 2022, https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/peirce-remarks-american-enterprise-institute-120722 (accessed February 20, 2023); comment letter from David R. Burton to Vanessa A. Countryman, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, “Re: The Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors [File No. S7-10-2; Release No. 33-11042; RIN 3235-AM87],” June 17, 2022, https://www. sec.gov/comments/s7-10-22/s71022-20131980-302443.pdf (accessed February 20, 2023). 4. Size would probably be measured best by public float or the number of beneficial owners. 5. See David R. Burton, “Securities Disclosure Reform,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3178, February 13, 2017, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2017-02/BG3178.pdf; David R. Burton, “Offering and Disclosure Reform,” Chapter 11 in Reframing Financial Regulation: Enhancing Stability and Protecting Consumers, ed. Hester Peirce and Benjamin Klutsey (Arlington, VA: Mercatus Center at George Mason University, 2016), pp. 277–315, https://www.mercatus.org/research/books/reframing-financial-regulation (accessed February 20, 2023); Andrew N. Vollmer, “Investor-Friendly Securities Reform to Increase Economic Growth,” Securities Regulation & Law Report, Bloomberg BNA, Vol. 49, June 5, 2017. 6. See, for example, David R. Burton, “Reforming the Securities and Exchange Commission,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3378, January 30, 2019, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2019-01/ BG3378.pdf; Andrew N. Vollmer, “Testimony on Workforce Management Disclosures and Other SEC Issues,” submitted to the Subcommittee on Investor Protection, Entrepreneurship, and Capital Markets, Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, December 6, 2022, https://www.congress.gov/117/ meeting/house/115227/witnesses/HHRG-117-BA16-Wstate-VollmerA-20221208.pdf (accessed February 20, 2023); David R. Burton, “Reforming FINRA,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3181, February 1, 2017, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2017-02/BG3181.pdf; Hester Peirce, “The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority: Not Self-Regulation After All,” Mercatus Center at George Mason University Working Paper, January 2015, https://www.mercatus.org/research/working-papers/financial-industry-regulatory- authority-not-self-regulation-after-all (accessed February 20, 2023); Thaya Brook Knight, “Transparency and Accountability at the SEC and at FINRA,” Chapter 11 in Prosperity Unleashed: Smarter Financial Regulation, ed. Norbert J. Michel, (Washington: The Heritage Foundation, 2017) https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/ files/2017-02/11_ProsperityUnleashed_Chapter11.pdf. 7. Reorganization Plan No. 10 of 1950, U.S. Code Title 5—Appendix, Reorganization Plans, http://uscode.house. gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title5a-node84-leaf114&num=0&edition=prelim (accessed February 20, 2023). 8. The board or commission should evaluate the regulatory functions of the National Securities Exchanges, Registered Securities Future Product Exchanges, Registered Clearing Agencies (such as the Depository Trust Company (DTC), the National Securities Clearing Corporation (NSCC) and the Options Clearing Corporation (OCC)), the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) and the National Futures Association (NFA). This board or commission should have a broad composition and permit minority reports. 9. Boyden Gray & Associates, Comments Submitted on Behalf of Alliance for Fair Board Recruitment Concerning the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change to Adopt Listing Rules Related to Board Diversity, Amendment No. 1, File No. SR-NASDAQ-2020-081, April 6, 2021 https://www.sec.gov/ comments/sr-nasdaq-2020-081/srnasdaq2020081-8639478-230941.pdf (accessed February 20, 2023); David R. Burton, “Nasdaq’s Proposed Board-Diversity Rule Is Immoral and Has No Basis in Economics,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3591, March 9, 2021, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/ files/2021-03/BG3591_0.pdf. The SEC is contemplating at least two rules that can be expected to require differential treatment based on race, sex, ethnicity, and so on. See Executive Office of the President, Office

Federal Communications Commission

Weak

Vector: 61%

Pages: 885-887AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 425 focuses on repealing domestic beneficial ownership reporting requirements under the Corporate Transparency Act, while the Project 2025 FCC policy emphasizes transparency regarding foreign adversary ownership in U.S. communications licenses and securing telecom infrastructure. Both touch on foreign ownership transparency but address different sectors (general corporate ownership vs. FCC-regulated communications entities) and have opposing directions—HR 425 reduces transparency, whereas Pro"

Key themes:foreign ownership transparencynational securityfinancial regulationgovernment oversight

— 852 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Publish a foreign adversary transparency list. As part of the FCC’s ongoing work to secure our networks from entities that would do the bidding of our foreign adversaries, the FCC should do more to shine the light of transparency on the scope of the problem. To this end, the FCC should compile and publish a list of all entities that hold FCC authorizations, licenses, or other grants of authority with more than 10 percent ownership by foreign adversarial governments, including the governments of China, Russia, Iran, Syria, or North Korea. A bipartisan bill that would require the FCC to publish this type of list has been introduced in the House of Representatives by Representatives Elise Stefanik (R–NY), Ro Khanna (D– CA), and Mike Gallagher (R–WI).24 l Fully fund the federal “rip and replace” program. In 2019, Congress established a $1.9 billion Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Reimbursement Program (known colloquially as the “rip and replace” program) to reimburse communications providers for the reasonable expenses they would incur to remove, replace, and dispose of insecure Huawei and ZTE gear. However, $1.9 billion is about $3 billion short of the total amount of funding needed to complete the rip and replace process. A new Administration should ensure that the program is fully funded and should look first at repurposing and applying unused COVID-era emergency funds for this purpose. l Launch a Clean Standards Initiative. During the Trump Administration, the U.S. government launched a worldwide Clean Networks program.25 As a result of this initiative, many of the U.S. government’s allies started the process of ending their relationships with Huawei. It is time for an Administration to build and expand on this groundbreaking work by taking a similar approach to the standard-setting process. Right now, the CCP is seeking to extend its influence by exerting control over the development of standards in a variety of areas, including technology and telecommunications. It is vital that the United States meet this threat with a comprehensive clean standards initiative. l Stop aiding the CCP’s authoritarian approach to artificial intelligence. The CCP has set itself a goal of becoming the global leader in artificial intelligence (AI) by 2030. Beijing is bent on using this technology to exert authoritarian control domestically and export its authoritarian governance model overseas. U.S. businesses are aiding Beijing in this effort— often unwittingly—by feeding, training, and improving the AI datasets of companies that are beholden to the CCP. One way that U.S. companies

Trade

Weak

Vector: 61%

Pages: 863-865AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 425 focuses on repealing beneficial ownership reporting requirements under the Corporate Transparency Act, which is unrelated to Project 2025's Trade section objectives concerning securities regulation, accredited investor rules, and capital market reforms. There is no direct thematic or policy overlap between the bill's anti-money laundering focus and Project 2025's goals for democratizing private offerings or reducing SEC regulatory burdens in capital markets."

Key themes:regulatory burden reductionfinancial regulation

— 831 — Financial Regulatory Agencies l Either democratize access to private offerings by broadening the definition of accredited investor for purposes of Regulation D or eliminate the accredited investor restriction altogether.15 l Allow traditional self-certification of accredited investor status for all Regulation D Rule 506 offerings. l Exempt small micro-offerings from registration requirements.16 l Exempt small and intermittent finders from broker–dealer registration requirements and provide a simplified registration process for private placement brokers.17 l Exempt peer-to-peer lending from federal and state securities laws and reduce the regulatory burden on Regulation CF debt securities. l Make the Title I Emerging Growth Company (EGC) exemptions permanent for all EGCs. l Reduce the regulatory burden on small broker–dealers and exempt privately held, non-custodial broker–dealers from the requirements to use a PCAOB- registered firm for their audits. Congress should: l Amend the Internal Revenue Code to disregard crowdfunding and Regulation A shareholders for purposes of the 100-shareholder limit for Subchapter S corporations.18 BETTER CAPITAL MARKETS To improve capital markets, the SEC should: l Preempt blue sky registration, qualification, and continuing reporting requirements for securities traded on established securities markets (including a national securities exchange or an alternative trading system).19 l Terminate the Consolidated Audit Trail (CAT) program.20 l Abolish Rule 144 and other regulations that restrict securities resales and instead require a company that has sold securities to provide sufficient current informa- tion to the market to permit reasonable investment decisions and secondary sales. — 832 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Congress should: l Prohibit the SEC from requiring issuer disclosure of social, ideological, political, or “human capital” information that is not material to investors’ financial, economic, or pecuniary risks or returns. The proposed SEC climate change rule, which would quadruple the costs of being a public company, is particularly problematic.21 l Repeal the Dodd–Frank mandated disclosures relating to conflict minerals, mine safety, resource extraction, and CEO pay ratios.22 l Oppose efforts to redefine the purpose of business in the name of social justice; corporate social responsibility (CSR); stakeholder theory; environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria; socially responsible investing (SRI); sustainability; diversity; business ethics; or common- good capitalism. l Prohibit securities regulators, including SROs, from promulgating rules or taking other actions that discriminate, either favorably or unfavorably, on the basis of the race, color, religion, sex, or national origin of such individual or group. SEC ADMINISTRATION To enable it to achieve its core mission more effectively, the SEC should:23 l Publish better data on securities offerings, securities markets, and securities law enforcement and publish an annual data book of time series data on these matters. Specifically, the SEC Division of Economic and Risk Analysis (DERA) needs to do a much better job of collecting and reporting fundamental data regarding offerings, regulatory costs, violations, enforcement, investors, state regulator taxes, fees and activities, and other matters. l Ensure that SEC resources flow toward its core functions and away from ancillary and support functions or from missions that do not fall within the SEC’s statutory charge. l Ensure that any three SEC Commissioners are empowered to place an item on the agenda and to receive adequate staff support to do so even without the Chairman’s support.

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. Davidson, Warren

DPA Modernization Act of 2026

119/hr/7688

Chinese Currency Accountability Act of 2025

119/hr/386

Biological Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2025

119/hr/6624

Back to All Bills