FIND Act
Download PDFSponsored by
Rep. Bergman, Jack [R-MI-1]
ID: B001301
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
January 3, 2025
Introduced
Committee Review
đź“Ť Current Status
Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.
Floor Action
Passed House
Senate Review
Passed Congress
Presidential Action
Became Law
đź“š 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
The FIND Act, because what this country really needs is more guns and less common sense. Let's dissect this legislative abomination.
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's primary objective is to prohibit the federal government from entering into contracts with entities that "discriminate" against the firearm industry. In other words, it's a thinly veiled attempt to strong-arm companies into doing business with gun manufacturers and suppliers, lest they face penalties and contract terminations.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Title 41 of the United States Code by adding a new section (4715) that requires contractors to certify they don't discriminate against firearm entities. It also includes provisions for subcontractors, penalties for non-compliance, and exceptions for sole-source contracts.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The obvious beneficiaries are gun manufacturers, suppliers, and trade associations. The losers? Everyone else. Taxpayers will foot the bill for this crony capitalism, while companies that don't want to do business with the firearm industry will be forced to choose between their values and federal contracts.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a symptom of a deeper disease: the NRA's stranglehold on American politics. By codifying special treatment for the gun industry, Congress is essentially saying that profits matter more than public safety. The FIND Act will:
* Stifle competition by forcing companies to do business with gun manufacturers * Increase costs for taxpayers due to unnecessary contracts and penalties * Undermine efforts to regulate firearms and promote responsible business practices
In short, this bill is a legislative tumor that needs to be excised before it metastasizes into more destructive policies. The real diagnosis? A bad case of Gun-Industry-itis, caused by an overdose of lobbying dollars and a severe lack of common sense.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have better things to do than analyze the latest example of congressional malpractice.
Related Topics
đź’° Campaign Finance Network
Rep. Bergman, Jack [R-MI-1]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance
This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
Rep. Crenshaw, Dan [R-TX-2]
ID: C001120
Top Contributors
10
Rep. Crane, Elijah [R-AZ-2]
ID: C001132
Top Contributors
10
Rep. Miller, Mary E. [R-IL-15]
ID: M001211
Top Contributors
10
Rep. Finstad, Brad [R-MN-1]
ID: F000475
Top Contributors
10
Rep. Ogles, Andrew [R-TN-5]
ID: O000175
Top Contributors
10
Rep. Tenney, Claudia [R-NY-24]
ID: T000478
Top Contributors
10
Rep. Messmer, Mark [R-IN-8]
ID: M001233
Top Contributors
10
Rep. Reschenthaler, Guy [R-PA-14]
ID: R000610
Top Contributors
10
Rep. Cloud, Michael [R-TX-27]
ID: C001115
Top Contributors
10
Rep. Kennedy, Mike [R-UT-3]
ID: K000403
Top Contributors
10
Donor Network - Rep. Bergman, Jack [R-MI-1]
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 45 nodes and 45 connections
Total contributions: $113,380
Top Donors - Rep. Bergman, Jack [R-MI-1]
Showing top 25 donors by contribution amount
Project 2025 Policy Matches
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document. Higher similarity scores indicate stronger thematic connections.
Introduction
— 869 — 30 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Adam Candeub MISSION/OVERVIEW America’s antitrust laws are over a century old. In 1890, the U.S. Congress enacted the Sherman Act,1 the first federal prohibition on trusts and restraints of trade. The Clayton Act,2 adopted in 1914, builds upon the Sherman Act, outlawing certain practices, such as price fixing, while bringing other business combinations, such as mergers and acquisitions, under regulatory scrutiny. The Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA),3 also adopted in 1914, gives the federal government legal tools to combat anticompetitive, unfair, and deceptive practices in the marketplace, empowering the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to enforce provisions of the Sherman and Clayton Acts. The FTCA prohibits “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.” Sections 3, 7, and 8 of the Clayton Act empower the FTC to block unlawful tying contracts, unlawful corporate mergers and acquisitions, and inter- locking directorates. Under an amendment to the FTCA, the Robinson–Patman Act,4 the FTC has authority to prohibit practices involving discriminatory pricing and product promotion. While the FTC has enforcement or administrative respon- sibilities under more than 70 laws, the FTCA and the Clayton Act are the focus of its regulatory energy. FTC actions, therefore, turn on the antitrust principles and market principles it adopts. Modern approaches to antitrust stress that the objective of antitrust law is to assure a competitive economy—which in economic terms maximizes both allocative efficiency (optimal distribution of goods and services, taking into account consumer’s preferences, so that prices tend toward marginal cost) and productive — 870 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise efficiency (using the least amount of resources for optimal output)—and thereby maximizes consumer welfare.5 Recently, however, many in the conservative movement have taken a broader view of antitrust. They point out that the authors of our antitrust laws did not intend this purely economic understanding of competitive markets—and the normative assumptions that undergird it—to guide their legislation. First, these principles were only imperfectly worked out at the time the antitrust laws were passed. Second, contemporaneous statements concerning the Sherman and Clay- ton Acts demonstrate Congress’s concern about the political and economic power of the oil and railroad trusts of the first Gilded Age, and their influence on dem- ocratic institutions and civil society. Antitrust law can combat dominant firms’ baleful effects on democratic institutions such as free speech, the marketplace of ideas, shareholder control, and managerial accountability as well as collusive behavior with government. Republican Senator John Sherman explained to Congress in support of his eponymous legislation: If we will not endure a king as a political power, we should not endure a king over the production, transportation, and sale of any of the necessaries of life. If we would not submit to an emperor, we should not submit to an autocrat of trade, with power to prevent competition and to fix the price of any commodity.6 Similarly, identifying the institutional threats that market concentration can pose, the former Republican President and future Supreme Court Justice William Howard Taft wrote at the time, The federal antitrust law is one of the most important statutes ever passed in this country. It was a step taken by Congress to meet what the public had found to be a growing and intolerable evil in combinations between many who had capital employed in a branch of trade, industry, or transportation, to obtain control of it, regulate prices, and make unlimited profit. Taft saw in this economic threat broader implications for American society since “the building of great and powerful corporations which had, many of them, intervened in politics and through use of corrupt machines and bosses threatened us with a plutocracy.”7 Others in the conservative movement have maintained for numerous decades that an economic justification is the only coherent approach to the antitrust laws. Many view the first 90 years of U.S. antitrust policy as unprincipled in its approach, often resulting in policies that, by trying to protect smaller competitors, ended up
Introduction
— 869 — 30 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Adam Candeub MISSION/OVERVIEW America’s antitrust laws are over a century old. In 1890, the U.S. Congress enacted the Sherman Act,1 the first federal prohibition on trusts and restraints of trade. The Clayton Act,2 adopted in 1914, builds upon the Sherman Act, outlawing certain practices, such as price fixing, while bringing other business combinations, such as mergers and acquisitions, under regulatory scrutiny. The Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA),3 also adopted in 1914, gives the federal government legal tools to combat anticompetitive, unfair, and deceptive practices in the marketplace, empowering the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to enforce provisions of the Sherman and Clayton Acts. The FTCA prohibits “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.” Sections 3, 7, and 8 of the Clayton Act empower the FTC to block unlawful tying contracts, unlawful corporate mergers and acquisitions, and inter- locking directorates. Under an amendment to the FTCA, the Robinson–Patman Act,4 the FTC has authority to prohibit practices involving discriminatory pricing and product promotion. While the FTC has enforcement or administrative respon- sibilities under more than 70 laws, the FTCA and the Clayton Act are the focus of its regulatory energy. FTC actions, therefore, turn on the antitrust principles and market principles it adopts. Modern approaches to antitrust stress that the objective of antitrust law is to assure a competitive economy—which in economic terms maximizes both allocative efficiency (optimal distribution of goods and services, taking into account consumer’s preferences, so that prices tend toward marginal cost) and productive
Introduction
— 554 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise attorneys are consistently using the tools at their disposal in cases with violent offenders, including pursuing mandatory minimum sentences under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA).43 The department should also support legislative efforts to provide further tools, such as the Restoring the Armed Career Criminal Act, which Senators Tom Cotton (R–AR), Marsha Blackburn (R–TN), and Cindy Hyde-Smith (R–MS) introduced in 2021 in response to U.S. Supreme Court decisions neutering the ACCA.44 l Enforce the death penalty where appropriate and applicable. Capital punishment is a sensitive matter, as it should be, but the current crime wave makes deterrence vital at the federal, state, and local levels. However, providing this punishment without ever enforcing it provides justice neither for the victims’ families nor for the defendant. The next conservative Administration should therefore do everything possible to obtain finality for the 44 prisoners currently on federal death row. It should also pursue the death penalty for applicable crimes—particularly heinous crimes involving violence and sexual abuse of children—until Congress says otherwise through legislation.45 DISMANTLING DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL ENTERPRISES Criminal organizations are as old as crime itself, but are more extensive, sophisticated, and dangerous today than at any other point in history. The Department of Justice has a key role in tackling transnational criminal orga- nizations like Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) and Mexican drug cartels as well as purely domestic criminal organizations like those built on the more traditional mafia crime model as part of its obligation to ensure the safety and security of the American people. The department’s primary directive under the next Administration should be to return to an unapologetic focus on dismantling these criminal organizations and incarcerating their membership. Once this reprioritization occurs, the depart- ment’s political leadership should take concrete steps to use agency reach and resources to prevent these criminal organizations from operating and surviving. Assaulting the business model of these criminal organizations—which are massive, diversified enterprises with nationwide or international operations—is essential for success. The next Administration will therefore need to: l Revitalize the DOJ’s use of the array of statutory tools that exist for dealing with the threat of criminal organizations. The most potent ones are the simplest. For example, the department should: — 555 — Department of Justice 1. Rigorously prosecute as much interstate drug activity as possible, including simple possession of distributable quantities.46 Recent efforts to create the impression that drug possession crimes are not serious offenses has contributed to the explosion of criminal organization activities in the United States. 2. Aggressively deploy the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO),47 which Congress expressly created to empower the Department of Justice to treat patterns of intrastate- level crimes, such as robbery, extortion, and murder, as federal criminal conduct for criminal organizations and networks. The next Administration can use existing tools while it works with Congress to develop new tools. l Secure the border,48 which is the key entry point for many criminal organizations and their supplies, products, and employees. Mexico— which is arguably functioning as a failed state run by drug cartels—is the main point of transit for illegal drugs produced in Central and South America, fentanyl precursors from the Chinese Communist Party–led People’s Republic of China,49 weapons, human smuggling and trafficking, and other contraband. Mexican drug cartels, including the dominant Sinaloa Cartel and the Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG), are the main drivers of fentanyl production and distribution in the United States. The southwestern land border is sufficiently porous that Mexican drug cartels have operational control of large sections of the border, which facilitates easy movement of product and personnel. These cartels are also violent and not afraid to demonstrate force on both sides of the border. Their conduct represents a clear and present danger to the United States and its citizens. In addition to finalizing the southwestern land border wall, the next Administration should take a creative and aggressive approach to tackling these dangerous criminal organizations at the border. This could include use of active-duty military personnel and National Guardsmen to assist in arrest operations along the border—something that has not yet been done. A new and forceful approach to interdiction will have a ripple effect on the operations of these criminal organizations, which currently operate freely without concern for criminal prosecution, and will lay the necessary groundwork for initial prosecutions of these organizations and their leaders. It is critical that the federal government staunch the flow of drugs by preventing the far-too-easy access to the United States that now exists.
Showing 3 of 5 policy matches
About These Correlations
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.