Mystic Alerts Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/7022

Last Updated: September 7, 2026

Mystic Alerts Act

HR. 7022, 119th Congress — read as touching Telecommunications.

The sponsor

Rep. Pfluger, August [R-TX-11]

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

The money

$101,135 raised

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

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Financial Regulatory Agencies" section, p. 879-881 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

April 20, 2026

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:

The Mystic Alerts Act, HR 7022, is a congressional bill that aims to facilitate the transmission of emergency alerts by satellite. As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I will dissect this legislation through the lens of its implications on wealth, power, and innovation.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of this bill is to enable commercial mobile service providers to transmit emergency alerts via satellite, in addition to existing methods. This expansion of alert capabilities may seem benevolent, but it's essential to recognize the underlying drivers: consolidation of control and potential revenue streams.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill introduces several key provisions:

1. **Service Provider Election:** Covered service providers can opt-in or out of transmitting emergency alerts by satellite. 2. **Satellite Alert Regulations:** The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will establish requirements for facilitating satellite alerting capabilities, minimizing the impact on other voice and data communications. 3. **Limitation of Liability:** Providers that transmit emergency alerts by satellite and meet their obligations under this Act will be shielded from liability related to the transmission or failure to transmit such alerts.

These provisions may appear innocuous, but they represent a subtle yet significant shift in the balance of power. By allowing service providers to opt-in or out, the bill creates an environment where market forces can dictate the trajectory of emergency alert systems, rather than rigid regulatory frameworks.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary stakeholders include:

1. **Commercial Mobile Service Providers:** Companies like mine, which stand to gain from expanded alert capabilities and potential revenue streams. 2. **Federal Agencies:** The FCC, Department of Homeland Security, and Federal Emergency Management Agency will play crucial roles in implementing and regulating satellite alert systems. 3. **Subscribers:** End-users who may benefit from enhanced emergency alert capabilities, but also face potential risks and liabilities.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The Mystic Alerts Act has far-reaching implications for the future of emergency communication systems:

1. **Consolidation of Control:** By allowing service providers to opt-in or out, the bill may lead to consolidation of control among a few dominant players, further concentrating wealth and power. 2. **Innovation and Revenue Streams:** The expansion of satellite alert capabilities may unlock new revenue streams for companies like mine, driving innovation and investment in this space. 3. **Regulatory Environment:** The bill's emphasis on minimizing regulatory barriers may pave the way for further deregulation, creating a more favorable environment for entrepreneurial ventures and wealth creation.

In conclusion, the Mystic Alerts Act represents a calculated move to expand the reach of emergency alert systems, driven by the imperatives of wealth, power, and innovation. As a visionary entrepreneur, I recognize the potential for this legislation to reshape the landscape of emergency communication, consolidating control, driving revenue streams, and fostering an environment conducive to growth and profit.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

Let's break down the Mystic Alerts Act, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics, a bill becomes a law through a process that involves introduction, committee review, and voting. Remember when we learned about the importance of committees in shaping legislation? Well, this bill has been referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, where it will be reviewed and potentially amended.

The main purpose of HR 7022 is to provide for the transmission of emergency alerts by satellite, which, as you should have learned in middle school, is a critical aspect of our nation's emergency response system. The objectives are to enable covered service providers to transmit emergency alerts to subscribers via satellite, establish regulations for such transmissions, and limit liability for providers that comply with the Act.

Now, key provisions include requiring covered service providers to file an election with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) within 60 days of the final rule's effective date, stating whether they intend to transmit emergency alerts by satellite. Providers that elect to transmit alerts must notify the FCC and agree to follow technical standards and protocols set by the Commission. Consumers also have the option to opt out of receiving these alerts, which is a crucial aspect of individual freedom, as we discussed in class.

The Act amends existing law by adding new requirements for covered service providers, which include commercial mobile service providers that voluntarily elect to transmit emergency alerts under the Warning, Alert, and Response Network Act. The FCC must publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking within six months of enactment to establish requirements for satellite alerting capabilities, taking into account satellite and mobile device capabilities, as well as minimizing the impact on other communications.

Affected parties and stakeholders include covered service providers, subscribers, the FCC, and government agencies involved in emergency response. The potential impact is significant, as it could enhance the nation's emergency alert system by leveraging satellite technology to reach more people, particularly in areas with limited cellular coverage. However, there are also implications for consumer choice, as some may opt out of receiving these alerts, and for providers, which must balance compliance with the Act and their own business interests.

As we covered in 8th grade, the system of checks and balances is designed to prevent any one branch of government from becoming too powerful. In this case, the Mystic Alerts Act demonstrates how Congress can work with regulatory agencies, like the FCC, to shape policy and ensure that the executive branch does not overstep its authority. It's essential to understand these dynamics, as they underpin our democratic system.

In conclusion, the Mystic Alerts Act is a complex piece of legislation that requires a nuanced understanding of the legislative process, committee review, and the interplay between different branches of government. As I taught you in 8th grade civics, it's crucial to stay informed about these issues and appreciate the intricacies of our democratic system.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

The Mystic Alerts Act, HR 7022 - now this is what I call a bill with some real meat on its bones! On the surface, it's all about providing emergency alerts via satellite to keep us safe in case of natural disasters or other crises. 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 enable the transmission of emergency alerts by satellite, which sounds like a noble goal. But what's really going on here? Is it just about keeping us safe, or is there something more sinister at play? I mean, think about it - with this technology, the government can reach us anywhere, anytime. It's like they're saying, "We've got our eyes on you, and we can alert you to anything we want, whenever we want."

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires covered service providers (i.e., cell phone companies) to file an election with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) within 60 days of the final rule being issued. They must decide whether they want to transmit emergency alerts by satellite, and if so, they have to agree to follow the FCC's technical standards and protocols. But here's the thing - what if these "technical standards" are just a euphemism for "government-controlled messaging"? And what about the provision that allows providers to opt out of transmitting alerts? Is this just a way for them to avoid liability, or is there something more going on?

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include covered service providers (cell phone companies), subscribers (that's us!), and government agencies like the FCC, Homeland Security, and FEMA. But let's not forget about the real stakeholders - the ones who are pulling the strings from behind the scenes. I'm talking about the corporations, the special interest groups, and the government agencies that are all working together to shape this bill to their advantage.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this bill is huge. With satellite emergency alerts, the government can reach us anywhere, anytime. It's like they're saying, "We've got our eyes on you, and we can alert you to anything we want, whenever we want." But what about our right to opt out? What if we don't want to receive these alerts? And what about the potential for abuse - could this technology be used to spread propaganda or manipulate public opinion?

Now, I know some of you might be thinking, "But Uncle, this is just a bill about emergency alerts. What's the big deal?" Ah, my friends, that's exactly what they want you to think. This bill is just the tip of the iceberg - it's part of a larger agenda to control our communications, monitor our activities, and shape our perceptions. Wake up, sheeple! The truth is out there, and I'm here to

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(With a healthy dose of sarcasm and a smirk) Oh boy, folks, gather 'round! We've got a real doozy of a bill on our hands here - the Mystic Alerts Act, because who doesn't love a good mystery? (wink) This "groundbreaking" legislation is all about... (dramatic pause) ...emergency alerts by satellite! That's right, because your freedom to receive emergency alerts on your phone just wasn't enough. Now, we're talking satellites, people! The ultimate symbol of American ingenuity and... (air quotes) "freedom."

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to provide for the transmission of emergency alerts by satellite, because why not? It's not like our current alert systems are working just fine or anything. I mean, who needs efficiency when you can have satellites, right? (smirk) The objectives are clear: to give service providers the option to transmit emergency alerts via satellite, and to establish regulations for said transmissions. Because, you know, freedom.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires service providers to file an election with the FCC within 60 days of the final rule's effective date, stating whether they intend to transmit emergency alerts by satellite. Providers who opt in must notify the Commission and agree to follow technical standards and protocols. And, of course, consumers have the freedom to opt out - because that's what this bill is all about: freedom... from annoying alerts. (rolls eyes) The bill also limits liability for service providers who transmit emergency alerts by satellite, because we wouldn't want them to be held accountable for any mistakes or omissions. I mean, that would be a real infringement on their freedom.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include commercial mobile service providers, subscribers, and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Oh, and let's not forget the "elites" who will undoubtedly try to undermine this bill with their "facts" and "reasoning." (smirk) The stakeholders are, of course, the American people - or at least, that's what we're told. In reality, it's probably just a bunch of corporate interests looking to cash in on the latest freedom-filled technology.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this bill is... (dramatic pause) ...well, not exactly earth-shattering. I mean, it's not like it's going to revolutionize the way we receive emergency alerts or anything. But hey, who knows? Maybe it'll create some new jobs in the satellite industry - or at least, that's what the "elites" will tell you. (wink) The implications are clear: this bill is a bold step forward for freedom... from efficient emergency alert systems. And if you don't like it, well, that's just too bad. You can always opt out - or

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the geniuses in Congress. The Mystic Alerts Act, because who doesn't love a good mystic alert? It's like they're trying to make us feel like we're living in a bad sci-fi movie.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** Oh boy, this one's a real doozy. The main purpose of this bill is to provide for the transmission of emergency alerts by satellite, because apparently, our current emergency alert system isn't enough to satisfy the government's desire to yell "BOO!" at us through our phones. And let's be real, who needs actual substance when you can just add more ways to send alerts? It's like they're trying to win some kind of bet on how many different ways they can say "emergency alert."

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires covered service providers (i.e., companies that provide commercial mobile services and have voluntarily elected to transmit emergency alerts) to file an election with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) within 60 days of the final rule being issued. Because, you know, the FCC doesn't have better things to do than babysit these companies. And if a provider elects to transmit emergency alerts by satellite, they must agree to follow the technical standards and protocols set by the FCC. Wow, what a bold move. I bet the lobbyists for the telecom industry are just thrilled.

The bill also establishes a timeline for the FCC to issue regulations on satellite alerting capabilities, because who doesn't love a good deadline? And, of course, there's the obligatory limitation of liability provision, because God forbid these companies actually be held accountable for their actions. It's like they're saying, "Hey, we know this is all just a bunch of nonsense, but let's just cover our bases, shall we?"

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects: covered service providers (i.e., telecom companies), the FCC, and subscribers who will be subjected to these emergency alerts. And let's not forget the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, because they get to implement standards and protocols for supporting the transmission of emergency alerts. Yay, more bureaucracy!

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Oh joy, this bill has the potential to create a whole new level of bureaucratic red tape and confusion. And let's not forget the added cost to taxpayers, because someone has to pay for all these satellite alerts. But hey, who needs actual substance when you can just add more ways to send alerts? It's like they're trying to create some kind of emergency alert singularity.

In conclusion, the Mystic Alerts Act is a perfect example of legislative theater at its finest. It's a solution in search of a problem, designed to make politicians look good while doing absolutely nothing to address the real issues facing this country. So, let's all just take a deep breath and enjoy the show, shall we?

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

**Mystic Alerts Act (HR 7022) Summary**

### Main Purpose & Objectives The Mystic Alerts Act aims to enhance the transmission of emergency alerts by allowing commercial mobile service providers to use satellite technology in addition to existing methods. The primary objective is to improve the dissemination of critical information during emergencies, ensuring public safety and minimizing harm.

### Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law Key provisions include: - **Service Provider Election**: Covered service providers must decide within 60 days of the final rule's effective date whether to transmit emergency alerts by satellite. If they choose to do so, they must notify the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and agree to follow technical standards set by the FCC. - **Consumer Choice**: Subscribers have the option to opt-out of receiving emergency alerts via satellite if their provider offers this service. - **No Additional Fees**: Providers cannot charge extra for transmitting emergency alerts by satellite. - **Regulatory Framework**: The FCC must establish regulations within 18 months of the Act's enactment, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, to facilitate satellite alerting capabilities while minimizing impact on other communications.

### Affected Parties & Stakeholders Affected parties include: - **Commercial Mobile Service Providers**: Especially those offering satellite voice and data services. - **Subscribers**: Individuals who receive commercial mobile services capable of receiving emergency alerts via satellite. - **Federal Agencies**: The FCC, Department of Homeland Security, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency play crucial roles in implementing and regulating this Act.

### Potential Impact & Implications The potential impact includes: - **Enhanced Public Safety**: By utilizing satellite technology for emergency alerts, more people can be reached, especially in areas with limited terrestrial coverage. - **Increased Reliability**: Satellite transmission can provide a backup or alternative method for sending emergency alerts, reducing reliance on any single communication method. - **Consumer Protection**: The Act ensures that consumers have choices regarding the receipt of emergency alerts and are not subjected to additional fees for this service. However, implementation challenges, including technological compatibility issues and regulatory hurdles, may arise. Additionally, ensuring that all stakeholders are prepared for the transition and that public awareness campaigns are effective will be crucial for the success of this Act.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's dive into the Mystic Alerts Act, bro! This bill is all about gettin' emergency alerts out to people via satellite, which is a total game-changer for public safety, man.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main goal of this act is to enable commercial mobile service providers to transmit emergency alerts by satellite, in addition to the existing cell tower-based system. This will help reach more people, especially those in rural or hard-to-reach areas, with critical info during emergencies like natural disasters or terrorist attacks.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires covered service providers (those who offer commercial mobile services and satellite voice/data communications) to decide whether they wanna transmit emergency alerts by satellite. If they do, they gotta file an election with the FCC within 60 days of the final rule being issued. They also gotta notify subscribers about their decision and give 'em the option to opt out of receiving these alerts. The bill also establishes a framework for the FCC to develop regulations for satellite alerting, which will minimize the impact on other communications like 9-1-1 calls.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill affects commercial mobile service providers, subscribers, and government agencies like the FCC, Department of Homeland Security, and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). It's all about gettin' emergency info to people who need it, bro!

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The Mystic Alerts Act has some serious potential, dude. By expandin' emergency alert capabilities to satellite, we can reach more people in areas with limited cell coverage. This could save lives, reduce injuries, and minimize damage during emergencies. It's also a big deal for rural communities, who often get left behind when it comes to access to critical info. However, there are some potential challenges, like ensuring the reliability and security of satellite-based emergency alerts. But overall, this bill is a solid step towards enhancin' public safety and keepin' people informed, bro!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Mystic Alerts Act (HR 7022): A Comprehensive Summary**

The Mystic Alerts Act, recently passed in the House of Representatives, aims to provide for the transmission of emergency alerts by satellite, enhancing the existing Warning Alert and Response Network Act. This bill has significant implications for the telecommunications industry, emergency response systems, and consumer protection.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of this legislation is to enable commercial mobile service providers to transmit emergency alerts via satellite, in addition to traditional methods. This expansion aims to improve the reach and effectiveness of emergency alert systems, particularly in areas with limited or no cellular coverage.

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

1. **Service Provider Election**: Covered service providers must file an election with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) within 60 days of the final rule's effective date, indicating whether they intend to transmit emergency alerts by satellite. 2. **Satellite Alert Regulations**: The FCC must establish requirements for satellite alerting capabilities, taking into account satellite and mobile device capabilities, and minimizing the impact on other communications, including 9-1-1 services. 3. **Limitation of Liability**: Covered service providers that transmit emergency alerts by satellite and meet their obligations under this Act are not liable for any harm resulting from the transmission or failure to transmit an emergency alert.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. **Commercial Mobile Service Providers**: Companies like Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile will be directly affected by this legislation, as they will need to decide whether to opt-in to satellite-based emergency alert transmissions. 2. **Emergency Response Agencies**: Organizations like the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Department of Homeland Security will play a crucial role in implementing standards and protocols for satellite-based emergency alerts. 3. **Consumers**: Subscribers to commercial mobile services will have the option to opt-out of receiving emergency alerts by satellite, and providers cannot impose additional charges for this service.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Enhanced Emergency Response**: The expansion of emergency alert systems to include satellite-based transmissions can improve response times and save lives in areas with limited or no cellular coverage. 2. **Industry Investment**: The implementation of satellite-based emergency alerts may require significant investments from commercial mobile service providers, potentially leading to increased costs for consumers. 3. **Regulatory Framework**: The FCC's establishment of requirements for satellite alerting capabilities will shape the future of emergency response systems and the role of telecommunications companies in these efforts.

In conclusion, the Mystic Alerts Act has far-reaching implications for the telecommunications industry, emergency response systems, and consumer protection. As this legislation moves forward, it is essential to monitor its implementation and potential impact on affected parties and stakeholders.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Pfluger, August [R-TX-11]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$101,135

16 donors

PACs

Organizations

$7,600

Committees

Individuals

$93,535

No PAC contributions found

SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION

2 transactions

$6,600

ALABAMA-COUSHATTA TRIBE

1 transaction

$1,000

No committee contributions found

WILSON, CELIA R

4 transactions

$22,400

PUDWILL, JAMES

2 transactions

$13,200

GELBMAN, JOEL

2 transactions

$13,200

DIMEMMO, COLETTE

1 transaction

$6,600

AUSTIN, RUTH

2 transactions

$6,600

WILSON, WORD B

1 transaction

$5,000

O'BRIEN, JAMES

1 transaction

$3,435

WIDENER, BROCK

1 transaction

$3,300

POOL, VALRIE S

1 transaction

$3,300

KAMON, KENNETH

1 transaction

$3,300

ZALIK, DAVID

1 transaction

$3,300

JENNINGS, MICHAEL

1 transaction

$3,300

WALKER, TODD

1 transaction

$3,300

HIDUKE, MARK

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 4 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Fletcher, Lizzie [D-TX-7]

ID: F000468

Top Contributors

ALABAMA-COUSHATTA TRIBE

OrganizationLIVINGSTON, TX

$1,000

Sep 30, 2024

THE GRAY CLOUD GROUP LLC

OrganizationKATY, TX

$201

Jun 17, 2024

HARRISON, LAUREN J.

LAW FINANCE GROUP • ATTORNEY

IndividualMILL VALLEY, CA

$6,600

Feb 9, 2024

MITHOFF, RICHARD

MITHOFF LAW • ATTORNEY

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$6,600

Feb 28, 2024

LAPIN, BOBBY

LAPIN & LANDA LLP • ATTORNEY

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$5,800

Nov 17, 2023

COLLINS, RIVA

KELSEY SEYBOLD • PHYSICIAN

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$5,000

Dec 18, 2023

DETERING, DEBORAH

N/A • RETIRED

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$5,000

Nov 17, 2023

GATES, WILLIAM H III

BREAKTHROUGH ENERGY • PHILANTHROPIST

IndividualREDMOND, WA

$5,000

Oct 19, 2023

MITZNER, IRA

RIDA DEVELOPMENT CORP • CEO AND PRESIDENT

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$5,000

Dec 18, 2023

DETERING, DEBORAH

N/A • RETIRED

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$5,000

Jan 30, 2024

Rep. Carter, Earl L. "Buddy" [R-GA-1]

ID: C001103

Top Contributors

SAVANNAH TOYOTA

OrganizationSAVANNAH, GA

$1,000

Oct 26, 2024

SAVANNAH TOYOTA

OrganizationSAVANNAH, GA

$1,000

Sep 26, 2024

TYBEE MARKET

OrganizationTYBEE ISLAND, GA

$500

Mar 6, 2024

SMITH, BYRON L.

IndividualRICHMOND HILL, GA

$5,000

Nov 5, 2024

MUNOZ, DONALD

NUCANA • CFO

IndividualWESTON, MA

$4,665

May 31, 2024

RICKS, DAVID A.

ELI LILLY AND COMPANY • CEO

IndividualINDIANAPOLIS, IN

$3,300

Sep 30, 2023

SADOWSKI, GARY T.

SADOWSKI CO • CPA

IndividualSAVANNAH, GA

$3,300

Aug 25, 2023

STEERE, WILLIAM C. JR.

NONE • RETIRED

IndividualBONITA SPRINGS, FL

$3,300

Aug 3, 2023

HENNESSY, MARK W.

HENNESSY AUTOMOBILE COMPANIES • PRESIDENT

IndividualATLANTA, GA

$3,300

Nov 4, 2024

KIMBELL, JEFFREY

SELF-EMPLOYED • HEALTH CARE CONSULTANT

IndividualPARK CITY, UT

$3,300

Oct 30, 2024

Rep. Veasey, Marc A. [D-TX-33]

ID: V000131

Top Contributors

ALABAMA-COUSHATTA TRIBE

OrganizationLIVINGSTON, TX

$1,000

Sep 26, 2024

BGR GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, LLC

OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC

$500

Mar 5, 2024

LAW OFFICE OF FREDERICK GRAEFE PLLC

OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC

$500

Sep 21, 2023

BILLINGSLEY, LINDSAY

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualDALLAS, TX

$3,300

Dec 23, 2023

ENGLANDER, MARTY

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualFORT WORTH, TX

$3,300

Oct 13, 2023

ENGLANDER, MARTY

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualFORT WORTH, TX

$3,300

Oct 13, 2023

FINLEY, JAMES D.

FINLEY RESOURCES, INC. • OWNER/CEO

IndividualFT WORTH, TX

$3,300

Dec 31, 2023

FINLEY, JAMES D.

FINLEY RESOURCES, INC. • OWNER/CEO

IndividualFT WORTH, TX

$3,300

Dec 31, 2023

FLOWERS, BRIAN

SELF • PHYSICIAN

IndividualWESTLAKE, TX

$3,300

Nov 6, 2023

FLOWERS, BRIAN

SELF • PHYSICIAN

IndividualWESTLAKE, TX

$3,300

Nov 6, 2023

Rep. Hill, J. French [R-AR-2]

ID: H001072

Top Contributors

THE ROYER LAW FIRM PLLC

OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC

$1,000

Sep 30, 2024

BRADBURY, CHARLOTTE S. MRS.

NONE • HOMEMAKER

IndividualLITTLE ROCK, AR

$6,600

Dec 7, 2023

BRADBURY, CURT MR. JR.

STEPHENS INC. • CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER

IndividualLITTLE ROCK, AR

$6,600

Dec 7, 2023

KEITH, STEVEN M. MR.

KBX • PRESIDENT

IndividualLITTLE ROCK, AR

$6,600

Oct 13, 2023

KNAPPLE, WHITFIELD L. DR.

SELF EMPLOYED • PHYSICIAN

IndividualLITTLE ROCK, AR

$6,600

Oct 9, 2023

PFAUTCH, ROY MR.

CIVIC SERVICE INC • OWNER

IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO

$6,600

Dec 28, 2023

QUINTILIAN, DENNIS

NONE • RETIRED

IndividualLLOYD HARBOR, NY

$6,600

Nov 16, 2023

QUINTILIAN, DORIS

NONE • RETIRED

IndividualLLOYD HARBOR, NY

$6,600

Nov 16, 2023

RUTLEDGE, REYNIE MR.

FIRST SECURITY BANK • CHAIRMAN

IndividualSEARCY, AR

$6,600

Nov 10, 2023

SCHWARZMAN, STEPHEN A. MR.

BLACKSTONE • CHAIRMAN CEO & CO-FOUNDER

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Feb 16, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Pfluger, August [R-TX-11]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 40 nodes and 54 connections

Total contributions: $54

Top Donors - Rep. Pfluger, August [R-TX-11]

Showing top 16 donors by contribution amount

2 Orgs14 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 helped.

+Telecommunicationsconfidence 0.90
Section 2(a) requires covered service providers (commercial mobile service providers) to file elections regarding satellite emergency alert transmission, notify the FCC, agree to technical standards, and not charge extra for the service. This imposes obligations but also provides a liability shield under subsection (c), which limits liability for providers that comply. The net effect is a benefit (liability protection) for telecoms that opt in, with minimal cost (no extra charges allowed). The b

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.

Financial Regulatory Agencies

Strong

Vector: 62%

Pages: 879-881AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Mystic Alerts Act enhances emergency alert dissemination via satellite, directly supporting the Project 2025 FCC goal of promoting national security and improving FCC accountability through standardized regulations. While it does not address Big Tech or Section 230 reforms, it aligns strongly with the FCC's role in ensuring reliable, secure communications."

Key themes:emergency communicationspublic safetyFCC regulationsatellite technologynational security

— 847 — Federal Communications Commission The FCC has facilitated the transition from 3G to 4G and now 5G offerings in two ways. First, it has freed spectrum—the airwaves needed to deliver wireless ser- vices. Second, it has preempted state and local siting and permitting laws that could otherwise slow down the buildout of next-generation infrastructure. One of the FCC’s great success stories from 2017 to 2020 was securing U.S. leadership in 5G. The FCC also administers an approximately roughly $9 billion-a-year program called the Universal Service Fund (USF), which has been funded by a line-item charge that traditional telephone companies add to consumers’ monthly bills. Expenditures from this fund subsidize rural broadband networks and low-income programs as well as connections for schools, libraries, and rural health care facil- ities. Through various COVID-era laws, Congress has also provided the FCC with a one-time $24 billion appropriation for various low-income initiatives. POLICY PRIORITIES The FCC needs to change course and bring new urgency to achieving four main goals: l Reining in Big Tech, l Promoting national security, l Unleashing economic prosperity, and l Ensuring FCC accountability and good governance.15 Reining in Big Tech. The FCC has an important role to play in addressing the threats to individual liberty posed by corporations that are abusing dominant positions in the market. Nowhere is that clearer than when it comes to Big Tech and its attempts to drive diverse political viewpoints from the digital town square. Today, a handful of corporations can shape everything from the information we consume to the places we shop. These corporate behemoths are not merely exercising market power; they are abusing dominant positions. They are not simply prevailing in the free market; they are taking advantage of a landscape that has been skewed—in many cases by the government—to favor their business models over those of their competitors. It is hard to imagine another industry in which a greater gap exists between power and accountability. That is why a new Adminis- tration should support FCC action on several fronts. Specifically, the FFC should: l Eliminate immunities that courts added to Section 230. The FCC should issue an order that interprets Section 230 in a way that eliminates the expansive, non-textual immunities that courts have read into the statute. — 848 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise As one of the FCC’s previous General Counsels noted, the FCC has authority to take this action because Section 230 is codified in the Communications Act.16 The FCC’s Section 230 reforms should track the positions outlined in a July 2020 Petition for Rulemaking filed at the FCC near the end of the Trump Administration.17 Any new presidential Administration should consider filing a similar or new petition. As Justice Clarence Thomas has made clear, courts have construed Section 230 broadly to confer on some of the world’s largest companies a sweeping immunity that is found nowhere in the text of the statute.18 They have done so in a way that nullifies the limits Congress placed on the types of actions that Internet companies can take while continuing to benefit from Section 230. One way to start correcting this error is for the FCC to remind courts how the various portions of Section 230 operate. At the outset, the FCC can clarify that Section 230(c)(1) does not apply broadly to every decision that a platform makes. Rather, its protections apply only when a platform does not remove information provided by someone else. In contrast, the FCC should clarify that the more limited Section 230(c)(2) protections apply to any covered platform’s decision to restrict access to material provided by someone else. Combined, these actions will appropriately limit the number of cases in which a platform can censor with the benefit of Section 230’s protections. Such clarifications might also include drawing out the traditional legal distinction between distributor and publisher liability; Section 230 did not do away with the former, nor does it collapse into the latter. l Impose transparency rules on Big Tech. Today, Big Tech offers a black box. After Google manipulates search results, a small business can see its web traffic drop precipitously overnight for no apparent reason, potentially flipping its outlook from black to red. On Facebook, social media posts are left up or taken down, accounts suspended or permanently banned, without any apparent consistency. Out of the blue, YouTube can demonetize individuals who have risked their capital and invested their labor to build online businesses. At present, the FCC requires broadband providers to comply with a transparency rule that can provide a good baseline for Big Tech. Under the FCC’s rule, broadband providers must provide detailed disclosures about practices that would shape Internet traffic—from blocking to prioritizing or discriminating against content. The FCC could take a similar approach to

Federal Communications Commission

Strong

Vector: 62%

Pages: 888-890AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Mystic Alerts Act aligns with Project 2025's goal of advancing U.S. space leadership by leveraging low-Earth orbit satellite technology for public safety communications, supporting the broader objective of accelerating satellite deployment and reducing regulatory barriers to space-based services."

Key themes:satellite technologyemergency communicationsFCC regulatory actionspace leadershippublic safety infrastructure

Federal Communications Commission

Strong

Vector: 61%

Pages: 888-890AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Mystic Alerts Act advances the Project 2025 goal of strengthening U.S. space leadership by leveraging satellite technology for public safety and directs the FCC to establish technical standards for satellite-based emergency alerts, aligning with the policy’s call for the FCC to support and expedite satellite initiatives."

Key themes:satellite technologyFCC regulatory actionspace leadershipemergency communicationsconsumer choice

— 855 — Federal Communications Commission so a new Administration should redouble efforts to require timely reviews and final actions by agencies with jurisdiction over federal lands, including the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service. l Advance America’s space leadership. One of the most significant technological developments of the past few years has been the emergence of a new generation of low-earth orbit satellites like StarLink and Kuiper. This technology can beam a reliable, high-speed Internet signal to nearly any part of the globe at a fraction of the cost of other technologies. This has the potential to significantly accelerate efforts to end the digital divide and disrupt the federal regulatory and subsidy regime that applies to communications networks. The FCC should expedite its work to support this new technology by acting more quickly in its review and approval of applications to launch new satellites. Otherwise, the U.S. risks ceding space leadership to entities based in countries with more friendly regulatory environments. Holding Government Accountable. Federal technology and telecommunica- tions programs have been plagued by a troubling lack of accountability and good governance. They would benefit from stronger oversight and a fresh look at elim- inating outdated regulations that are doing more harm than good. l End wasteful broadband spending policies. Many of the broadband spending policies being pursued by the current Administration are poised to waste taxpayer money while leaving rural communities and unconnected Americans behind. At the same time, the dramatic recent increases in funding through the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act mean that the federal government has more than enough resources to meet its broadband connectivity goals. Congress should therefore hold the agencies accountable so that taxpayer money is used effectively to promote broadband connectivity across the nation. To that end, the next Administration should instruct the various departments and agencies that are administering broadband infrastructure funds to direct those resources to communities without adequate Internet infrastructure instead of to places that already enjoy broadband connectivity. Take, for example, the final rules that the Treasury Department adopted in 2022 that govern the expenditure of $350 billion in ARPA funds. Rather than directing those dollars to the rural and other communities that have no Internet infrastructure, the current — 856 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Administration gave the green light for recipients to spend those funds to overbuild existing high-speed networks in communities that already have multiple broadband providers. A new Administration should eliminate government-funded overbuilding of existing networks. l Adopt a national coordinating strategy. Hundreds of billions of infrastructure dollars have been appropriated by Congress or budgeted by agencies over the past couple of years that can be used to end the digital divide. Yet, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, “U.S. broadband efforts are not guided by a national strategy”; instead, “[f]ederal broadband efforts are fragmented and overlapping, with more than 100 programs administered by 15 agencies,” risking overbuilding as well as wasteful duplication.26 Many of these programs remain plagued by inefficiency, further contributing to waste of limited taxpayer dollars. Moreover, the federal government is failing to put appropriate guardrails in place to govern the expenditure of billions in broadband funds. This is the regulatory equivalent of turning the spigot on full blast and then walking away from the hose. There is a worrisome lack of adequate tracking, measurement, and accountability standards governing all of this broadband spending. As a result, we are likely to see headline levels of waste, fraud, and abuse. A new Administration needs to bring fresh oversight to this spending and put a national strategy in place to ensure that the federal government adopts a coordinated approach to its various broadband initiatives. Similarly, the next Administration should ask the FCC to launch a review of its existing broadband programs, including the different components of the USF, with the goal of avoiding duplication, improving efficiency of existing programs, and saving taxpayer money. l Correct the FCC’s regulatory trajectory and encourage competition to improve connectivity. The FCC is a New Deal–era agency. Its history of regulation tends to reflect the view that the federal government should impose heavy-handed regulation rather than relying on competition and market forces to produce optimal outcomes. President Franklin D. Roosevelt recommended that Congress create the FCC in February 1934 for the purposes of establishing “a single Government agency charged with broad authority” over the field of communications.27 Congress subsequently established the FCC through the Communications Act of 1934. Congress has passed a number of additional statutes—some broad, some

Department of Transportation

Weak

Vector: 59%

Pages: 658-660AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on enhancing emergency alert dissemination via satellite technology, while the Project 2025 DOT section centers on transportation policy, automated vehicles, spectrum allocation for intelligent transportation systems, and fuel economy standards. Both touch on communications technology and public safety, but their primary objectives and policy domains differ significantly."

Key themes:spectrum allocationpublic safetytechnology innovationemergency communications

— 625 — Department of Transportation security, and privacy without hampering innovation. DOT can oversee the testing and deployment of a wide variety of new technologies, allowing communities and individuals to choose what best fits their needs. It is the role of the private sector, not the government, to pick winners and losers in technology development. If a technology underperforms, the private sector should be liable, not the government. The department should ensure a tech-neutral approach to addressing any emerging transportation technology while keeping safety as the number one priority. As part of this, it should work to facilitate the safe and full integration of automated vehicles into the national transportation system. Over time, these advanced technologies can save lives, transform personal mobility, and provide additional transportation opportunities—including for people with disabili- ties, aging populations, and communities where car ownership is expensive or impractical. NHTSA’s and FMCSA’s current regulations were written before the advent of automated vehicles and driving systems. Both operating administrations have issued Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemakings (ANPRMs) that begin the pro- cess of updating their regulations to reflect this new technology. However, these regulations have stalled under the Biden Administration, which has chosen to use the department’s tools to get people to take transit and drive electric vehicles instead of helping people to choose the transportation options that suit them best. l NHTSA should work to remove regulatory barriers by focusing on updating vehicle standards as well as publishing performance-based rules for the operations of automated vehicles (AVs). l FMCSA should work to clarify the regulations to align with DOT’s AV 3.0 guidance, which would allow the drivers to be safely removed from the operations of a commercial motor vehicle. From a nonregulatory point of view, DOT has pivoted from a successful focus on the voluntary sharing of data to improve safety outcomes to adoption of a more compulsory and antagonistic approach to mandating data collection and publica- tion through a Standing General Order related to automated vehicles. This needs to be reversed. Many of these new and innovative technologies rely on wireless communica- tions that depend on the availability and purchase of radio frequency spectrum, a trend that is consistent with what we see in connectivity in our everyday lives. There is a role for DOT in ensuring that in the fight over spectrum, transportation gets its fair share. For technologies to work in transportation, and in particular to work for transportation safety, they have to meet the unique needs of a transportation — 626 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise environment. They need to account for rapidly moving and out-of-line-of-sight vehicles as well as pedestrians, bicyclists, and other road users. They should account for the potential for radio interference, and they should address security. This is why in 1999, in response to a request from Congress, the Federal Com- munications Commission allocated the 5.9 GHz band of spectrum to traffic safety and intelligent transportation systems (ITS). In 2020, the FCC took away 45 MHz of the 75 MHz it had added, leaving only 30 MHz for transportation safety and ITS. DOT needs to represent the transportation community and make the case for needed spectrum to the public and Congress. CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY (CAFE) STANDARDS One reason for the high numbers of injuries on American roadways is that national fuel economy standards raise the price of cars, disincentivizing people from purchasing newer, safer vehicles. Congress requires the Secretary of Transportation to set national fuel econ- omy standards for new motor vehicles sold in the United States. This mandate was established in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA),6 a law passed in the wake of the Arab oil embargo to promote greater energy efficiency and lessen the national security threat of U.S. dependence on foreign oil. The stat- ute directs DOT to prescribe the “maximum feasible” mileage requirements for different categories of internal-combustion engine (ICE) automobiles for each model year. The standards must be achievable using available ICE technologies running on gasoline, diesel fuel, or similar combustible fuels and must not be set so high as to prevent automakers from profitably producing new vehicles at sufficient volume to meet consumer demand. Congress recognized that the ICE-powered automobile has been instrumen- tal to advancing the mobility and prosperity of the American people and that the domestic mass production of new ICE vehicles generates millions of jobs and remains critical to the overall health of the U.S. economy and the strength of the nation’s industrial base. Accordingly, Congress took care to ensure that the mileage requirements issued by DOT would not undermine the vitality of America’s auto industry or interfere with the market economics that drives consumer demand for new vehicles. This rulemaking authority, which has been delegated by the Secretary to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is exclusive to DOT. EPCA expressly preempts states from adopting or enforcing any different requirement “related to fuel economy standards” for new motor vehicles. While the statute instructs DOT to consult with the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in formulating its standards, no other federal agency, including EPA, has clear authority to set fuel economy requirements in place of NHTSA. The Clean Air Act7 gives EPA general authority to establish emissions

Department of Energy and Related Commissions

Minimal

Vector: 60%

Pages: 437-439AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Mystic Alerts Act focuses on emergency alert systems via satellite technology for public safety, while the Project 2025 policy section addresses FERC's role in electric transmission, natural gas pipelines, and opposing cost socialization for renewable energy integration. There is no thematic or policy overlap between the two."

— 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. Pfluger, August

I&A Mission Reorientation Act of 2026

119/hr/7443

EMRTAI Authorization Act of 2026

119/hr/9616

Protecting American Energy Production Act

119/hr/26

Back to All Bills