Protecting Americans’ Retirement Savings From Politics Act
Download PDFSponsored by
Rep. Steil, Bryan [R-WI-1]
ID: S001213
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 27 - 24.
April 20, 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
Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the geniuses in Congress. The "Protecting Americans' Retirement Savings From Politics Act" - because, you know, the only thing that's been protecting Americans' retirement savings is a complete lack of political interference... said no one ever.
Let's dissect this monstrosity, shall we? This bill is a symptom of a deeper disease: the chronic corruption and cowardice that plagues our government. It's a classic case of " regulatory capture," where industries with deep pockets and influential lobbyists get to write their own rules. And what do we get in return? A bill that's more concerned with protecting corporate interests than actual people.
New regulations are being created or modified, because who needs clarity when you can have complexity? The bill amends the Federal securities laws, establishing a new Public Company Advisory Committee (because one more committee is exactly what we needed). This committee will provide "advice" on rules and regulations, which is just code for "industry insiders will get to shape policy to their advantage."
Affected industries and sectors include public companies, investment advisers, asset managers, and pension funds. Because, of course, the only people who matter are those with money and influence. Compliance requirements and timelines? Don't worry, they're vague enough to ensure that companies can find ways to exploit them.
Enforcement mechanisms and penalties? Ha! The bill includes provisions for liability, but let's be real, these will be watered down or ignored. It's all just a show, folks. The real goal is to create the illusion of oversight while allowing corporations to continue their shenanigans.
The economic and operational impacts? Well, that's the best part. This bill will likely lead to increased costs for companies, which will then be passed on to consumers (because who needs affordable goods and services?). It'll also create more bureaucracy, because what every industry needs is more red tape. And let's not forget the "protection" of Americans' retirement savings - by allowing corporations to hide more information from investors.
In conclusion, this bill is a farce, a joke, a travesty. It's a prime example of how our government prioritizes corporate interests over people's well-being. So, go ahead and pat yourselves on the back, Congress. You've managed to create another piece of legislation that will only serve to further enrich the wealthy and powerful, while leaving the rest of us to pick up the pieces.
Diagnosis: Terminal stupidity, with a side of corruption and greed. Prognosis: Poor. Treatment: None, because let's face it, this patient is beyond saving.
Related Topics
💰 Campaign Finance Network
Rep. Steil, Bryan [R-WI-1]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance
This bill has 2 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
Rep. Wagner, Ann [R-MO-2]
ID: W000812
Top Contributors
10
Rep. Meuser, Daniel [R-PA-9]
ID: M001204
Top Contributors
10
Donor Network - Rep. Steil, Bryan [R-WI-1]
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 29 nodes and 36 connections
Total contributions: $170,406
Top Donors - Rep. Steil, Bryan [R-WI-1]
Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount
Industry Impact
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 3 helped,3 harmed.
- −Investment Banking & Securities confidence 0.90
Title V requires registration of proxy advisory firms, which are often affiliated with investment banks and asset managers, imposing compliance costs and regulatory burdens (Sec. 501).
- +Private Equity & Hedge Funds confidence 0.90
Title VII, Section 701 imposes disclosure duties on institutional investment managers, which include private equity and hedge funds, requiring them to report proxy voting decisions and economic analyses, thereby increasing regulatory scrutiny and compliance burden, which is a harm (-1). However, the bill's focus on 'best economic interest' and limiting non-pecuniary factors in Title X may benefit private equity and hedge funds by reducing ESG-related shareholder proposals that could interfere wi
- +Insurance (P&C and Life) confidence 0.85
Title VII, Section 701 applies to 'institutional investment managers' which includes insurance companies that manage large investment portfolios. The requirement to disclose proxy voting decisions and perform economic analyses increases compliance costs for insurance firms' investment arms, representing a harm (-1). However, Title X's restriction on considering non-pecuniary factors in investment advice benefits insurance companies by allowing them to prioritize pure financial returns in their i
- −Big Tech Platforms confidence 0.80
Title VII requires institutional investment managers (including those managing tech-heavy portfolios) to disclose voting decisions and economic analyses related to proxy advisory firms, increasing compliance costs (Sec. 701).
- +Telecommunications confidence 0.80
Telecommunications companies like AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile are large public companies subject to the bill's proxy voting reforms. Title VIII's prohibitions on 'robovoting' and outsourcing voting decisions (Sections 801(m) and (n)) require these companies' shareholders to engage more actively in voting processes, potentially reducing the influence of proxy advisory firms on telecom corporate governance. This empowers long-term shareholders and management in telecom firms to resist short-term a
- −Labor Unions confidence 0.70
Title IX empowers shareholders by requiring investment advisers to follow beneficiary instructions in proxy voting, potentially reducing union influence on shareholder proposals (Sec. 901).
Who funds the sponsor on these industries
For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Steil, Bryan [R-WI-1]) 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
- Private Equity & Hedge Funds$51,902from 20contributions
- SINGER, PAUL$6,600
- ROWAN, MARC J.$6,600
- KLEINMAN, SCOTT$5,800
- ZELTER, JAMES C.$5,800
- MEHLMAN, KENNETH B.$5,000
- Insurance (P&C and Life)$35,200from 25contributions
- SCHLIFSKE, JOHN E.$6,300
- FRITZ, R DAVID$5,000
- GROGAN, JOHN$3,300
- JONES, TODD$3,300
- MEYER, JOYCE$3,300
Industries this bill HARMS
- from 13contributions
- KUSHEL, JOHN RICHARD$3,300
- NAIR, SUDHIR$3,300
- WIEDMAN, MARK$3,300
- FINK, LAURENCE$3,300
- BADENHAUSEN, JIM$3,300
- Big Tech Platforms$3,300from 1contribution
- WALKER, KENT$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.
Introduction
AI Analysis:
"The bill's focus on regulatory capture, corruption, and the prioritization of corporate interests over people's well-being aligns with Project 2025's critique of the Administrative State and the erosion of congressional accountability. The bill's creation of a new advisory committee and vague compliance requirements also reflect the policy's concerns about unelected bureaucrats and unaccountable decision-making."
— 7 — Foreword Instead, party leaders negotiate one multitrillion-dollar spending bill—several thousand pages long—and then vote on it before anyone, literally, has had a chance to read it. Debate time is restricted. Amendments are prohibited. And all of this is backed up against a midnight deadline when the previous “omnibus” spending bill will run out and the federal government “shuts down.” This process is not designed to empower 330 million American citizens and their elected representatives, but rather to empower the party elites secretly nego- tiating without any public scrutiny or oversight. In the end, congressional leaders’ behavior and incentives here are no differ- ent from those of global elites insulating policy decisions—over the climate, trade, public health, you name it—from the sovereignty of national electorates. Public scrutiny and democratic accountability make life harder for policymakers—so they skirt it. It’s not dysfunction; it’s corruption. And despite its gaudy price tag, the federal budget is not even close to the worst example of this corruption. That distinction belongs to the “Administrative State,” the dismantling of which must a top priority for the next conservative President. The term Administrative State refers to the policymaking work done by the bureaucracies of all the federal government’s departments, agencies, and millions of employees. Under Article I of the Constitution, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.” That is, federal law is enacted only by elected legislators in both houses of Congress. This exclusive authority was part of the Framers’ doctrine of “separated powers.” They not only split the federal government’s legislative, executive, and judicial powers into different branches. They also gave each branch checks over the others. Under our Constitution, the legislative branch—Congress—is far and away the most powerful and, correspondingly, the most accountable to the people. In recent decades, members of the House and Senate discovered that if they give away that power to the Article II branch of government, they can also deny responsi- bility for its actions. So today in Washington, most policy is no longer set by Congress at all, but by the Administrative State. Given the choice between being powerful but vulnerable or irrelevant but famous, most Members of Congress have chosen the latter. Congress passes intentionally vague laws that delegate decision-making over a given issue to a federal agency. That agency’s bureaucrats—not just unelected but seemingly un-fireable—then leap at the chance to fill the vacuum created by Congress’s preening cowardice. The federal government is growing larger and less constitutionally accountable—even to the President—every year. l A combination of elected and unelected bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency quietly strangles domestic energy production through difficult-to-understand rulemaking processes;
Introduction
AI Analysis:
"The bill and Project 2025 policy are tangentially related through their shared criticism of government overreach and corruption, but they focus on different aspects of the issue. The bill specifically targets regulatory capture and corporate influence, while Project 2025 emphasizes the need for constitutional accountability and limiting the Administrative State."
— 7 — Foreword Instead, party leaders negotiate one multitrillion-dollar spending bill—several thousand pages long—and then vote on it before anyone, literally, has had a chance to read it. Debate time is restricted. Amendments are prohibited. And all of this is backed up against a midnight deadline when the previous “omnibus” spending bill will run out and the federal government “shuts down.” This process is not designed to empower 330 million American citizens and their elected representatives, but rather to empower the party elites secretly nego- tiating without any public scrutiny or oversight. In the end, congressional leaders’ behavior and incentives here are no differ- ent from those of global elites insulating policy decisions—over the climate, trade, public health, you name it—from the sovereignty of national electorates. Public scrutiny and democratic accountability make life harder for policymakers—so they skirt it. It’s not dysfunction; it’s corruption. And despite its gaudy price tag, the federal budget is not even close to the worst example of this corruption. That distinction belongs to the “Administrative State,” the dismantling of which must a top priority for the next conservative President. The term Administrative State refers to the policymaking work done by the bureaucracies of all the federal government’s departments, agencies, and millions of employees. Under Article I of the Constitution, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.” That is, federal law is enacted only by elected legislators in both houses of Congress. This exclusive authority was part of the Framers’ doctrine of “separated powers.” They not only split the federal government’s legislative, executive, and judicial powers into different branches. They also gave each branch checks over the others. Under our Constitution, the legislative branch—Congress—is far and away the most powerful and, correspondingly, the most accountable to the people. In recent decades, members of the House and Senate discovered that if they give away that power to the Article II branch of government, they can also deny responsi- bility for its actions. So today in Washington, most policy is no longer set by Congress at all, but by the Administrative State. Given the choice between being powerful but vulnerable or irrelevant but famous, most Members of Congress have chosen the latter. Congress passes intentionally vague laws that delegate decision-making over a given issue to a federal agency. That agency’s bureaucrats—not just unelected but seemingly un-fireable—then leap at the chance to fill the vacuum created by Congress’s preening cowardice. The federal government is growing larger and less constitutionally accountable—even to the President—every year. l A combination of elected and unelected bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency quietly strangles domestic energy production through difficult-to-understand rulemaking processes; — 8 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Bureaucrats at the Department of Homeland Security, following the lead of a feckless Administration, order border and immigration enforcement agencies to help migrants criminally enter our country with impunity; l Bureaucrats at the Department of Education inject racist, anti-American, ahistorical propaganda into America’s classrooms; l Bureaucrats at the Department of Justice force school districts to undermine girls’ sports and parents’ rights to satisfy transgender extremists; l Woke bureaucrats at the Pentagon force troops to attend “training” seminars about “white privilege”; and l Bureaucrats at the State Department infuse U.S. foreign aid programs with woke extremism about “intersectionality” and abortion.3 Unaccountable federal spending is the secret lifeblood of the Great Awokening. Nearly every power center held by the Left is funded or supported, one way or another, through the bureaucracy by Congress. Colleges and school districts are funded by tax dollars. The Administrative State holds 100 percent of its power at the sufferance of Congress, and its insulation from presidential discipline is an unconstitutional fairy tale spun by the Washington Establishment to protect its turf. Members of Congress shield themselves from constitutional accountability often when the White House allows them to get away with it. Cultural institutions like public libraries and public health agencies are only as “independent” from public accountability as elected officials and voters permit. Let’s be clear: The most egregious regulations promulgated by the current Administration come from one place: the Oval Office. The President cannot hide behind the agencies; as his many executive orders make clear, his is the respon- sibility for the regulations that threaten American communities, schools, and families. A conservative President must move swiftly to do away with these vast abuses of presidential power and remove the career and political bureaucrats who fuel it. Properly considered, restoring fiscal limits and constitutional accountability to the federal government is a continuation of restoring national sovereignty to the American people. In foreign affairs, global strategy, federal budgeting and pol- icymaking, the same pattern emerges again and again. Ruling elites slash and tear at restrictions and accountability placed on them. They centralize power up and away from the American people: to supra-national treaties and organizations, to left-wing “experts,” to sight-unseen all-or-nothing legislating, to the unelected career bureaucrats of the Administrative State.
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.