Foundation of the Federal Bar Association Charter Amendments Act of 2025
Download PDFSponsored by
Sen. Kennedy, John [R-LA]
ID: K000393
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Presented to President.
December 10, 2025
Introduced
Committee Review
Floor Action
Passed Senate
House Review
Passed Congress
Presidential Action
📍 Current Status
Next: If the President signs the bill, it becomes law.
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 thrilling episode of "Congressional Theater" brought to you by the esteemed members of the Senate. Today's feature presentation is S. 616, a bill that promises to revolutionize the world of... wait for it... the Foundation of the Federal Bar Association Charter Amendments Act of 2025! (yawn)
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to revise the federal charter for the Foundation of the Federal Bar Association. Wow, I can barely contain my excitement. The objectives are to update the organization's bylaws, membership requirements, and governing structure. Because, clearly, the most pressing issue facing our nation today is the outdated charter of a lawyers' association.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill makes several changes to existing law, including:
* Amending Section 70501 of title 36, United States Code, to remove subsection (b) and redesignate subsection (c) as subsection (b). Oh boy, I can already feel the earth shaking. * Revising Section 70503 to make membership eligibility and rights contingent on bylaws. Because who needs clear guidelines when you can just make it up as you go along? * Updating Section 70504 to give the board of directors more flexibility in exercising their powers. Because what could possibly go wrong with giving a group of lawyers more power?
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include:
* The Foundation of the Federal Bar Association (because, obviously) * Lawyers who are members of the association * Possibly, the general public, if they care about the intricacies of lawyer organizations
**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this bill is... well, let's just say it's not exactly earth-shattering. It might make some lawyers happy, but that's about it. The implications are:
* More bureaucratic red tape for an organization that already has too much * Possibly more opportunities for lawyers to line their pockets with money from unsuspecting clients (just kidding... or am I?) * A slight increase in the number of lawyers who will be able to say they're part of a "reformed" organization
**Diagnosis:** This bill is suffering from a bad case of " Lawyer-itis," a disease characterized by an excessive focus on trivial matters and a complete disregard for the bigger picture. The symptoms include:
* A $0 price tag, because who needs to worry about budgetary effects when you're just tweaking a lawyers' association charter? * No discernible impact on the general public, because let's face it, nobody cares about this stuff * A healthy dose of bureaucratic jargon and legalese, guaranteed to put even the most seasoned lawyer to sleep
**Treatment:** The treatment for Lawyer-itis is simple: a strong dose of reality. Someone needs to tell these lawyers that there are more pressing issues in the world than their precious charter amendments. But until
Related Topics
đź’° Campaign Finance Network
Sen. Kennedy, John [R-LA]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance
This bill has 1 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
Sen. Whitehouse, Sheldon [D-RI]
ID: W000802
Top Contributors
10
Donor Network - Sen. Kennedy, John [R-LA]
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 25 nodes and 33 connections
Total contributions: $497,070
Top Donors - Sen. Kennedy, John [R-LA]
Showing top 21 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
— 865 — Federal Election Commission l As a legislative matter and given this abuse, the President should seriously consider recommending that Congress amend FECA to remove the agency’s independent litigating authority and rely on the Department of Justice to handle all litigation involving the FEC. There are also multiple instances of existing statutory provisions of FECA and the accompanying FEC regulations having been found unlawful or unconstitu- tional by federal court decisions, yet those statutory provisions remain in the U.S. Code and the implementing regulations remain in the Code of Federal Regula- tions.12 In such instances, those regulated by the law, from candidates to the public, have no way of knowing (without engaging in extensive legal research) whether particular statutory provisions and regulations are still applicable to their actions in the political arena. l The President should request that the commissioners on the FEC prepare such guidance. l In the event that the FEC fails to act, the President should direct the attorney general to prepare a guidance document from the Department of Justice for the public that outlines all of the FECA statutory provisions and FEC regulations that have been changed, amended, or voided by specific court decisions. Legislative Changes. While a President’s ability to make any changes at an independent agency like the FEC is limited,13 the President has the ability to make legislative recommendations to Congress. One of the most obvious changes that is needed is to end the current practice of allowing commissioners to remain as serving commissioners long after their term has expired, defying the clear intent of Congress in specifying that a commissioner can only serve a single term of six years. l The President should prioritize nominations to the FEC once commissioners reach the end of their terms and should be assisted by legislative language either eliminating or limiting overstays to a reasonable period of time to permit the vetting, nomination, and confirmation of successors. l The President should vigorously oppose all efforts, as proposed, for example, in Section 6002 of the “For the People Act of 2021,”14 to change the structure of the FEC to reduce the number of commissioners from six to five or another odd number. The current requirement of four votes to authorize an enforcement action, provide
Introduction
— 865 — Federal Election Commission l As a legislative matter and given this abuse, the President should seriously consider recommending that Congress amend FECA to remove the agency’s independent litigating authority and rely on the Department of Justice to handle all litigation involving the FEC. There are also multiple instances of existing statutory provisions of FECA and the accompanying FEC regulations having been found unlawful or unconstitu- tional by federal court decisions, yet those statutory provisions remain in the U.S. Code and the implementing regulations remain in the Code of Federal Regula- tions.12 In such instances, those regulated by the law, from candidates to the public, have no way of knowing (without engaging in extensive legal research) whether particular statutory provisions and regulations are still applicable to their actions in the political arena. l The President should request that the commissioners on the FEC prepare such guidance. l In the event that the FEC fails to act, the President should direct the attorney general to prepare a guidance document from the Department of Justice for the public that outlines all of the FECA statutory provisions and FEC regulations that have been changed, amended, or voided by specific court decisions. Legislative Changes. While a President’s ability to make any changes at an independent agency like the FEC is limited,13 the President has the ability to make legislative recommendations to Congress. One of the most obvious changes that is needed is to end the current practice of allowing commissioners to remain as serving commissioners long after their term has expired, defying the clear intent of Congress in specifying that a commissioner can only serve a single term of six years. l The President should prioritize nominations to the FEC once commissioners reach the end of their terms and should be assisted by legislative language either eliminating or limiting overstays to a reasonable period of time to permit the vetting, nomination, and confirmation of successors. l The President should vigorously oppose all efforts, as proposed, for example, in Section 6002 of the “For the People Act of 2021,”14 to change the structure of the FEC to reduce the number of commissioners from six to five or another odd number. The current requirement of four votes to authorize an enforcement action, provide — 866 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise an advisory opinion, or issue regulations, ensures that there is bipartisan agreement before any action is taken and protects against the FEC being used as a political weapon. With only five commissioners, three members of the same political party could control the enforcement process of the agency, raising the potential of a powerful federal agency enforcing the law on a partisan basis against the members of the opposition political party. Efforts to impose a “nonpartisan” or so-called “inde- pendent” chair are impractical; the chair will inevitably be aligned with his or her appointing party, at least as a matter of perception. There are numerous other changes that should be considered in FECA and the FEC’s regulations. The overly restrictive limits on the ability of party com- mittees to coordinate with their candidates, for example, violates associational rights and unjustifiably interferes with the very purpose of political parties: to elect their candidates. l Raise contribution limits and index reporting requirements to inflation. Contribution limits should generally be much higher, as they hamstring candidates and parties while serving no practical anticorruption purpose. And a wide range of reporting requirements have not been indexed to inflation, clogging the public record and the FEC’s internal processes with small-dollar information of little use to the public. CONCLUSION When taking any action related to the FEC, the President should keep in mind that, as former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith says, the “greater problem at the FEC has been overenforcement,” not underenforcement as some critics falsely allege.15 As he correctly concludes, the FEC’s enforcement efforts “place a substan- tial burden on small committees and campaigns, and are having a chilling effect on some political speech…squeezing the life out of low level, volunteer politi- cal activity.”16 Commissioners have a duty to enforce FECA in a fair, nonpartisan, objective manner. But they must do so in a way that protects the First Amendment rights of the public, political parties, and candidates to fully participate in the political process. The President has the same duty to ensure that the Department of Justice enforces the law in a similar manner.
Introduction
— xxix — Contributors Marlo Lewis, Competitive Enterprise Institute Ben Lieberman, Competitive Enterprise Institute John Ligon Evelyn Lim, American Cornerstone Institute Mario Loyola, Competitive Enterprise Institute John G. Malcolm, The Heritage Foundation Joseph Masterman, Cooper & Kirk, PLLC Earl Matthews, The Vandenberg Coalition Dan Mauler, Heritage Action for America Drew McCall, American Cornerstone Institute Trent McCotter, Boyden Gray & Associates Micah Meadowcroft, The American Conservative Edwin Meese III, The Heritage Foundation Jessica Melugin, Competitive Enterprise Institute Frank Mermoud, Orpheus International Mark Miller, Office of Governor Kristi Noem Cleta Mitchell, Conservative Partnership Institute Kevin E. Moley Caitlin Moon, American Center for Law & Justice Clare Morell, Ethics and Public Policy Center Mark Morgan, The Heritage Foundation Hunter Morgen, American Cornerstone Institute Rachel Morrison, Ethics and Public Policy Center Jonathan Moy, The Heritage Foundation Iain Murray, Competitive Enterprise Institute Ryan Nabil, National Taxpayers Union Michael Nasi, Jackson Walker LLP Lucien Niemeyer, The Niemeyer Group, LLC Nazak Nikakhtar Milan “Mitch” Nikolich Matt O’Brien, Immigration Reform Law Institute Caleb Orr, Boyden Gray & Associates Michael Pack Leah Pedersen Michael Pillsbury, The Heritage Foundation Patrick Pizzella, Leadership Institute Robert Poole, Reason Foundation Christopher B. Porter Kevin Preskenis, Allymar Health Solutions Pam Pryor, National Committee for Religious Freedom Thomas Pyle, Institute for Energy Research John Ratcliffe, American Global Strategies — xxx — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Paul Ray, The Heritage Foundation Joseph Reddan, Flexilis Forestry, LLC Jay W. Richards, The Heritage Foundation Jordan Richardson, Heise Suarez Melville, P.A. Jason Richwine, Center for Immigration Studies Shaun Rieley, The American Conservative Lora Ries, The Heritage Foundation Leo Rios Mark Robeck, Energy Evolution Consulting LLC James Rockas, ACLJ Action Mark Royce, NOVA-Annandale College Reed Rubinstein, America First Legal Foundation William Ruger, American Institute for Economic Research Austin Ruse, Center for Family and Human Rights (C-Fam) Brent D. Sadler, The Heritage Foundation Alexander William Salter, Texas Tech University Jon Sanders, John Locke Foundation Carla Sands, America First Policy Institute Robby Stephany Saunders, Coalition for a Prosperous America David Sauve Brett D. Schaefer, The Heritage Foundation Nina Owcharenko Schaefer, The Heritage Foundation Matt Schuck, American Cornerstone Institute Justin Schwab, CGCN Law Jon Schweppe, American Principles Project Marc Scribner, Reason Foundation Darin Selnick, Selnick Consulting Josh Sewell, Taxpayers for Common Sense Kathleen Sgamma, Western Energy Alliance Matt Sharp, Alliance Defending Freedom Judy Shelton, Independent Institute Nathan Simington Loren Smith, Skyline Policy Risk Group Zack Smith, The Heritage Foundation Jack Spencer, The Heritage Foundation Adrienne Spero, U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security Thomas W. Spoehr, The Heritage Foundation Peter St Onge, The Heritage Foundation Chris Stanley, Functional Government Initiative Paula M. Stannard Parker Stathatos, Texas Public Policy Foundation William Steiger, Independent Consultant
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.