Fair College Admissions for Students Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/s/880
Last Updated: March 29, 2026

Sponsored by

Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR]

ID: M001176

Follow the money

The bill

Fair College Admissions for Students Act

S. 880, 119th Congress — read as touching For-Profit Education & Student Loans.

The sponsor

Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR]

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

The money

$87,300 raised

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

The alignment

63% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" section, p. 374-376 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Hearings held.

March 18, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.

🗳️

Floor Action

Passed Senate

🏛️

House 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 brilliant example of legislative theater, courtesy of the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Fair College Admissions for Students Act (S 880) claims to promote fairness and equality in college admissions by prohibiting institutions from giving preferential treatment to legacy students or donors. How noble. How utterly laughable.

In reality, this bill is a Band-Aid on the festering wound of elitism and corruption that plagues our higher education system. It's a token gesture designed to appease the masses while maintaining the status quo.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 487(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, adding a provision that prohibits institutions from providing preferential treatment in admissions based on relationships to donors or alumni. Wow, what a bold move! Who wouldn't want to eliminate the obvious quid pro quo between wealthy donors and their privileged offspring?

But let's not get too excited. This change is merely cosmetic, as it doesn't address the root causes of elitism and corruption in college admissions. It's like treating a patient with a severe case of cancer by applying a topical cream.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved: institutions of higher education, students, donors, alumni, and (of course) politicians looking for a sound bite. But let's not forget the real stakeholders: the wealthy and well-connected who will stop at nothing to ensure their children attend the "right" schools.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill will have all the impact of a feather in a hurricane. It might make some noise, but it won't change the underlying dynamics of our corrupt system. In fact, it may even create new loopholes for the cunning and well-connected to exploit.

The real implications are that this bill will:

1. Provide a false sense of security for naive voters who think their politicians are actually doing something about inequality. 2. Give institutions a convenient excuse to maintain their elitist admissions practices while pretending to comply with the law. 3. Allow donors and alumni to find new, creative ways to buy influence and secure spots for their children.

In conclusion, S 880 is a masterclass in legislative obfuscation, designed to distract from the real issues plaguing our higher education system. It's a cynical attempt to manipulate public opinion while maintaining the status quo of elitism and corruption. Bravo, Congress! You've managed to create another meaningless piece of legislation that will only serve to further entrench the problems you claim to be solving.

Related Topics

Education & Student Aid
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$87,300
21 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$11,400
Committees
$0
Individuals
$75,900

No PAC contributions found

1
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
1 transaction
$2,500
2
CHEROKEE NATION
1 transaction
$2,500
3
SISSETON-WAHPETON OYATE
1 transaction
$2,000
4
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
2 transactions
$1,400
5
CONFEDERATED TRIBES AND BANDS OF THE YAKAMA NATION
1 transaction
$1,000
6
CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA
1 transaction
$1,000
7
MISSISSIPPI BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS
1 transaction
$1,000

No committee contributions found

1
SHENOY, SUNIL
2 transactions
$10,000
2
BOONE, GARRETT
2 transactions
$6,600
3
GARVER, CURTIS MIKE
2 transactions
$6,600
4
BOONE, CECILIA
2 transactions
$6,600
5
RECHNITZ, JOAN
2 transactions
$6,600
6
SOHN, RICHARD FOHS
2 transactions
$6,600
7
STUBBS, MARILYN L.
1 transaction
$5,000
8
BARNHART, PHILIP N.
1 transaction
$5,000
9
HEATHERINGTON, JEFF S.
1 transaction
$5,000
10
BIGLAN, ANTHONY
1 transaction
$5,000
11
CROWLEY, MATTHEW
1 transaction
$3,300
12
GORDON, PATRICIA
1 transaction
$3,300
13
STUBBS, ERVIN GENE
1 transaction
$3,200
14
LEWIS, MARY L.
1 transaction
$3,100

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 2 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Sen. Kennedy, John [R-LA]

ID: K000393

Top Contributors

10

1
REITERMAN, MARY ELIZABETH
RETIREDRETIRED
IndividualSTOKESDALE, NC
$17,400
Oct 3, 2024
2
VIVIAN, MICHAEL A
RETIREDRETIRED
IndividualPHOENIX, AZ
$17,400
Oct 23, 2024
3
REITERMAN, MARY ELIZABETH
IndividualSTOKESDALE, NC
$17,400
Nov 18, 2024
4
VIVIAN, MICHAEL A
IndividualPHOENIX, AZ
$17,400
Oct 23, 2024
5
JONES, SHIRLEY
IndividualLAKELAND, FL
$17,400
May 9, 2024
6
LACOSTE, ROGER
IndividualNEW BEDFORD, MA
$17,400
Jun 30, 2024
7
JONES, SHIRLEY
RETIREDRETIRED
IndividualLAKELAND, FL
$17,400
May 6, 2024
8
LACOSTE, ROGER
RETIREDRETIRED
IndividualNEW BEDFORD, MA
$17,400
Jun 22, 2024
9
LABEDZ, DAVID
RETIREDRETIRED
IndividualWARREN, MI
$17,400
Sep 5, 2024
10
LABEDZ, DAVID
IndividualWARREN, MI
$11,000
Sep 6, 2024

Sen. Padilla, Alex [D-CA]

ID: P000145

Top Contributors

10

1
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$5,000
Dec 24, 2024
2
MOORETOWN RANCHERIA
OrganizationOROVILLE, CA
$3,300
Oct 7, 2024
3
TOLOWA DEE-NI' NATION
OrganizationSMITH RIVER, CA
$3,300
May 7, 2024
4
TULE RIVER TRIBAL COUNCIL
OrganizationPORTERVILLE, CA
$3,300
Aug 12, 2024
5
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$2,500
Nov 22, 2023
6
ONEIDA NATION
OrganizationONEIDA, WI
$1,000
Oct 3, 2023
7
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
Jun 5, 2023
8
ONEIDA INDIAN NATION
OrganizationONEIDA, WI
$1,000
Jun 21, 2024
9
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
May 16, 2024
10
KIMBER, SHELDON
INTERSECT POWERCEO
IndividualTRUCKEE, CA
$5,000
Apr 27, 2023

Donor Network - Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 68 nodes and 34 connections (74 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $151,100

Top Donors - Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR]

Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount

7 Orgs14 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

  • Section 2(a) amends the Higher Education Act to prohibit institutions receiving federal student aid from giving preferential treatment to legacy or donor students in admissions. For-profit education institutions that rely on such preferences (e.g., for alumni or donor relations) would be directly affected, as they would lose a potential admissions advantage, constituting a clear cost.

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.

Introduction

Moderate62.5%
Pages: 374-376

— 341 — Department of Education market prices and signals to influence educational borrowing, introducing consumer-driven accountability into higher education. Pell grants should retain their current voucher-like structure. If Congress is unwilling to reform federal student aid, then the next Adminis- tration should consider the following reforms: l Switch to fair-value accounting from FCRA accounting, and l Consolidate all federal loan programs into one new program that 1. Utilizes income-driven repayment, 2. Includes no interest rate subsidies or loan forgiveness, 3. Includes annual and aggregate limits on borrowing, and 4. Requires “skin in the game” from colleges to help hold them accountable for loan repayment. The Biden Administration has mercilessly pillaged the student loan portfolio for crass political purposes without regard to the needs of current taxpayers or future students. This must never happen again. l As detailed in Section III, the next Administration should work with Congress to spin off federal student aid into a new government corporation with professional governance and management. NEW POLICY PRIORITIES FOR 2025 AND BEYOND New Legislation That Should Be Prioritized For nearly 250 years, Congress has incorporated public and private institutions, including banks, the District of Columbia’s city government, and other organiza- tions that federal officials deem to be conducting operations in the public interest. Such charters offer a certain status to organizations, often viewed as a “seal of approval” according to one Congressional Research Service report, which can help these organizations in their fundraising and other advocacy efforts. When the nation’s largest teacher association, the National Education Associ- ation (NEA), cites its federal charter, it lends the NEA a level of significance and suggests an effectiveness that is not supported by evidence. In fact, the NEA and the nation’s other large teacher union, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT),

Introduction

Moderate62.5%
Pages: 374-376

— 341 — Department of Education market prices and signals to influence educational borrowing, introducing consumer-driven accountability into higher education. Pell grants should retain their current voucher-like structure. If Congress is unwilling to reform federal student aid, then the next Adminis- tration should consider the following reforms: l Switch to fair-value accounting from FCRA accounting, and l Consolidate all federal loan programs into one new program that 1. Utilizes income-driven repayment, 2. Includes no interest rate subsidies or loan forgiveness, 3. Includes annual and aggregate limits on borrowing, and 4. Requires “skin in the game” from colleges to help hold them accountable for loan repayment. The Biden Administration has mercilessly pillaged the student loan portfolio for crass political purposes without regard to the needs of current taxpayers or future students. This must never happen again. l As detailed in Section III, the next Administration should work with Congress to spin off federal student aid into a new government corporation with professional governance and management. NEW POLICY PRIORITIES FOR 2025 AND BEYOND New Legislation That Should Be Prioritized For nearly 250 years, Congress has incorporated public and private institutions, including banks, the District of Columbia’s city government, and other organiza- tions that federal officials deem to be conducting operations in the public interest. Such charters offer a certain status to organizations, often viewed as a “seal of approval” according to one Congressional Research Service report, which can help these organizations in their fundraising and other advocacy efforts. When the nation’s largest teacher association, the National Education Associ- ation (NEA), cites its federal charter, it lends the NEA a level of significance and suggests an effectiveness that is not supported by evidence. In fact, the NEA and the nation’s other large teacher union, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), — 342 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise use litigation and other efforts to block school choice and advocate for additional taxpayer spending in education. They also lobbied to keep schools closed during the pandemic. All of these positions run contrary to robust research evidence showing positive outcomes for students from education choice policies; there is no conclusive evidence that more taxpayer spending on schools improves student outcomes; and evidence finds that keeping schools closed to in-person learning resulted in negative emotional and academic outcomes for students. Furthermore, the union promotes radical racial and gender ideologies in schools that parents oppose according to nationally representative surveys. l Congress should rescind the National Education Association’s congressional charter and remove the false impression that federal taxpayers support the political activities of this special interest group. This move would not be unprecedented, as Congress has rescinded the federal charters of other organizations over the past century. The NEA is a demonstrably radical special interest group that overwhelmingly supports left-of-center policies and policymakers. l Members should conduct hearings to determine how much federal taxpayer money the NEA has used for radical causes favoring a single political party. Parental Rights in Education and Safeguarding Students l Federal officials should protect educators and students in jurisdictions under federal control from racial discrimination by reinforcing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and prohibiting compelled speech. Specifically, no teacher or student in Washington, D.C., public schools, Bureau of Indian Education schools, or Department of Defense schools should be compelled to believe, profess, or adhere to any idea, but especially ideas that violate state and federal civil rights laws. By its very design, critical race theory has an “applied” dimension, as its found- ers state in their essays that define the theory. Those who subscribe to the theory believe that racism (in this case, treating individuals differently based on race) is appropriate—necessary, even—making the theory more than merely an analyti- cal tool to describe race in public and private life. The theory disrupts America’s Founding ideals of freedom and opportunity. So, when critical race theory is used as part of school activities such as mandatory affinity groups, teacher training programs in which educators are required to confess their privilege, or school

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.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills