No Payola Act
- Bill Number
- H.R. 6049
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Congress
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-11-17: Referred to the House Committee on House Administration.
- Last Updated
- 2026-02-04T20:26:13Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose of the Legislation
The "No Payola Act" (H.R. 6049) aims to eliminate specific requirements for notifying Senate offices about legal actions (such as court orders or subpoenas) that involve disclosing Senate-related data. It also seeks to prevent Senators from retaining any financial awards they may have received under the now-repealed provisions, by requiring them to return such funds to the U.S. Treasury.
Key Provisions
- Repeal of Notification Rules: The bill fully repeals Section 213 of the Continuing Appropriations, Agriculture, Legislative Branch, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Extensions Act, 2026 (Public Law 119-37). This includes its amendments to Section 10 of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2005 (2 U.S.C. 6628), which had imposed notification obligations on entities handling legal processes for Senate data disclosure.
- Disgorgement of Funds: Any Senator who received funds through a private lawsuit (a legal action brought by an individual under the repealed law) between the enactment of Public Law 119-37 and this bill's enactment must repay an equal amount to the Treasury's general fund, regardless of other laws.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- Removes mandatory notifications to Senate offices for legal processes involving the disclosure of Senate data, such as records or information managed by the Senate. This reverses a 2026 addition that aimed to protect Senate data by alerting offices to potential disclosures.
- Introduces a repayment mechanism for any financial benefits Senators gained from the repealed private right of action (a provision allowing individuals to sue for damages), ensuring no ongoing financial gain from the now-invalidated rules.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: Streamlines legal and administrative processes for federal agencies, courts, or third parties seeking access to Senate data by eliminating notification steps, potentially reducing delays in investigations or disclosures.
- On Citizens: May indirectly benefit the public or litigants by making it easier to obtain Senate records through legal channels without Senate office interventions, though it could reduce Senate oversight of data handling.
- On International Relations: No direct impacts noted, as the bill focuses on domestic legislative branch operations.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Senators and Senate Offices: Directly impacted by the loss of notification protections and required repayment of any prior awards, potentially limiting their control over data disclosures.
- Federal Courts and Legal Entities: Benefit from simplified procedures for handling subpoenas or orders related to Senate data.
- U.S. Treasury: Receives repayments from Senators, bolstering general funds.
- Public and Litigants: Gainers through potentially faster access to Senate information in legal contexts.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal Implications: The repeal could lead to fewer barriers in lawsuits or enforcement actions involving Senate data, but the disgorgement clause (requiring repayment) raises questions about retroactive application of laws, which courts might scrutinize for fairness under due process principles (basic constitutional protections against arbitrary government actions).
- Constitutional Implications: Aligns with separation of powers by reducing legislative branch interference in judicial processes, though it might spark debates on Congress's authority to repeal and claw back funds from recent laws.
- Political Implications: The bill's title ("No Payola Act," referencing illegal hidden payments) suggests an intent to curb perceived undue financial benefits to Senators, potentially fueling partisan discussions on transparency and accountability in Congress without altering broader ethics rules.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Rep. Leger Fernandez, Teresa [D-NM-3]
Cosponsors (40)
Rep. McGovern, James P. [D-MA-2], Rep. Neguse, Joe [D-CO-2], Rep. Amo, Gabe [D-RI-1], Rep. Ansari, Yassamin [D-AZ-3], Rep. Barragán, Nanette Diaz [D-CA-44], Rep. Bell, Wesley [D-MO-1], Rep. Beyer, Donald S. [D-VA-8], Rep. Carson, André [D-IN-7], Rep. Cohen, Steve [D-TN-9], Rep. Crockett, Jasmine [D-TX-30], Rep. Dexter, Maxine [D-OR-3], Rep. Fields, Cleo [D-LA-6], Rep. Fletcher, Lizzie [D-TX-7], Rep. Frost, Maxwell [D-FL-10], Rep. Garcia, Sylvia R. [D-TX-29], Rep. Horsford, Steven [D-NV-4], Rep. Huffman, Jared [D-CA-2], Rep. Kamlager-Dove, Sydney [D-CA-37], Rep. Kaptur, Marcy [D-OH-9], Rep. Kelly, Robin L. [D-IL-2], Rep. Landsman, Greg [D-OH-1], Rep. Larsen, Rick [D-WA-2], Rep. Larson, John B. [D-CT-1], Rep. Moulton, Seth [D-MA-6], Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large], Rep. Olszewski, Johnny [D-MD-2], Rep. Quigley, Mike [D-IL-5], Rep. Randall, Emily [D-WA-6], Rep. Salinas, Andrea [D-OR-6], Rep. Scanlon, Mary Gay [D-PA-5], Rep. Subramanyam, Suhas [D-VA-10], Rep. Swalwell, Eric [D-CA-14], Rep. Thanedar, Shri [D-MI-13], Rep. Titus, Dina [D-NV-1], Rep. Tlaib, Rashida [D-MI-12], Rep. Tokuda, Jill N. [D-HI-2], Rep. Veasey, Marc A. [D-TX-33], Rep. Davis, Danny K. [D-IL-7], Rep. Lieu, Ted [D-CA-36], Rep. Green, Al [D-TX-9]
Recent Actions
- 2025-11-17: Referred to the House Committee on House Administration.
- 2025-11-17: Introduced in House
- 2025-11-17: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- No Payola Act — issued 2025-11-17 — PDF (2 pages)