H.R. 8785

H.R. 8785: To amend section 5336 of title 49, United States Code, to provide for certain apportionments to medium-sized transit intensive cities, and for other purposes.

Introduced Salud Carbajal (D) HOUSE_BILL — 119th Congress
Plain English Summary

H.R. 8785 aims to amend existing legislation regarding the distribution of federal funding for public transit. Specifically, it seeks to allocate funds to medium-sized cities that have a high demand for transit services, ensuring that these cities receive appropriate financial support to improve and maintain their transit systems.

Positive Media Summary

Supporters of H.R. 8785 have praised the bill for recognizing the needs of medium-sized cities, which often struggle to compete for federal transit funding. They argue that this legislation will enhance public transportation options, reduce congestion, and promote economic growth in urban areas that are transit-intensive.

Negative Media Summary

Critics of H.R. 8785 have expressed concerns that the bill may divert funds from larger cities or other essential transit projects. Some argue that the criteria for 'medium-sized transit intensive cities' could be too vague, potentially leading to misallocation of resources and undermining the overall effectiveness of the federal transit funding system.

Conflict of Interest Analysis Deep Analysis
3/10
Risk Level
Low
Total Donations
$315,000,000
PAC Percentage
0%
Policy Area
Transportation and Public Works

While there are no direct industry overlaps between the bill's subject matter and the sponsor's top donor industries, the lobbying activity in the transit policy area raises some concerns. The presence of USIG Digital, which has donated $15,000 to Salud Carbajal, indicates a potential influence in the legislative process. Additionally, the lobbying efforts from various groups, including The GEO Group, which has a significant lobbying expenditure of $80,000, could suggest that there are interests at play that may not align with the public's best interest in transit funding. Voters should be aware that while the primary donor industries are not directly related, the lobbying landscape indicates that external pressures could influence the bill's outcomes.

Lobbying Activity — Who's Pushing?

Organizations that lobbied on issues related to this bill's policy area. 2 lobbying client(s) are also sponsor donors.

Client Lobbying Firm Amount
USIG DIGITAL Also a Donor SOBBA PUBLIC, LLC $15,000
USIG DIGITAL Also a Donor SOBBA PUBLIC, LLC $15,000
THE GEO GROUP, INC. CHECKMATE GOVERNMENT RELATIONS $80,000
COPPER.CO SOBBA PUBLIC, LLC $36,000
AMPL-ACTION FUND (FORMERLY ADVOCATES FOR MULTI-USE OF PUBLIC LANDS) BIGHORN PUBLIC AFFAIRS GROUP $20,000
CATHOLIC CHARITIES MASIELLO MARTUCCI HUGHES KULPA $15,000
PVS CHEMICAL SOLUTIONS MASIELLO MARTUCCI HUGHES KULPA $15,000
ERIE COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY MASIELLO MARTUCCI HUGHES KULPA $15,000
ARTPARK MASIELLO MARTUCCI HUGHES KULPA $10,500
MHG TELCO, LLL MASIELLO MARTUCCI HUGHES KULPA $10,500
ROSINA FOODS MASIELLO MARTUCCI HUGHES KULPA $9,000
THE SALVATION ARMY MASIELLO MARTUCCI HUGHES KULPA $6,000
A.C.E. CONSULTING A.C.E. CONSULTING DBA A.C.E. CONSTRUCTION CONSULTING undisclosed
A.C.E. CONSULTING A.C.E. CONSULTING DBA A.C.E. CONSTRUCTION CONSULTING undisclosed
THE GUTHRIE CLINIC BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC undisclosed

Source: Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) filings, 2026

Sponsor's Top Donor Industries

Top industries funding Salud Carbajal, ranked by total contributions.

Health Professionals $240,000,000
Individuals: $240,000,000 PACs: $0
Retired $75,000,000
Individuals: $75,000,000 PACs: $0

Source: OpenSecrets.org (Center for Responsive Politics)

TheBillRoom is free and independent. No ads, no subscriptions, no political funding. If this analysis was useful, reader support keeps it running.
Support Us