H.R. 9279

H.R. 9279: To provide for a right of action against Federal employees for violations of First Amendment rights relating to the use or development of artificial intelligence.

Introduced Harriet Hageman (R) HOUSE_BILL — 119th Congress
Plain English Summary

H.R. 9279 aims to establish a legal right for individuals to sue federal employees if they believe their First Amendment rights have been violated in relation to the use or development of artificial intelligence. This could include cases where AI systems are used in ways that infringe upon free speech or other constitutional rights.

Positive Media Summary

Supporters of H.R. 9279 argue that the bill is a necessary step to protect individual rights in the rapidly evolving field of artificial intelligence. Advocates believe it empowers citizens to hold government employees accountable for potential abuses of AI technologies, thereby reinforcing the importance of constitutional protections in the digital age.

Negative Media Summary

Critics of H.R. 9279 express concerns that the bill could lead to an increase in frivolous lawsuits against federal employees, potentially undermining their ability to effectively use AI for public benefit. Detractors argue that it may create a chilling effect on innovation within the government, as employees might become hesitant to engage with AI technologies for fear of legal repercussions.

Conflict of Interest Analysis Deep Analysis
3/10
Risk Level
Low
Total Donations
$0
PAC Percentage
0%
Policy Area
Law

The analysis reveals no direct industry overlaps between the sponsor Harriet Hageman's top donor industries and the subject matter of H.R. 9279, which focuses on First Amendment rights related to artificial intelligence. While there is lobbying activity in the policy area, the contributions from entities such as Green Oceans ($22,500), Shanda Asset Management LLC ($50,000), and Spray Foam Coalition ($60,000) do not indicate a direct financial interest in the bill's content. The undisclosed amounts from other lobbying entities further complicate the assessment but do not provide clear evidence of conflict. Overall, the lack of direct industry ties suggests a lower risk of conflict of interest for this legislation.

Lobbying Activity — Who's Pushing?

Organizations that lobbied on issues related to this bill's policy area.

Client Lobbying Firm Amount
SPRAY FOAM COALITION SPRAY FOAM COALITION $60,000
SHANDA ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC SHANDA ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC $50,000
GREEN OCEANS EDNEXUS ADVISORS, LLC $22,500
JOHN BRIAN LEDBETTER MISSIONS JOHN BRIAN LEDBETTER MISSIONS CORPORATION undisclosed
JOHN BRIAN LEDBETTER MISSIONS CORPORATION JOHN BRIAN LEDBETTER MISSIONS CORPORATION undisclosed
LG ELECTRONICS USA, INC. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP undisclosed
RIDE GROUP LLC AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD undisclosed
CRESCENTA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT CAPITOL CORE GROUP, INC. undisclosed
ALIBABA GROUP HOLDING LIMITED SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP undisclosed
SPACECONNECT ASSOCIATION SALT POINT STRATEGIES undisclosed
CURIUM US LLC CORNERSTONE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, INC. undisclosed
TWINZA OIL LIMITED ANCHOR GROUP LLC undisclosed
PUBLIC PRIVATE STRATEGIES VALENTINE STRATEGIES undisclosed
PELICAN ENERGY PARTNERS LP CORNERSTONE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, INC. undisclosed
CORVUS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. CORNERSTONE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, INC. undisclosed

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

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