H.R. 9295

H.R. 9295: To amend chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, and chapter 161 of title 28, United States Code, to provide a maximum amount for the fees and other expenses that may be awarded in connection with an agency adjudication, and for other purpos

Introduced Michael Rulli (R) HOUSE_BILL — 119th Congress
Plain English Summary

H.R. 9295 aims to amend existing U.S. laws to set a maximum limit on the fees and other expenses that can be awarded in connection with agency adjudications. This means that when individuals or entities seek compensation for legal costs related to disputes with federal agencies, there will be a cap on how much they can receive.

Positive Media Summary

Supporters of H.R. 9295 argue that the bill will help streamline the adjudication process by providing clear limits on expenses, potentially leading to quicker resolutions and reducing the burden on federal agencies. Advocates believe this could also promote fairness by preventing excessive claims that could hinder agency operations.

Negative Media Summary

Critics of H.R. 9295 express concern that capping fees may discourage individuals from pursuing legitimate claims against federal agencies, as the limited compensation could make it financially unfeasible for them to seek justice. Opponents argue that this could disproportionately affect low-income individuals who may already struggle to afford legal representation.

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

The analysis of H.R. 9295, sponsored by Michael Rulli, reveals no direct industry overlaps between the bill's subject matter and the sponsor's top donor industries. The bill aims to amend the fees and expenses awarded in agency adjudications, which does not appear to directly benefit any specific industry represented among Rulli's top donors. However, there is notable lobbying activity in this policy area, with significant contributions from various entities such as RESPOND-US ($140,000) and GINKGO BIOWORKS, INC. ($60,000). While these contributions are substantial, they do not create a direct conflict with the bill's provisions, as they do not align with the specific interests addressed in the legislation. Voters should be aware that while there is lobbying present, the lack of direct donor overlap suggests a lower risk of conflict of interest in this instance.

Lobbying Activity — Who's Pushing?

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

Client Lobbying Firm Amount
RESPOND-US CORNERSTONE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, INC. $140,000
SILVERLINING ALPINE GROUP PARTNERS, LLC. $80,000
MEDLINE CORNERSTONE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, INC. $80,000
GINKGO BIOWORKS, INC. CORNERSTONE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, INC. $60,000
PEABODY ENERGY CORPORATION CORNERSTONE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, INC. $50,000
LUFTHANSA GERMAN AIRLINES CAPITOL POINT GROUP, LLC $50,000
MERIDIAM INFRASTRUCTURE CAPITOL POINT GROUP, LLC $40,000
LEO TECHNOLOGIES BUTLER SNOW LLP $30,000
MAXIMUS BRICK STREET STRATEGY $30,000
JOHNSON & JOHNSON BRICK STREET STRATEGY $30,000
OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION GTB PARTNERS $20,000
CHAMBERS COUNTY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BUTLER SNOW LLP $15,000
HEARTH, PATIO & BARBECUE ASSOCIATION HEARTH, PATIO & BARBECUE ASSOCIATION $15,000
THE UNIVERSITY OF WEST ALABAMA BUTLER SNOW LLP $12,000
BASIS PATH BUTLER SNOW LLP undisclosed

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

Sponsor's Top Donor Industries

Top industries funding Michael Rulli, ranked by total contributions.

Health Professionals $80,000,000
Individuals: $80,000,000 PACs: $0
Retired $25,000,000
Individuals: $25,000,000 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