H.R. 9305

H.R. 9305: To amend the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 to set maximum monthly allowances for juice under the special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children.

Introduced Glenn Thompson (R) HOUSE_BILL — 119th Congress
Plain English Summary

H.R. 9305 aims to amend the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 by establishing maximum monthly allowances for juice provided under the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). This legislation seeks to regulate the quantity of juice that can be distributed to participants in the program, likely to promote healthier dietary choices for women and children.

Positive Media Summary

Supporters of H.R. 9305 have praised the bill for its potential to improve nutrition among vulnerable populations by limiting juice intake, which is often high in sugar. Advocates argue that setting maximum allowances will encourage healthier beverage choices and contribute to better overall health outcomes for women and children enrolled in the WIC program.

Negative Media Summary

Critics of H.R. 9305 have expressed concerns that limiting juice allowances could be overly restrictive and may not take into account the preferences of families. Some argue that the bill could reduce the flexibility of the WIC program, making it harder for participants to access nutritious options that include juice, which can be a source of vitamins for young children.

Conflict of Interest Analysis Deep Analysis
2/10
Risk Level
Low
Total Donations
$0
PAC Percentage
0%
Policy Area
Agriculture and Food

The analysis of H.R. 9305, which aims to amend the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 regarding juice allowances under the WIC program, reveals no direct industry overlaps between the sponsor Glenn Thompson's top donor industries and the bill's subject matter. The absence of overlapping interests suggests a low likelihood of conflicts of interest arising from financial contributions. While there is significant lobbying activity in the policy area, the lack of disclosed financial ties to the specific provisions of the bill mitigates concerns about potential influence from donors. Voters should be aware that while lobbying exists, it does not directly correlate with the sponsor's financial backers in this case.

Lobbying Activity — Who's Pushing?

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

Client Lobbying Firm Amount
WELLS FARGO & COMPANY RMP STRATEGIES, LLC $10,000
MANAGED FUNDS ASSOCIATION RMP STRATEGIES, LLC $10,000
DISABILITY RIGHTS EDUCATION & DEFENSE INC DISABILITY RIGHTS EDUCATION & DEFENSE, INC. $10,000
SAMSARA INC. CORNERSTONE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, INC. undisclosed
OTG PAUL HASTINGS LLP undisclosed
BLOCKQUAKE HOLDINGS LLC PAUL HASTINGS LLP undisclosed
PAYSAFE MERCHANT SERVICES CORPORATION PAUL HASTINGS LLP undisclosed
PROOF OF STAKE ALLIANCE PAUL HASTINGS LLP undisclosed
INTEGRAL COMMUNITIES PAUL HASTINGS LLP undisclosed
SENTILINK CORP. PAUL HASTINGS LLP undisclosed
TEMPLUM LLC (FORMERLY KNOWN AS OUISA CAPITAL LLC) PAUL HASTINGS LLP undisclosed
GLOBAL PRIMEX LLC PAUL HASTINGS LLP undisclosed
WARRIOR TRADING PAUL HASTINGS LLP undisclosed
SYNIVERSE TECHNOLOGIES LLC PAUL HASTINGS LLP undisclosed
SOUTHERN INSTITUTE OF POLICY RESEARCH SOUTHERN INSTITUTE OF POLICY RESEARCH undisclosed

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

Sponsor's Top Donor Industries

Top industries funding Glenn Thompson, ranked by total contributions.

Health Professionals $720,000,000
Individuals: $720,000,000 PACs: $0
Retired $225,000,000
Individuals: $225,000,000 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