H.R. 9324

H.R. 9324: To prohibit the provision of Federal funds to State and local governments and school districts for payment of obligations, to prohibit the Federal Reserve banks, the Department of the Treasury, and other Federal agencies from financially assis

Introduced W. Steube (R) HOUSE_BILL — 119th Congress
Plain English Summary

H.R. 9324 aims to prevent the allocation of Federal funds to state and local governments, as well as school districts, for the purpose of covering their financial obligations. Additionally, it seeks to restrict financial assistance from Federal Reserve banks, the Department of the Treasury, and other Federal agencies to these entities.

Positive Media Summary

Supporters of H.R. 9324 argue that the bill encourages fiscal responsibility among state and local governments, pushing them to manage their budgets more effectively without relying on Federal assistance. Proponents believe this will lead to more sustainable financial practices at the local level.

Negative Media Summary

Critics of H.R. 9324 claim that the bill could exacerbate financial difficulties for state and local governments, particularly those struggling with budget shortfalls. They argue that it may hinder essential services and education funding, leading to negative impacts on communities and students.

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

The analysis of H.R. 9324, sponsored by W. Steube, reveals no direct industry overlaps between the bill's subject matter and the sponsor's top donor industries. The bill aims to prohibit federal funding to state and local governments and school districts, which does not appear to directly benefit any specific industry represented by the sponsor's donors. While there is significant lobbying activity in related policy areas, the contributions from these entities do not indicate a direct financial interest in the outcomes of this bill. For example, OSF Healthcare System contributed $60,000, but their interests do not align with the bill's prohibition on federal funds. Therefore, the risk of conflict of interest is assessed as low, as there are no clear financial incentives for the sponsor's donors that would influence the bill's passage.

Lobbying Activity — Who's Pushing?

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

Client Lobbying Firm Amount
OSF HEALTHCARE SYSTEM OSF HEALTHCARE SYSTEM $60,000
EGAN-JONES RATINGS COMPANY INVARIANT LLC $50,000
GRADIUM MEGA COIN HARTWELL CAPITOL CONSULTING $50,000
DRAI HEALTH HARTWELL CAPITOL CONSULTING $50,000
VALTHOS INC. INVARIANT LLC $40,000
SANDY BAY PARTNERS, LLC GRACE BAY STRATEGIES, LLC $20,000
ORGANOGENESIS DONOVAN STRATEGIES LLC $15,000
ANTENNA RESEARCH ASSOCIATES DONOVAN STRATEGIES LLC $15,000
NETSCOUT DONOVAN STRATEGIES LLC $10,000
ALLLIANCE OF MARINE MAMMAL PARKS AND AQUARIUMS MEA STRATEGIES LLC undisclosed
REGIONAL FISHERIES ENHANCEMENT GROUP COALITION ALL OF THE ABOVE CONSULTING, LLC undisclosed
JACKSON WALKER LLP ON BEHALF OF SAN MIGUEL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. INVARIANT LLC undisclosed
ANTHEIA INVARIANT LLC undisclosed
RAILROAD INVESTIGATION PROJECT GROUP EAGLE 1 RESOURCES, LCC undisclosed
EAGLE 1 RESOURCES, LCC EAGLE 1 RESOURCES, LCC 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