H.R. 9346

H.R. 9346: To prohibit the closure or relocation of certain Department of Agriculture offices, and for other purposes.

Introduced Sharice Davids (D) HOUSE_BILL — 119th Congress
Plain English Summary

H.R. 9346 aims to prevent the closure or relocation of specific offices within the Department of Agriculture. This legislation is likely intended to maintain access to agricultural services and support for farmers and rural communities by ensuring that these offices remain operational in their current locations.

Positive Media Summary

Supporters of H.R. 9346 have praised the bill for its commitment to preserving vital agricultural services in rural areas. They argue that maintaining these offices is essential for supporting farmers, fostering local economies, and ensuring that communities have access to necessary resources and assistance.

Negative Media Summary

Critics of H.R. 9346 have expressed concerns about the potential for government overreach and inefficiency. Some argue that the bill may hinder the Department of Agriculture's ability to adapt to changing needs and allocate resources effectively, potentially leading to wasted taxpayer dollars on underutilized offices.

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. 9346, sponsored by Sharice Davids, reveals no direct industry overlaps between the bill's subject matter and the sponsor's top donor industries. The bill aims to prohibit the closure or relocation of certain Department of Agriculture offices, which does not appear to directly benefit any of the top donor industries. The lobbying activity related to this bill includes various organizations, such as OSF Healthcare System and Egan-Jones Ratings Company, but these entities do not have a clear connection to the Department of Agriculture's operations. The total lobbying amounts are significant, with OSF Healthcare contributing $60,000, but they do not align with the bill's focus on agricultural offices. Therefore, the risk of conflict of interest is assessed as low.

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

Sponsor's Top Donor Industries

Top industries funding Sharice Davids, ranked by total contributions.

Health Professionals $120,000,000
Individuals: $120,000,000 PACs: $0
Retired $37,500,000
Individuals: $37,500,000 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