H.R. 9472

H.R. 9472: To prohibit Community Development Block Grant funding and Federal mortgage support in municipalities that allow squatting.

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

H.R. 9472 aims to prohibit the allocation of Community Development Block Grant funding and federal mortgage support to municipalities that permit squatting, which is the unauthorized occupation of vacant properties. The bill seeks to discourage local governments from allowing this practice by cutting off federal financial assistance.

Positive Media Summary

Supporters of H.R. 9472 argue that the bill will protect property rights and encourage municipalities to enforce laws against squatting. They believe that by withholding federal funding, the bill incentivizes local governments to maintain order and support responsible property management.

Negative Media Summary

Critics of H.R. 9472 contend that the bill unfairly targets vulnerable populations who may resort to squatting due to housing insecurity. They argue that it could exacerbate homelessness and undermine community support systems, as municipalities may be forced to choose between federal funding and addressing the root causes of squatting.

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

While there are no direct industry overlaps detected between the bill's subject matter and the sponsor's top donor industries, there is significant lobbying activity related to the bill's policy area. Notably, RESPOND-US contributed $140,000, and GINKGO BIOWORKS, INC. contributed $60,000. These contributions suggest a vested interest in the outcomes of policies that could affect community development and housing. Although the bill specifically targets municipalities allowing squatting, the broader implications of restricting funding could indirectly affect various industries represented by these lobbyists. Voters should be aware that while direct conflicts are not evident, the substantial lobbying amounts indicate potential influences that may not align with community interests.

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
AMERICAN FLOOD COALITION ACTION INC ALPINE GROUP PARTNERS, LLC. $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
BASIS PATH BUTLER SNOW LLP undisclosed

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

Sponsor's Top Donor Industries

Top industries funding Michael Lawler, ranked by total contributions.

Health Professionals $240,000,000
Individuals: $240,000,000 PACs: $0
Retired $75,000,000
Individuals: $75,000,000 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