H.R. 9487

H.R. 9487: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit amortization of any professional women’s sports franchise which allows biological males to participate, and for other purposes.

Introduced Claudia Tenney (R) HOUSE_BILL — 119th Congress
Plain English Summary

H.R. 9487 aims to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 by prohibiting the amortization of any professional women's sports franchise that allows biological males to participate in women's sports. This means that such franchises would not be able to spread the cost of their assets over time for tax purposes.

Positive Media Summary

Supporters of H.R. 9487 argue that the bill is a necessary step to protect women's sports and ensure fair competition. They believe it reinforces the integrity of women's athletics and upholds the principles of Title IX, which aims to promote equality in sports.

Negative Media Summary

Critics of H.R. 9487 contend that the bill is discriminatory and undermines the inclusion of transgender athletes in sports. They argue that it perpetuates stigma and could have negative economic implications for women's sports franchises by limiting their operational flexibility regarding tax benefits.

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

The analysis of H.R. 9487, sponsored by Claudia Tenney, reveals no direct industry overlaps between the bill's subject matter and the sponsor's top donor industries. The bill aims to amend the Internal Revenue Code to prohibit amortization of professional women’s sports franchises allowing biological males to participate. Given that the top donor industries do not have a direct financial stake in the outcome of this legislation, the potential for conflicts of interest appears minimal. The lobbying activity in related areas does not indicate a significant financial influence on this specific bill, as the amounts are relatively low compared to the overall campaign finance landscape. Voters should be aware that while there are lobbyists involved, the lack of direct connections to the bill's subject matter suggests that the motivations behind the sponsorship may not be financially driven by donor interests.

Lobbying Activity — Who's Pushing?

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

Client Lobbying Firm Amount
AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE $810,990
AMERICAN LEGION THE AMERICAN LEGION $190,000
SEIA ROCK CREEK COUNSEL $50,000
ACADEMY OF MODEL AERONAUTICS CAPITOL HILL POLICY GROUP LLC $50,000
CALISTA CORPORATION CAPITOL HILL POLICY GROUP LLC $50,000
POLARIS CONSULTING ROCK CREEK COUNSEL $40,000
TELESAT GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS VELOS $40,000
NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION ROCK CREEK COUNSEL $40,000
PUGET SOUND ENERGY ROCK CREEK COUNSEL $30,000
KOOTENAI TRIBE OF IDAHO CAPITOL HILL POLICY GROUP LLC $20,000
MICRON TECHNOLOGIES, INC. OFF HILL STRATEGIES L.L.C. $20,000
BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF KANSAS INC BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF KANSAS, INC. $10,000
COMMITTEE TO PROTECT HEALTH CARE COMMITTEE TO PROTECT HEALTH CARE undisclosed
INTELSAT GENERAL CORPORATION VELOS undisclosed
JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC undisclosed

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

Sponsor's Top Donor Industries

Top industries funding Claudia Tenney, ranked by total contributions.

Health Professionals $280,000,000
Individuals: $280,000,000 PACs: $0
Retired $87,500,000
Individuals: $87,500,000 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