H.R. 9573

H.R. 9573: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for certain residential rental property.

Introduced Mike Carey (R) HOUSE_BILL — 119th Congress
Plain English Summary

H.R. 9573 proposes changes to the Internal Revenue Code to offer tax incentives for specific types of residential rental properties. This could include benefits such as tax deductions or credits aimed at encouraging investment in rental housing, potentially making it more affordable and accessible for renters.

Positive Media Summary

Supporters of H.R. 9573 have praised the bill for its potential to stimulate the housing market by encouraging investment in residential rental properties. They argue that the tax incentives could lead to increased rental availability and affordability, addressing the ongoing housing crisis and benefiting both landlords and tenants.

Negative Media Summary

Critics of H.R. 9573 have raised concerns that the bill may disproportionately benefit wealthy property owners and investors rather than addressing the needs of low-income renters. There are fears that such incentives could lead to gentrification and further exacerbate housing inequalities in urban areas.

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

While there are no direct industry overlaps between the sponsor Mike Carey’s top donor industries and the subject matter of H.R. 9573, which focuses on incentives for residential rental property, there are significant lobbying activities in related areas. For instance, the American Concrete Institute has contributed $80,000, which could suggest an interest in construction and development related to residential properties. Additionally, the Veterans Association of Real Estate Professionals, Inc. has contributed $30,000, indicating potential interests in real estate transactions that may intersect with the bill's objectives. However, the lack of direct donor overlap keeps the risk at a medium level rather than high. Voters should be aware of these connections as they may influence the bill's implementation and the interests it serves.

Lobbying Activity — Who's Pushing?

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

Client Lobbying Firm Amount
AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE CROSSROADS STRATEGIES, LLC $80,000
SIGHTLINE INTELLIGENCE C2 STRATEGIES $50,000
ACTUS ADVANCED SYSTEMS C2 STRATEGIES $40,000
WASHOE COUNTY PORTER GROUP, LLC $30,000
VETERANS ASSOCIATION OF REAL ESTATE PROFESSIONALS, INC. C2 STRATEGIES $30,000
EO SOLUTIONS LLC PORTER GROUP, LLC $20,000
WASHOE COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PORTER GROUP, LLC $20,000
ULINE BROYDRICK & ASSOCIATES $20,000
TONIX PHARMACEUTICALS BROYDRICK & ASSOCIATES $20,000
RTC SOUTHERN NEVADA PORTER GROUP, LLC $10,000
WISH BROYDRICK & ASSOCIATES undisclosed
WISCONSIN STATE CRANBERRY GROWERS ASSOCIATION BROYDRICK & ASSOCIATES undisclosed
WISCONSIN CRANBERRY RESEARCH AND EDUCATION FOUNDATION BROYDRICK & ASSOCIATES undisclosed
WISCONSIN CRANBERRY RESEARCH AND EDUCATION FOUNDATION BROYDRICK & ASSOCIATES undisclosed
WD SCHORSCH LLC BROYDRICK & ASSOCIATES undisclosed

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

Sponsor's Top Donor Industries

Top industries funding Mike Carey, 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