S. 4714

S. 4714: A bill to amend the Agricultural Credit Act of 1978 to authorize payments under the emergency conservation system for updating of fencing to new or emerging technology.

Introduced Pete Ricketts (R) SENATE_BILL — 119th Congress
Plain English Summary

S. 4714 is a bill that aims to amend the Agricultural Credit Act of 1978. It seeks to authorize financial payments under the emergency conservation system specifically for farmers and ranchers to update their fencing systems to incorporate new or emerging technologies. This could include advancements that enhance the effectiveness or sustainability of fencing used in agricultural practices.

Positive Media Summary

Supporters of S. 4714 have praised the bill for its potential to modernize agricultural practices and improve farm management. They argue that updating fencing technology can lead to better livestock management, increased efficiency, and enhanced conservation efforts, ultimately benefiting both farmers and the environment.

Negative Media Summary

Critics of S. 4714 have raised concerns about the financial implications of the bill, arguing that it may divert funds from other critical agricultural programs. Some have questioned whether the emphasis on new technology is necessary, suggesting that existing fencing solutions could be sufficient and that the bill may disproportionately benefit larger agricultural operations at the expense of smaller farms.

Conflict of Interest Analysis Deep Analysis
2/10
Risk Level
Low
Total Donations
$52,500,000
PAC Percentage
0%
Policy Area
Agriculture and Food

The analysis of Bill S. 4714, which aims to amend the Agricultural Credit Act of 1978 for emergency conservation payments related to fencing technology, reveals no direct industry overlaps with the sponsor Pete Ricketts' top donor industries. Ricketts' primary donor base consists of Health Professionals and Retired individuals, contributing a total of $52,500,000. Given that these sectors are not directly related to agricultural technology or conservation efforts, the potential for conflicts of interest appears minimal. Additionally, the lobbying activity in this policy area does not indicate significant financial influence from donors aligned with Ricketts' top contributors, further supporting a low risk assessment.

Lobbying Activity — Who's Pushing?

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

Client Lobbying Firm Amount
SASOL CHEMICALS USA LLC SASOL CHEMICALS USA LLC $260,000
ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE COUNCIL FKA MASTER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ASSOCIATION ZIEBART CONSULTING, LLC $60,000
ORGANIC PRODUCE ASSOCIATION THE RUSSELL GROUP, INC. $50,000
GRAVITICS TECHNOLOGY STRATEGIES LLC $30,000
LIVINGSTON INTERNATIONAL INC VENABLE LLP $30,000
CITY OF WILLISTON (ND) NEXXUS CONSULTING, LLC $30,000
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF POSTAL SUPERVISORS NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF POSTAL SUPERVISORS $28,000
S&P GLOBAL F/K/A IHS MARITIME & TRADE VENABLE LLP $20,000
TOWN OF TUSAYAN NEXXUS CONSULTING, LLC $10,000
TREA SENIOR CITIZENS LEAGUE TREA SENIOR CITIZENS LEAGUE $5,000
NATIONAL RELIGIOUS BROADCASTERS NATIONAL RELIGIOUS BROADCASTERS undisclosed
INTERNATIONAL REGISTRIES, INC. VENABLE LLP undisclosed
ARISTEIA STRATEGIC ADVISORS, LLC ARISTEIA STRATEGIC ADVISORS, LLC undisclosed
US CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGIES ATS COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (DBA SILBEY STRATEGIES) undisclosed
CX2 ATS COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (DBA SILBEY STRATEGIES) undisclosed

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

Sponsor's Top Donor Industries

Top industries funding Pete Ricketts, ranked by total contributions.

Health Professionals $40,000,000
Individuals: $40,000,000 PACs: $0
Retired $12,500,000
Individuals: $12,500,000 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