S. 4752

S. 4752: A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase criminal and civil penalties for unauthorized disclosure of taxpayer information, and for other purposes.

Introduced Steve Daines (R) SENATE_BILL — 119th Congress
Plain English Summary

S. 4752 is a bill that aims to amend the Internal Revenue Code to impose stricter criminal and civil penalties on individuals or entities that unlawfully disclose taxpayer information. The bill is likely intended to enhance the protection of taxpayer privacy and ensure that sensitive financial information is kept confidential.

Positive Media Summary

Supporters of S. 4752 have praised the bill for strengthening the safeguards around taxpayer information, emphasizing the importance of protecting individual privacy and maintaining trust in the tax system. Advocates argue that increased penalties will deter unauthorized disclosures and hold violators accountable.

Negative Media Summary

Critics of S. 4752 have raised concerns that the increased penalties may be overly harsh and could lead to unintended consequences, such as discouraging whistleblowers from reporting misconduct within the tax system. Some argue that the bill may not effectively address the root causes of unauthorized disclosures and could create a chilling effect on transparency.

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

The analysis of bill S. 4752, which seeks to increase penalties for unauthorized disclosure of taxpayer information, reveals no direct industry overlaps between the subject matter of the bill and the sponsor's top donor industries. While there is significant lobbying activity related to various industries, such as FCA International and Robotic Research OPCO, LLC, these entities do not appear to have a direct stake in the bill's provisions. The total lobbying contributions in this policy area amount to $285,000, but without direct ties to the bill's focus, the risk of conflict remains low. Voters should be aware that while there is substantial financial influence in the political arena, this particular bill does not show evidence of donor interests directly conflicting with its objectives.

Lobbying Activity — Who's Pushing?

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

Client Lobbying Firm Amount
ROBOTIC RESEARCH OPCO, LLC (DBA FORTERRA) ROBOTIC RESEARCH OPCO, LLC (DBA FORTERRA) $210,000
MUSKET CORPORATION THE RUSSELL GROUP, INC. $60,000
STREET GRACE ASCEND CONSULTING $30,000
COLGATE - PALMOLIVE TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP DBA TAFT ADVISORS LLC FKA (TAFT, STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER, LLP) $30,000
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND $27,000
FCA INTERNATIONAL OSCAR POLICY GROUP, LLC $25,000
NATIONAL INDEPENDENT AUTOMOBILE DEALERS ASSOCIATION NATIONAL INDEPENDENT AUTOMOBILE DEALERS ASSOCIATION $22,500
CULLMAN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER WOODLAND RESOURCES $18,000
3STRANDS GLOBAL FOUNDATION ASCEND CONSULTING $10,000
CHRISTIAN CAMP AND CONFERENCE ASSOCIATION ASCEND CONSULTING $10,000
JTEKT NORTH AMERICA TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP DBA TAFT ADVISORS LLC FKA (TAFT, STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER, LLP) $10,000
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF DRILLING CONTRACTORS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCATION OF DRILLING CONTRACTORS undisclosed
MID-AMERICAN GUNITE, INC. TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP DBA TAFT ADVISORS LLC FKA (TAFT, STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER, LLP) undisclosed
FIDELITY AND GUARANTY LIFE TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP DBA TAFT ADVISORS LLC FKA (TAFT, STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER, LLP) undisclosed
HUBBS-SEAWORLD RESEARCH INSTITUTE HAMMER ASSOCIATES, LLC undisclosed

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

Sponsor's Top Donor Industries

Top industries funding Steve Daines, ranked by total contributions.

Health Professionals $2,040,000,000
Individuals: $2,040,000,000 PACs: $0
Retired $637,500,000
Individuals: $637,500,000 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