S. 4825

S. 4825: A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose an excise tax on systemically important AI activity, and for other purposes.

Introduced Bernard Sanders (I) SENATE_BILL — 119th Congress
Plain English Summary

S. 4825 proposes to amend the Internal Revenue Code by introducing an excise tax specifically targeting activities related to systemically important artificial intelligence (AI). This tax aims to regulate and potentially generate revenue from AI activities deemed critical to the economy or society.

Positive Media Summary

Supporters of S. 4825 argue that the bill represents a proactive approach to regulating the burgeoning AI sector, which has significant implications for job creation, economic growth, and ethical standards. Advocates believe that the excise tax could help fund essential public services and research initiatives related to AI safety and regulation.

Negative Media Summary

Critics of S. 4825 contend that imposing an excise tax on AI activities could stifle innovation and hinder the growth of the technology sector. They argue that this legislation may disproportionately affect smaller companies and startups, potentially leading to reduced competition and limiting advancements in AI technology.

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. 4825, which seeks to impose an excise tax on systemically important AI activity, reveals no direct overlaps between the sponsor, Bernard Sanders, and his top donor industries. This indicates a low potential for conflicts of interest based on donor influence. While there is significant lobbying activity in the AI and technology sector, the top donors to Sanders do not appear to have direct stakes in the bill's subject matter. The largest contributions from entities like Ginkgo Bioworks ($60,000) and Respond-US ($140,000) do not directly correlate with the AI excise tax, suggesting that these donors may not be motivated by the bill's outcomes. Voters should be aware that while lobbying exists, the absence of direct donor connections to the bill mitigates potential conflicts.

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
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
THE UNIVERSITY OF WEST ALABAMA BUTLER SNOW LLP $12,000
BASIS PATH BUTLER SNOW LLP undisclosed

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

Sponsor's Top Donor Industries

Top industries funding Bernard Sanders, ranked by total contributions.

Health Professionals $1,080,000,000
Individuals: $1,080,000,000 PACs: $0
Retired $337,500,000
Individuals: $337,500,000 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