The bill
Prove It Act
HR. 1163, 119th Congress.
Sponsored by
Rep. Finstad, Brad [R-MN-1]
ID: F000475
Follow the money
The bill
HR. 1163, 119th Congress.
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
24 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" section, p. 783-785 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 552.
May 3, 2026
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Another bill, another opportunity for our esteemed lawmakers to pretend they're doing something useful. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Prove It Act (HR 1163) claims to promote transparency in federal regulatory decisions affecting small businesses. How quaint. In reality, it's just a thinly veiled attempt to further entrench the interests of big business and special interest groups.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require agencies to consider indirect costs imposed on small entities. Oh, wow, what a revolutionary concept! It also establishes a review process for agency certifications, allowing small entities to petition the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Because, you know, that's not just a bureaucratic hurdle designed to wear down smaller businesses.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects: small businesses, big businesses, special interest groups, and the politicians who cater to them. Don't be fooled – this bill is not about helping small businesses; it's about creating the illusion of support while actually serving the interests of larger corporations and their lobbyists.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill will likely lead to more regulatory hurdles for small businesses, increased costs for compliance, and a further consolidation of power among big business and special interest groups. The review process will become a tool for larger corporations to delay or kill regulations that might harm their interests. Meanwhile, small businesses will be left to navigate the bureaucratic maze, wondering why they're still struggling to compete.
In medical terms, this bill is like prescribing a placebo to a patient with a terminal illness. It's a feel-good measure that does nothing to address the underlying disease – in this case, the corrupting influence of money and power in politics. The Prove It Act is just another symptom of the larger disease: a system that prioritizes special interests over the well-being of citizens.
To all the politicians and lobbyists involved in crafting this bill, I say: congratulations on managing to make a bad situation worse. You've successfully created a piece of legislation that will further entrench the status quo, all while pretending to help small businesses. Bravo! Now, if you'll excuse me, I have better things to do than watch you all pat yourselves on the back for a job well done – or rather, a job poorly done, but with great fanfare.
Rep. Finstad, Brad [R-MN-1]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No organization contributions found
No committee contributions found
This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
ID: H001096
Top Contributors
10
ID: M001224
Top Contributors
10
ID: S000168
Top Contributors
10
ID: M001204
Top Contributors
10
ID: N000193
Top Contributors
10
ID: S001213
Top Contributors
10
ID: S001212
Top Contributors
10
ID: F000474
Top Contributors
10
ID: F000470
Top Contributors
10
ID: C001126
Top Contributors
10
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 68 nodes and 39 connections (49 secondary connections hidden)
Total contributions: $221,193
Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.
— 751 — Small Business Administration implement relevant initiatives to reach small businesses. Programs would be nonduplicative and implemented on a first-come, first-served basis. l A modern, revamped, and streamlined SBA that better utilizes current technology and platforms for operations, for reporting, and in its programs to reach, service, and engage small businesses. l An Office of Advocacy that is strengthened by a renewed mandate and additional resources to protect against overregulation along with a research agenda that includes measuring the total cost that federal regulation imposes on small businesses. Accountability and Managerial Practice. The SBA lacks accountability and managerial practices to measure the effectiveness, success, and integrity of its various programs. As a future Administration evaluates agency structure and the particulars of how the SBA is spending appropriated funds, it should immediately require actions and procedures to compel a culture of accountability and perfor- mance. Specifically: l Require performance metrics and internal procedures to safeguard taxpayer dollars and program integrity. As noted in an October 2022 IG report, failure to adopt procedures that would reliably capture data and information for various programs, coupled with significant challenges and weaknesses regarding IT investments, systems development, and security controls, presents significant risks to program integrity and increased risk of waste, fraud, and abuse.34 Addressing these shortcomings and risks should be a priority challenge and action item for the next Administration. As underscored by the Inspector General in his introduction to the report, “Pandemic response has, in many instances, magnified the challenging systemic issues in SBA’s mission-related work.”35 l Review all internal government watchdog recommendations and require that SBA management implement or address outstanding and ongoing OIG and GAO recommendations within a specified time frame (ideally within 90 days of a recommendation) and on an ongoing basis. Strengthening the Office of Advocacy. The SBA Office of Advocacy (Advo- cacy) is “an independent office” within the SBA.36 It accounts for about one one-thousandth of SBA spending and 0.75 percent of SBA personnel. Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, both under its current authority and with suggested — 752 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise reforms, the Office of Advocacy could be a powerful weapon against the adminis- trative state’s regulatory extremism. l Amend the RFA so that all agencies are required to provide a copy of any proposed rule (other than bona fide emergency rules) along with initial regulatory flexibility analysis to the Office of Advocacy at least 60 days before a notice of proposed rulemaking is submitted for publication in the Federal Register. The Office of Advocacy would submit comments to agencies within 30 days, and each agency would have to consider these comments, make changes in the proposed rule based on those comments, or explain in a revised regulatory flexibility analysis why it chose not to change the proposed rule. The Office of Advocacy’s pre-proposing comments would be published on the agencies’ and its own websites. RFA economic analysis should be expanded to include indirect costs along with direct costs. In addition, the next Administration should require other agencies to seek Advocacy’s input. Currently, other agencies deny Advocacy the ability to enforce their duty to consider the effect of regulations on small entities by construing their regulations as not having significant economic impact, which would otherwise serve as a trigger for Advocacy’s input. Congress should presumptively exempt small businesses from new agency rules to force agencies to seek Advocacy’s input and permit new rules to apply to small businesses only with Advocacy signoff under specified criteria. l Increase the Office of Advocacy’s budget by at least 50 percent ($4.6 million). This would allow Advocacy to hire approximately 25 attorneys, economists, and scientists and enhance its role in the regulatory process. l Explicitly direct federal agencies to comply with the RFA. This would be similar to the approach adopted by President Trump in his January and February 2017 executive orders directing agencies to relieve the cost and burden of regulation on business.37 Advocacy should organize regional roundtables, onsite small-business visits, and an online platform to hear directly from small businesses and entities as it did from June 2017 through September 2018.38 This activity produced 26 letters to federal agencies and highlighted specific regulations that need reform and how Congress had addressed the most burdensome rules through the Congressional Review Act.39
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.