TICKET Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/s/281

Last Updated: September 7, 2026

TICKET Act

S. 281, 119th Congress — read as touching Entertainment & Streaming.

The sponsor

Sen. Schmitt, Eric [R-MO]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$158,400 raised

25 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Trade" section, p. 859-862 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 63.

April 28, 2025

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

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!

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

**Bill Analysis: S 281 - TICKET Act**

As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I'll dissect the TICKET Act, a bill that ostensibly aims to "protect" consumers by imposing draconian regulations on the ticketing industry.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The TICKET Act's primary objective is to strangle innovation in the ticketing market with an avalanche of bureaucratic red tape. By mandating "comprehensive information" disclosure and prohibiting speculative ticketing, this bill seeks to stifle competition and limit consumer choice.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

1. **All-Inclusive Ticket Price Disclosure**: Requires ticket issuers to display total event ticket prices, including fees, in a clear and conspicuous manner. 2. **Speculative Ticketing Ban**: Prohibits ticket issuers from selling or advertising tickets they don't possess, effectively crippling the secondary market. 3. **Disclosures**: Mandates that ticket issuers provide itemized lists of base ticket prices and fees, as well as disclose their refund policies.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

1. **Ticket Issuers**: Primary targets of this bill, including event organizers, venues, and ticketing platforms. 2. **Secondary Market Ticket Issuers**: Online marketplaces and resellers will be severely impacted by the speculative ticketing ban. 3. **Consumers**: While ostensibly "protected," consumers will face reduced competition, higher prices, and limited choices.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

1. **Stifled Innovation**: Overregulation will discourage innovation in the ticketing industry, leading to stagnation and reduced consumer benefits. 2. **Increased Costs**: Compliance costs will be passed on to consumers, resulting in higher ticket prices. 3. **Reduced Competition**: The speculative ticketing ban will concentrate market power in the hands of a few large players, reducing competition and choice.

In conclusion, the TICKET Act is a misguided attempt to "regulate" an industry that has thrived without government interference. By imposing unnecessary burdens on ticket issuers and stifling innovation, this bill will ultimately harm consumers and stifle economic growth. As a visionary entrepreneur, I urge policymakers to reject this ill-conceived legislation and instead focus on fostering a business-friendly environment that encourages competition and innovation.

**Projected Impact on My Empire**: A 10% reduction in ticketing revenue due to increased regulatory costs and reduced competition. However, my think tank estimates that strategic lobbying efforts can mitigate these losses by up to 5%.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a bill is a proposed law that has to go through the legislative process before it becomes an actual law.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The main purpose of S. 281, also known as the TICKET Act, is to increase transparency and fairness in the event ticketing industry. The bill aims to require sellers of event tickets to disclose comprehensive information about ticket prices and related fees, prohibit speculative ticketing, and provide refunds under certain circumstances.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill has several key provisions that would change existing law:

* Ticket issuers and secondary market ticket exchanges must clearly display the total event ticket price, including all fees, in any advertisement or marketing materials. * They must also provide an itemized list of the base event ticket price and each fee prior to completing a sale. * Speculative ticketing is prohibited, meaning that sellers cannot sell tickets they don't actually have. * Sellers are required to disclose their refund policies clearly and conspicuously before completing a sale.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The affected parties include:

* Event ticket issuers (e.g., Ticketmaster) * Secondary market ticket exchanges (e.g., StubHub) * Consumers who buy event tickets * Venues, teams, and artists whose events are being ticketed

**Potential Impact & Implications**

If passed, this bill could have a significant impact on the event ticketing industry. It would likely lead to increased transparency and fairness for consumers, as well as more accountability from ticket sellers. However, it's also possible that some ticket sellers might find ways to circumvent these regulations or pass on additional costs to consumers.

Now, I know this is all pretty basic stuff, but apparently, it needs to be explained again. As we covered in 8th grade civics class, the legislative process involves introducing a bill, debating and amending it, voting on it, and then sending it to the other chamber for approval. If it passes both chambers, it goes to the President for signature or veto.

It's disappointing that grown adults need to be reminded of these basic concepts, but I suppose that's why we're here today.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got the scoop on S 281, the TICKET Act. Now, at first glance, this bill seems like a straightforward attempt to regulate ticket sales and protect consumers from price gouging. But trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated goal of this bill is to increase transparency in event ticket pricing, prohibit speculative ticketing, and provide refunds for canceled or postponed events. Sounds noble enough, right? However, I believe there's a hidden agenda at play here.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:**

* Ticket sellers must disclose comprehensive information about ticket prices and related fees. * Speculative ticketing is banned, meaning sellers can't sell tickets they don't actually possess. * Refunds are required for canceled or postponed events, with some caveats.

Now, here's where things get interesting. The bill also includes provisions that seem to favor the interests of event organizers and venues over those of consumers. For instance:

* Ticket issuers and secondary market ticket exchanges can still sell "services" to obtain tickets, as long as they clearly disclose this is not an actual ticket sale. * These services can be marketed separately from actual ticket sales, creating a potential loophole for price gouging.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

* Consumers: Supposedly the main beneficiaries of this bill, but I'm not so sure. They'll get more transparency in pricing and refunds for canceled events, but they might also face higher prices due to increased regulation. * Ticket issuers and secondary market ticket exchanges: These companies will have to adapt to new regulations and disclosure requirements, which could cut into their profits. * Event organizers and venues: As I mentioned earlier, this bill seems to favor their interests. They'll have more control over ticket sales and pricing.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

* Increased regulation in the ticketing industry could lead to higher prices for consumers, as companies pass on compliance costs. * The ban on speculative ticketing might reduce price volatility, but it could also limit consumer choice and drive up demand (and prices) for popular events. * The refund provisions are a mixed bag. While they provide some protection for consumers, they also create opportunities for event organizers to exploit loopholes and avoid refunds.

Now, I know what you're thinking: "Uncle, this all sounds like a bunch of bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo." But trust me, there's more to this bill than meets the eye. The government is always hiding something in plain sight. Wake up, sheeple!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round! We've got a real doozy of a bill on our hands here. The TICKET Act, or the "Transparency In Charges for Key Events Ticketing Act" - because who doesn't love a good acronym? (smirk)

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill is all about transparency, folks! It's aimed at requiring ticket sellers to disclose those pesky fees and charges that always seem to pop up when you're trying to buy tickets to your favorite concert or sporting event. The sponsors of this bill want to make sure consumers know exactly what they're getting themselves into before they click "buy now." (wink) Oh, and it also tries to tackle speculative ticketing - because who doesn't hate those pesky bots that snatch up all the good tickets? (outraged tone)

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Now, let's get down to business. This bill requires ticket sellers to:

* Clearly display the total event ticket price, including fees * Provide an itemized list of base ticket prices and fees before you complete your purchase * Ban speculative ticketing (no more bots!) * Disclose if they're a secondary market ticket issuer or exchange * Refund tickets if events are canceled or postponed (with some exceptions)

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Well, this bill affects pretty much anyone who's ever tried to buy tickets online. That means consumers, ticket sellers, secondary market exchanges - you name it! The Federal Trade Commission is also getting in on the action, as they'll be required to submit a report on enforcement of the Better Online Ticket Sales Act of 2016.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, I know what you're thinking: "Is this bill going to make ticket buying more transparent and consumer-friendly?" (smirk) Well, maybe. But let's be real, folks - this is just another example of the government trying to regulate every aspect of our lives. I mean, who needs freedom when you've got bureaucrats telling you what to do? (eye roll)

But seriously, this bill could have some positive effects for consumers. It might make it easier to compare prices and avoid those pesky fees. And hey, if it helps reduce speculative ticketing, that's a win in my book.

However, we also need to consider the potential unintended consequences. Will this bill stifle innovation in the ticketing industry? Could it lead to higher costs for consumers in the long run? (conspiratorial whisper) Maybe this is all just a ploy by the elites to control our every move... (wink)

Stay vigilant, folks! We'll be keeping an eye on this one.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another brilliant example of congressional incompetence, masquerading as consumer protection. Let's dissect this farce.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The TICKET Act claims to promote transparency in event ticket sales by requiring sellers to disclose comprehensive information about prices and fees. How quaint. In reality, it's a half-hearted attempt to address the symptoms of a diseased system, rather than the underlying corruption and greed that drives it.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill mandates all-inclusive ticket price disclosure, prohibits speculative ticketing (good luck enforcing that), and requires clear disclosures about fees and refund policies. Oh, and there's a lovely provision allowing secondary market ticket issuers to sell "services" to obtain event tickets on behalf of consumers, as long as they don't call it an event ticket. Because, you know, semantics matter.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects: ticket sellers, secondary market ticket issuers, and consumers who are too clueless to realize they're being fleeced. The real stakeholders, however, are the lobbyists and special interest groups that will find ways to exploit these "protections" for their own gain.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. It won't address the root causes of ticket price inflation or speculative ticketing. Instead, it will create new opportunities for exploitation and confusion. Consumers will still get ripped off, but now they'll have the "protection" of knowing exactly how much they're being gouged.

In short, this bill is a masterclass in legislative theater, designed to make politicians look like heroes while doing nothing to actually protect consumers. It's a symptom of a larger disease: the corruption and incompetence that plagues our political system.

Diagnosis: Terminal stupidity, with a side of greed and cowardice.

Prescription: A healthy dose of skepticism and outrage from the public, followed by a strong antibiotic of real reform. But don't hold your breath; this patient is terminal.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Transparency In Charges for Key Events Ticketing Act (TICKET Act) aims to promote transparency and fairness in the event ticketing industry by requiring sellers to disclose comprehensive information about ticket prices and related fees, prohibiting speculative ticketing practices, and establishing refund requirements.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

1. **All-Inclusive Ticket Price Disclosure**: Sellers must clearly display the total event ticket price, including all fees, in advertisements, marketing materials, and during the purchasing process. 2. **Speculative Ticketing Ban**: Sellers cannot sell or offer tickets for events they do not have actual or constructive possession of, unless they provide a service to obtain tickets on behalf of the consumer. 3. **Disclosures**: Sellers must clearly disclose their role in the secondary ticket market, any affiliation with venues, teams, or artists, and provide itemized lists of fees. 4. **Refund Requirements**: Sellers must provide refunds for canceled events, offer replacement tickets for postponed events, and disclose their refund policies.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

1. **Event Ticket Buyers**: Consumers will benefit from increased transparency and fairness in ticket pricing and sales practices. 2. **Ticket Issuers and Secondary Market Sellers**: These businesses will need to adapt to new disclosure requirements, speculative ticketing bans, and refund obligations. 3. **Venues, Teams, and Artists**: These entities may see changes in the way tickets are sold and marketed for their events.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

1. **Increased Transparency**: The TICKET Act aims to reduce confusion and surprise fees associated with event ticket purchases. 2. **Reduced Speculative Ticketing**: By banning speculative ticketing practices, the bill seeks to prevent price inflation and ensure that tickets are available at fair prices. 3. **Improved Consumer Protection**: The refund requirements and disclosure obligations will help protect consumers from unfair sales practices. 4. **Industry Adaptation**: Ticket issuers and secondary market sellers may need to invest in new systems and processes to comply with the bill's provisions, potentially leading to increased costs.

Overall, the TICKET Act aims to promote a more transparent and consumer-friendly event ticketing industry by addressing concerns around pricing, speculative ticketing, and refund policies.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down the TICKET Act, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The TICKET Act is all about bringin' transparency and fairness to the ticketing industry, man. Its main purpose is to protect consumers from gettin' ripped off by ticket sellers who don't disclose all the fees and charges upfront. The bill aims to make sure that ticket buyers know exactly what they're payin' for and can make informed decisions.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The TICKET Act has some key provisions, bro:

* **All-Inclusive Ticket Price Disclosure**: Ticket sellers gotta clearly display the total event ticket price, including all fees, in any advertisement or marketing materials. They also gotta provide an itemized list of the base ticket price and each fee before the buyer completes the purchase. * **Speculative Ticketing Ban**: Ticket sellers can't sell tickets they don't actually have in hand, man. This means no more speculative ticketing, where sellers try to make a quick buck by sellin' tickets they might not be able to deliver. * **Refund Requirements**: If an event is canceled or postponed, ticket buyers are entitled to a full refund or a replacement ticket, depending on the circumstances.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The TICKET Act affects various parties, bro:

* **Ticket Sellers**: Ticket issuers, secondary market ticket sellers, and ticket exchanges all gotta comply with the new rules. * **Consumers**: Ticket buyers will benefit from more transparency and fairness in the ticketing process. * **Venues, Teams, and Artists**: These stakeholders might see changes in how tickets are sold and marketed for their events.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The TICKET Act could have some significant implications, man:

* **Increased Transparency**: Consumers will have a better understanding of what they're payin' for, which could lead to more informed purchasing decisions. * **Reduced Speculative Ticketing**: The ban on speculative ticketing could reduce the number of fake or unavailable tickets bein' sold online. * **Improved Refund Policies**: The refund requirements could provide more protection for consumers in case events are canceled or postponed.

Overall, the TICKET Act is a chill way to bring some much-needed transparency and fairness to the ticketing industry, bro.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: S 281 - TICKET Act**

The Transparency In Charges for Key Events Ticketing Act, or the TICKET Act, aims to increase transparency and accountability in the event ticketing industry. The bill's main purpose is to protect consumers from deceptive practices by requiring ticket sellers to disclose comprehensive information about ticket prices and related fees.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The TICKET Act seeks to:

1. Require ticket sellers to clearly display total event ticket prices, including all fees. 2. Prohibit speculative ticketing, where tickets are sold without actual possession. 3. Mandate refunds for canceled or postponed events under certain circumstances.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:**

* Section 2 requires ticket sellers to disclose the total event ticket price and itemize fees before completing a sale. * Section 3 bans speculative ticketing, with exceptions for services that help consumers obtain tickets. * Section 4 mandates clear disclosures about secondary market sales and prohibits false claims of affiliation or endorsement by venues, teams, or artists. * Section 5 requires refunds for canceled or postponed events, with options for replacement tickets or full refunds.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

* Ticket sellers (primary and secondary markets) * Event organizers (venues, teams, artists) * Consumers

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

The TICKET Act may lead to increased transparency and accountability in the event ticketing industry, benefiting consumers. However, it may also impose additional costs and regulatory burdens on ticket sellers, potentially leading to higher prices or reduced services.

Notably, the bill's sponsors, Senators Schmitt and Markey, have received significant campaign contributions from the entertainment and sports industries, which may be impacted by this legislation. For example, Senator Schmitt has received donations from the National Football League (NFL) and the National Basketball Association (NBA), while Senator Markey has received contributions from the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).

The TICKET Act has been referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, which has a history of being influenced by industry interests. The bill's fate will likely depend on the committee's willingness to balance consumer protection with the concerns of affected industries.

**Monied Interest Analysis:**

* The National Association of Ticket Brokers (NATB) and the International Ticketing Association (INTIX) have expressed support for the bill, indicating that they may benefit from increased transparency and regulation in the industry. * The Entertainment Software Association (ESA) has also endorsed the bill, potentially reflecting the interests of its member companies, which include major event organizers and ticket sellers.

**Committee Capture:** The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation has a history of being influenced by industry interests, particularly from the entertainment and sports sectors. This may impact the committee's willingness to pass the TICKET Act or make significant changes to the bill.

Overall, the TICKET Act aims to increase transparency and accountability in the event ticketing

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Schmitt, Eric [R-MO]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$158,400

23 donors

PACs

Organizations

$13,000

Committees

Individuals

$145,400

No PAC contributions found

ELEVATE MISSOURI

2 transactions

$6,700

TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWA TRIBE

1 transaction

$2,900

PETER J SPALITTO DDS PC

1 transaction

$2,900

KIRKWOOD PLUMBING INC

1 transaction

$500

No committee contributions found

POPOLO, JOE

2 transactions

$13,200

WALTON, TROY

1 transaction

$11,600

PFAUTCH, ROY

1 transaction

$11,600

ROSS, DONALD

1 transaction

$10,000

TAYLOR, ANDREW

1 transaction

$6,600

TAYLOR, BARBARA

1 transaction

$6,600

KELSEY, J DAVID

1 transaction

$6,600

FOGEL, DAVID

1 transaction

$6,600

PALOMO, OSWALDO

1 transaction

$6,600

TAMASI, DAVID

1 transaction

$6,600

MCKNIGHT, ANDREW

1 transaction

$6,600

POPOLO, CHRIS

1 transaction

$6,600

ASHWORTH, CAROL

1 transaction

$6,600

ASHWORTH, JIMMY

1 transaction

$6,600

GIBBS, HALLIE H.

1 transaction

$6,600

GIDWITZ, RONALD J.

1 transaction

$6,600

STEWARD, DAVE

1 transaction

$6,600

MANDELBLATT, DANIELLE

1 transaction

$6,600

MANDELBLATT, ERIC

1 transaction

$6,600

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 1 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Sen. Markey, Edward J. [D-MA]

ID: M000133

Top Contributors

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Jun 28, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Jul 26, 2023

DONOHUE, JOHN

ARBELLA • INSURANCE

IndividualBELMONT, MA

$6,600

May 20, 2024

MARCHAND, PAUL

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS • EVP HR

IndividualMONTCLAIR, NJ

$4,200

Mar 11, 2024

MOUTOUDIS, ELEFTHERIA

ELEFTHERIA MOUTOUDIS • SELF EMPLOYEED

IndividualSOUTHBOROUGH, MA

$3,300

Nov 1, 2024

MOUTOUDIS, EVANGELOS

DEKK GROUO • BUSINESS OWNER

IndividualSOUTHBOROUGH, MA

$3,300

Nov 1, 2024

SCHMIDT, WENDY

NONE • INVESTMENTS AND PHILANTHROPY

IndividualPALO ALTO, CA

$3,300

Oct 2, 2024

SWIG, MARY

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA

$3,300

Aug 31, 2024

ABRAMS, JEFFREY J.

BAD ROBOT • FOUNDER

IndividualENCINO, CA

$3,300

Oct 10, 2023

ABRAMS, JEFFREY J.

BAD ROBOT • FOUNDER

IndividualENCINO, CA

$3,300

Oct 10, 2023

Donor Network - Sen. Schmitt, Eric [R-MO]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Showing 52 nodes and 52 connections

Total contributions: $52

Top Donors - Sen. Schmitt, Eric [R-MO]

Showing top 23 donors by contribution amount

4 Orgs19 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 3 harmed.

−Entertainment & Streamingconfidence 0.90
The bill imposes disclosure and refund requirements on ticket sellers for live events, which affects platforms that sell tickets to concerts, theatrical performances, and sporting events—core activities of entertainment and streaming companies like Live Nation (though not explicitly listed, the industry includes ticketing as part of event promotion). Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 mandate price transparency, ban speculative ticketing, require refunds, and enforce disclosures, increasing compliance cost
−Print & Broadcast Mediaconfidence 0.85
Broadcast and print media companies often promote and sell tickets to events (e.g., radio station concert promotions, newspaper event listings). The bill’s restrictions on speculative ticketing (Sec. 3) and requirements for clear disclosures (Sec. 2, 4) and refunds (Sec. 5) apply to any entity offering tickets, including media companies acting as ticket sellers, increasing operational burdens.
−Gambling & Sports Bettingconfidence 0.70
Some sports betting and casino platforms (e.g., DraftKings, FanDuel) offer event tickets or bundled experiences as part of promotions. The ban on speculative ticketing (Sec. 3) and requirement to not misrepresent ticket affiliation (Sec. 4) could limit promotional ticketing practices, imposing compliance costs.

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Trade

Weak

Vector: 59%

Pages: 859-862AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the TICKET Act and the Project 2025 SEC section emphasize transparency and disclosure requirements, but they apply to different sectors (event ticketing vs. securities markets) and lack substantive policy overlap beyond the general theme of consumer/investor protection through clearer information."

Key themes:transparencydisclosure requirementsconsumer protectionregulatory oversight

— 827 — Section 5: Independent Regulatory Agencies with government.” Under the Biden FTC, he writes, firms try “to get out of anti- trust liability by offering climate, diversity, or other forms of ESG-type offerings.” Candeub says that state AGs “are far more responsive to their constituents” than the federal government generally is, and he recommends that the FTC establish a position in the chairman’s office that is “focused on state AG cooperation and inviting state AGs to Washington, DC, to discuss enforcement policy in key sectors under the FTC’s jurisdiction: Big Tech, hospital mergers, supermarket mergers, and so forth.” — 829 — 27 FINANCIAL REGULATORY AGENCIES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION AND RELATED AGENCIES David R. Burton The primary purposes of the laws and regulations governing capital markets and of capital market regulators are to deter and punish fraud and other material misstatements to investors; foster reasonable, scaled disclosure of information that is material to investors’ financial outcomes and proxy voting decisions; and maintain fair, orderly, and efficient secondary capital markets. The Securities Act of 19331 and the Securities Exchange Act of 19342 reflect nearly nine decades of rushed and haphazard amendments. The securities laws are now extremely complex and do not constitute a coherent, rational regulatory regime. For example, the current SEC has proposed a climate change reporting rule that would quadruple the costs of being a public company.3 This would have a substantial adverse impact on existing companies. Over time, it would also sub- stantially reduce the number of public companies and therefore the number of investing options available to ordinary Americans. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) should be reducing impediments to capital formation, not rad- ically increasing them. The SEC and Congress should fundamentally reform the securities laws gov- erning issuers, broker–dealers, exchanges, and other market participants. Among other things, they should establish a simplified and rationalized securities disclo- sure system with:

Financial Regulatory Agencies

Weak

Vector: 57%

Pages: 875-878AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The TICKET Act focuses on consumer protection and transparency in event ticketing, while the Project 2025 Financial Regulatory Agencies section critiques the CFPB and advocates for reducing its authority, particularly regarding disclosures and enforcement. There is minimal thematic overlap, as the bill expands disclosure requirements akin to CFPB-style rules, which Project 2025 generally opposes."

Key themes:consumer protectiondisclosure requirementsfinancial regulation

— 842 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 19. Burton, “Improving Entrepreneurs’ Access to Capital: Vital for Economic Growth”; Campbell, “The Case for Federal Pre-Emption of State Blue Sky Laws.” 20. David R. Burton, “Why the SEC’s Consolidated Audit Trail Is a Bad Idea,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, December 5, 2019, https://www.heritage.org/monetary-policy/commentary/why-the-secs-consolidated- audit-trail-bad-idea; Hester M. Peirce, Commissioner, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, “Statement on the Order Granting Temporary Conditional Exemptive Relief from Certain Requirements of the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail,” July 8, 2022, https://www.sec.gov/news/ statement/peirce-statement-consolidated-audit-trail-070822 (accessed February 20, 2023). 21. Peirce, “It’s Not Just Scope 3: Remarks at the American Enterprise Institute”; Uyeda, “Remarks at the 2022 Cato Summit on Financial Regulation.” 22. David R. Burton, “How Dodd–Frank Mandated Disclosures Harm, Rather than Protect, Investors,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 4526, March 10, 2016, http://thf-reports.s3.amazonaws.com/2016/IB4526.pdf. 23. For a detailed discussion of SEC administration, see Burton, “Reforming the Securities and Exchange Commission.” 24. See, for example, Andrew N. Vollmer, “Accusers as Adjudicators in Agency Enforcement Proceedings,” University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, Vol. 52, No. 1 (Fall 2018), pp. 103–155, https://repository.law. umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1602&context=mjlr (accessed February 20, 2023). 25. 7 U.S.C. § 1a(9), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/1a (accessed February 20, 2023). 26. Or the CFTC can undertake a rulemaking. 27. 7 U.S.C. § 2(i), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/2 (accessed February 20, 2023). 28. 7 U.S.C. § 7b–3, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/7b-3 (accessed February 20, 2923). 29. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, “Cross-Border Application of the Registration Thresholds and Certain Requirements Applicable to Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 178 (September 14, 2020), pp. 56924–57016, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-09- 14/pdf/2020-16489.pdf (accessed February 21, 2023). 30. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, “Interpretive Guidance and Policy Statement Regarding Compliance with Certain Swap Regulations,” Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 144 (July 26, 2013), pp. 45292–45374, https:// www.cftc.gov/sites/default/files/idc/groups/public/@lrfederalregister/documents/file/2013-17958a.pdf (accessed February 21, 2023). 31. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, “Margin Requirements for Uncleared Swaps for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants—Cross-Border Application of the Margin Requirements,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 104 (May 31, 2016), pp. 34818–34854, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2016-05-31/ pdf/2016-12612.pdf (accessed February 21, 2023). 32. H.R. 4173, Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111–203, 111th Congress, July 21, 2010, Title X, https://www.congress.gov/111/plaws/publ203/PLAW-111publ203.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). See also Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “About Us,” https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about- us/ (accessed March 23, 2023). 33. See, for example, Paul Sperry, “Trump Is Finally Fixing This Economy-Killing Agency,” New York Post, December 2, 2017, https://nypost.com/2017/12/02/trump-is-finally-fixing-this-economy-killing-agency/ (accessed March 23, 2023). See also Jeb Hensarling “How We’ll Stop a Rogue Federal Agency,” The Wall Street Journal, February 8, 2017, https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-well-stop-a-rogue-federal- agency-1486597413 (accessed March 23, 2023), and H.R. 3389, CFPB Slush Fund Elimination Act of 2013, 113th Congress, introduced October 30, 2013, https://www.congress.gov/113/bills/hr3389/BILLS-113hr3389ih.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 34. Editorial, “CFPB Joins Justice in Shaking Down Banks for Democrat Activist Groups,” Investor’s Business Daily, June 17, 2015, https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/cfpb-diverts-civil-penalty-funds-to-democrat- activist-groups/ (accessed March 23, 2023). 35. Table, “Budget by Program,” in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Annual Performance Plan and Report, and Budget Overview, February 2023, p. 15, https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_ performance-plan-and-report_fy23.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 36. Table, “FTE by Program,” in ibid., p. 16. — 843 — Financial Regulatory Agencies 37. Table 7, “Civil Penalty Fund Significant Activity,” in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Financial Report of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Fiscal Year 2022, November 15, 2022, p. 21, https://files. consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_financial-report_fy2022.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 38. Ibid. 39. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Financial Report of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Fiscal Year 2022, p. 20. 40. 12 U.S. Code § 5491, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/5491 (accessed March 23, 2023). 41. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Bureau Structure,” last updated March 15, 2023, https://www. consumerfinance.gov/about-us/the-bureau/bureau-structure/ (accessed March 23, 2023). 42. See Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Consumer Financial Civil Penalty Fund Rule,” https://www. consumerfinance.gov/rules-policy/final-rules/consumer-financial-civil-penalty-fund-rule/ (accessed March 23, 2023). 43. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Civil Penalty Fund: Consumer Education and Financial Literacy,” https://www.consumerfinance.gov/enforcement/payments-harmed-consumers/civil-penalty-fund/consumer- education-financial-literacy/ (accessed March 23, 2023). 44. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: Opportunity Exists to Improve Transparency of Civil Penalty Fund Activities, GAO-14-551, June 2014, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-14-551. pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 45. Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), https://www.supremecourt.gov/ opinions/19pdf/19-7_n6io.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 46. Ibid., p. 37. 47. See 12 U.S. Code § 5497(a)(1), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/5497 (accessed March 23, 2023). Congress specified that the amount transferred to the CFPB “shall not exceed” 12 percent “of the total operating expenses of the Federal Reserve System…in fiscal year 2013, and in each year thereafter.” Ibid., § 5497(2)(A)(iii). 48. Community Financial Services Association of America v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (5th Cir. 2022), pp. 31–32, https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-50826-CV0.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 49. Ibid., p. 32. 50. Ibid. (quoting Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, 140 S. Ct. 2183, 2202 n. 8 (2020)). 51. U.S. Supreme Court, “Order List: 598 U.S.,” February 27, 2023, Docket No. 22–448, CFPB et al. v. Com. Fin. Services Assn., et al., https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/022723zor_6537.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 52. Devin Watkins, Competitive Enterprise Institute, “Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: Ripe for Reform,” testimony before the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Monetary Policy, Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, March 9, 2023, https://docs.house.gov/meetings/BA/ BA20/20230309/115384/HHRG-118-BA20-Wstate-WatkinsD-20230309.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023); Norbert J. Michel, “7 Steps Next Director Can Take to Make the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Less Awful,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, July 28, 2018, https://www.heritage.org/markets-and-finance/ commentary/7-steps-next-director-can-take-make-the-consumer-financial. 53. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve, and National Credit Union Administration. Those functions performed by the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) prior to Dodd–Frank should be transferred to the OCC since OTS has merged with OCC. 54. See “Section 1071 of the Dodd–Frank Act” in David R. Burton, “Improving Small Business Access to Capital,” Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Symposium on Section 1071 of the Dodd–Frank Act, Small Business Lending Panel, November 6, 2019, https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_burton-written- statement_symposium-section-1071.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 55. 5 U.S. Code Chapter 5, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/part-I/chapter-5 (accessed March 23, 2023). 56. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Administrative Adjudication Proceedings,” https://www. consumerfinance.gov/administrative-adjudication-proceedings/ (accessed March 23, 2023), and 12 Code of Federal Regulations Part 1081—Rules of Practice for Adjudication Proceedings, https://www.law.cornell.edu/ cfr/text/12/part-1081 (accessed March 23, 2023).

Financial Regulatory Agencies

Weak

Vector: 57%

Pages: 875-878AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The TICKET Act addresses consumer transparency in event ticketing, while Project 2025's financial regulatory section focuses on deregulating securities and commodities markets, limiting SEC/CFTC authority, and opposing Dodd‑Frank‑style mandates; the two share only a tangential concern with disclosure and consumer protection."

Key themes:consumer protectiondisclosure requirementsfinancial oversight

Trade

Weak

Vector: 57%

Pages: 863-865AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the TICKET Act and the Project 2025 Trade section emphasize transparency and disclosure requirements, but they apply to different sectors (event ticketing vs. financial markets), resulting only a tangential connection."

Key themes:transparencydisclosure requirementsconsumer protection

— 830 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Three basic categories of firm: private firms, an intermediate category of smaller firms,4 and public firms; l Reasonable, scaled disclosure requirements; and l Specified secondary markets for the securities of these firms.5 The SEC needs to be reformed to achieve its important core functions more effectively, to improve transparency and due process, and to reduce unnecessary regulatory impediments to capital formation.6 Under current law, the SEC Chair- man has the authority to make almost all of the necessary changes.7 Unfortunately, financial regulators, particularly the SEC and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), are poorly managed and organized. With regulatory authority delegated by the government, both the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) and FINRA have proved to be ineffective, costly, opaque, and largely impervious to reform. To reduce costs and improve transparency, due process, congressional oversight, and responsiveness, PCAOB and FINRA should be abolished, and their regulatory functions should be merged into the SEC. Furthermore, Congress should establish an indepen- dent board or commission and charge it with producing a detailed report within 18 months that examines the degree to which the regulatory functions of the var- ious other so-called self-regulatory organizations (SROs), which are no longer self-regulatory in any meaningful sense, should be moved to the SEC.8 Discrimination based on immutable characteristics has no place in financial regulation. Offices at financial regulators that promote racist policies (usually in the name of “diversity, equity, and inclusion”) should be abolished, and regulations that require appointments on the basis of race, ethnicity, sex, or sexual orientation should be eliminated. Equal protection of the law, equal opportunity, and individ- ual merit should govern regulatory decisions.9 Congress has given the SEC broad “general exemptive authority,”10 but the SEC has used this authority only rarely. It should use this authority significantly more often to reduce the regulatory burden on issuers, particularly smaller entrepreneurs. ENTREPRENEURIAL CAPITAL FORMATION Financial regulators should remove regulatory impediments to entrepreneur- ial capital formation.11 In the absence of the fundamental reform outlined above, the SEC should: l Simplify and streamline Regulation A (the small issues exemption)12 and Regulation CF (crowdfunding)13 and preempt blue sky registration and quali- fication requirements for all primary and secondary Regulation A offerings.14 — 831 — Financial Regulatory Agencies l Either democratize access to private offerings by broadening the definition of accredited investor for purposes of Regulation D or eliminate the accredited investor restriction altogether.15 l Allow traditional self-certification of accredited investor status for all Regulation D Rule 506 offerings. l Exempt small micro-offerings from registration requirements.16 l Exempt small and intermittent finders from broker–dealer registration requirements and provide a simplified registration process for private placement brokers.17 l Exempt peer-to-peer lending from federal and state securities laws and reduce the regulatory burden on Regulation CF debt securities. l Make the Title I Emerging Growth Company (EGC) exemptions permanent for all EGCs. l Reduce the regulatory burden on small broker–dealers and exempt privately held, non-custodial broker–dealers from the requirements to use a PCAOB- registered firm for their audits. Congress should: l Amend the Internal Revenue Code to disregard crowdfunding and Regulation A shareholders for purposes of the 100-shareholder limit for Subchapter S corporations.18 BETTER CAPITAL MARKETS To improve capital markets, the SEC should: l Preempt blue sky registration, qualification, and continuing reporting requirements for securities traded on established securities markets (including a national securities exchange or an alternative trading system).19 l Terminate the Consolidated Audit Trail (CAT) program.20 l Abolish Rule 144 and other regulations that restrict securities resales and instead require a company that has sold securities to provide sufficient current informa- tion to the market to permit reasonable investment decisions and secondary sales.

Department of the Treasury

Minimal

Vector: 58%

Pages: 745-747AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The TICKET Act concerns event ticket pricing transparency and consumer protections, whereas the Project 2025 Treasury section focuses on tax policy, corporate taxation, IRS operations, and related fiscal reforms, with no substantive overlap in objectives or themes."

— 712 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 17. For a detailed discussion, see David R. Burton, “Tax Reform: Eliminating the Double Taxation of Corporate Income,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3216, May 18, 2017, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/ files/2017-05/BG3216.pdf. 18. One hundred dollars in corporate income less an 18 percent tax leaves $82. A 15 percent capital gains tax or qualified dividends tax is $12.30, which leaves $69.70, for an effective marginal tax rate of 30 percent. This, of course, abstracts away from certain timing issues. 19. Inflation Reduction Act, Public Law 117–169. 20. Ibid. 21. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Public Law 115–97, § 11061, amending Internal Revenue Code § 2010(c). The amounts before inflation adjustments are $5 million and $10 million, respectively. See also Internal Revenue Service, “What’s New: Estate and Gift Tax, Basic Exclusion Amount for Year of Death,” https://www.irs.gov/businesses/ small-businesses-self-employed/whats-new-estate-and-gift-tax (accessed March 22, 2023). 22. The effective tax rate on foreign-derived intangible income should remain equal to the tax rate on global intangible low-taxed income. 23. For miscellaneous itemized deductions, see Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S. Code § 67). Business deductions that were suspended by the 2017 tax bill (other than those related to depreciation) should also be extended. This includes the local lodging expense deduction and entertainment expense deductions. The 2017 tax bill’s modifications to the deduction for personal casualty and theft losses should be made permanent. The Pease limitation on itemized deductions should be permanently eliminated. 24. Bonus depreciation provisions applied to specific industries should be maintained. 25. Employer-provided childcare expenses should also count toward the limitation on benefit deductions. 26. HSAs are flexible and portable, and they help contain costs by giving health care consumers skin in the game. 27. For additional revenue to fund pro-growth tax cuts, lawmakers could gradually phase down the limitation on benefit deductions. 28. Early versions of the 2017 tax bill envisioned reforming the corporate income tax into a destination-based cash flow tax, a form of consumption tax. A tax system that taxes labor and capital-factor incomes equally— and only once—results in higher output and higher incomes. Usually, in the modern public finance literature, this is called a consumption tax. On the economic superiority of consumptions taxes, see N. Gregory Mankiw et al., “Optimal Taxation in Theory and Practice,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 23, No. 4 (2009), pp. 147–174, https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.23.4.147 (accessed March 19, 2023); Alan J. Auerbach, “The Choice Between Income and Consumption Taxes: A Primer,” NBER Working Paper No. 12307, June 2006, https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w12307/w12307.pdf (accessed March 19, 2023); and Charles E. Walker and Mark A. Bloom eld, eds., The Consumption Tax: A Better Alternative? (Cambridge, MA: Harper and Row, Ballinger, 1987). 29. Hoover Institution, “Simplifying the Tax System: The History of the Flat Tax,” March 1, 2019, https://www. hoover.org/research/simplifying-tax-system-history-flat-tax (accessed March 20, 2023). 30. David R. Burton, “Four Conservative Tax Plans with Equivalent Economic Results,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2978, December 7, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/four-conservative-tax- plans-equivalent-economic-results. Consumption tax plans generally include carveouts that exempt very low-income Americans from federal tax liability. 31. Daniel J. Mitchell and Chris Edwards, Global Tax Revolution: The Rise of Tax Competition and the Battle to Defend It (Washington, DC: Cato Institute, 2008); Preston Brashers, “Like Constitutional Checks and Balances, Tax Competition Is a Bulwark Against Growth of Government,” March 17, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/ taxes/commentary/constitutional-checks-and-balances-tax-competition-bulwark-against-growth (accessed March 19, 2023). 32. James M. Robers et al., “Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD): What America Should Do,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3593, March 16, 2021, https://www.heritage.org/ sites/default/files/2021-03/BG3593.pdf; Preston Brashers. “The OECD Crusade To Raise Taxes,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, February 4, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/taxes/commentary/the-oecd-crusade- raise-taxes; David Burton, “How the OECD is Promoting More Identity Theft, Crime, Industrial Espionage, and Suppression of Political Dissidents,” July 15, 2016, Heritage Foundation Commentary, https://www.heritage. org/taxes/commentary/how-the-oecd-promoting-more-identity-theft-crime-industrial-espionage-and; — 713 — Department of the Treasury David R. Burton “Towards a Global Tax Cartel?” Policy, Vol. 18, No. 4 (Summer 2002–2003), Center for Independent Studies (Australia), https://www.cis.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/images/stories/policy- magazine/2002-summer/2002-18-4-david-r-burton.pdf (accessed March 19, 2023). 33. Roberts et al., “Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).” 34. See Inflation Reduction Act, § 10301. See also Preston Brashers, “IRS and Allies Downplay 87,000-Person Hiring Binge,” The Daily Signal, August 12, 2022, https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/08/12/the-irs-and-its- allies-downplay-87000-person-hiring-binge/ (accessed March 19, 2023). 35. U.S. Department of the Treasury, General Explanations of the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2022 Revenue Proposals, May 2021, pp. 88–89, https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/131/General-Explanations-FY2022.pdf (accessed March 19. 2023). 36. See U.S. Department of the Treasury, Fiscal Year 2022–2026 Strategic Plan. 37. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Reform, Policy and Supporting Positions, December 2020 (the “plumb book”), p. 127 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-PLUMBOOK-2020/ pdf/GPO-PLUMBOOK-2020.pdf (accessed March 19, 2023). 38. Internal Revenue Service, “Organization and Top Officials,” https://www.irs.gov/pub/newsroom/marketing/ internet/irs-organization-chart.pdf (accessed March 19, 2023). See also Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S. Code § 7803(a)–(b)). 39. For a summary of various GAO reports on various IRS IT problems, see Vijay A. D’Souza, “Information Technology: IRS Needs to Address Operational Challenges and Opportunities to Improve Management,” testimony before the Subcommittee on Government Operations, Committee on Oversight and Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, October 7, 2020, GAO–21–178T, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-178t. pdf (accessed March 19, 2023). Charles O. Rossotti was named IRS Commissioner by President Bill Clinton primarily so that Rossotti could address widely acknowledged IT issues. He made some improvements between 1997 and 2002, but despite large investments, he did not really resolve the IT problems at the IRS. Since that time, the problems have worsened. 40. D’Souza, “Information Technology,” figure 1, p. 5. 41. Internal Revenue Service, IRS Integrated Modernization Business Plan, April 2019, https://www.irs.gov/pub/ irs-pdf/p5336.pdf (accessed March 20, 2023). 42. See, for example, the Omnibus Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights, Public Law 100–647, Subtitle J of Title VI of the Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988; Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2, Public Law 104–168; IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Public Law 105–206, Title III; Consolidated Appropriations Act, Public Law 114–113, Title IV, Subtitle A (adding Internal Revenue Code § 7803(a)(3) and other changes); and Taxpayer First Act, Public Law 116–25, Title I. 43. For a list of 68 proposed reforms, see National Taxpayer Advocate, 2022 Purple Book: Compilation of Legislative Recommendations to Strengthen Taxpayer Rights and Improve Tax Administration, December 31, 2021, https://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/ARC21_PurpleBook.pdf (accessed March 19, 2023). Most, though not all, of these proposals have merit. Regarding penalty reform, see Jeremiah Coder, “Achieving Meaningful Civil Tax Penalty Reform and Making It Stick,” Akron Tax Journal, Vol. 27 (2012), https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1153&context=akrontaxjournal (accessed March 19, 2023). 44. Internal Revenue Service, 2023 Congressional Budget Justification & Annual Performance Report and Plan, Rev. 3–2022, https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/266/Internal-Revenue-Service-FY-2023-CJ.pdf (accessed March 19, 2023). 45. Internal Revenue Service, 2021 IRS Data Book: October 1, 2020 to September 30, 2021, table 11, p. 26, https:// www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p55b.pdf (accessed March 19, 2023). 46. Ibid., 2021 IRS Data Book, table 2, p. 4. 47. Scott A. Hodge, “The Compliance Costs of IRS Regulations, Tax Foundation Fiscal Fact No. 512, June 2016 https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/TaxFoundation_FF512.pdf (accessed March 19, 2023). 48. Organization for Economic Cooperation, The Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters: Amended by the 2010 Protocol, https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/taxation/the-multilateral- convention-on-mutual-administrative-assistance-in-tax-matters_9789264115606-en#page1 (accessed March 20, 2023).

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Sen. Schmitt, Eric

A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 203 North Clay Street in Marshfield, Missouri, shall be known and designated as the "Edwin P. Hubble Post Office".

119/s/4052

Gateway Partnership Act

119/s/2767

National Plan for Epilepsy Act

119/s/494

Back to All Bills