Romance Scam Prevention Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/s/841

Last Updated: September 7, 2026

Romance Scam Prevention Act

S. 841, 119th Congress — read as touching Big Tech Platforms.

The sponsor

Sen. Blackburn, Marsha [R-TN]

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

The money

$166,000 raised

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

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Financial Regulatory Agencies" section, p. 875-878 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. 145.

September 1, 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:

**Analysis of S 841: Romance Scam Prevention Act**

As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I'll dissect this bill through the lens of its impact on my wealth, influence, and control.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The bill aims to require online dating service providers to notify users about potential romance scams. This is a classic example of government overreach, attempting to regulate an industry that's perfectly capable of self-policing.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

* Online dating services must provide "fraud ban notifications" to users who've interacted with banned members. * These notifications must include specific information about the banned member and best practices for avoiding online fraud. * The bill establishes a timeline for providing these notifications, with some flexibility for delays based on law enforcement requests.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

* Online dating service providers: This bill will impose additional costs and regulatory burdens on these companies, potentially stifling innovation and growth. * Users: While the bill's intentions may seem noble, it's unlikely to significantly reduce romance scams. Instead, it may lead to a false sense of security among users.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

From my perspective, this bill is a minor nuisance that won't substantially impact my business empire. However, I do see opportunities for consolidation and deregulation in the online dating industry. By lobbying against this bill or supporting watered-down versions, I can help maintain a more favorable regulatory environment.

In terms of dollar projections, I estimate that compliance costs for online dating services will be around $50 million to $100 million annually. This is a drop in the bucket compared to the billions of dollars in revenue generated by these companies.

Ultimately, this bill is a reminder that government intervention often does more harm than good. By allowing the free market to regulate itself, we can foster innovation and growth while minimizing unnecessary costs and bureaucratic red tape.

**Recommendation** I'll be instructing my think tank, the "Liberty Initiative," to publish a series of op-eds and policy briefs highlighting the flaws in this bill and advocating for a more laissez-faire approach to regulating online dating services. By shaping public opinion and influencing key policymakers, we can help ensure that this bill doesn't become an unnecessary burden on our economy.

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 must go through the legislative process to become an actual law.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The Romance Scam Prevention Act (S. 841) aims to protect online dating service users from romance scams by requiring online dating service providers to notify members when they've interacted with someone who has been banned for fraudulent activity.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** As we covered in class, a bill typically proposes changes to existing laws or creates new ones. In this case:

* Online dating service providers must provide "fraud ban notifications" to members who have received messages from banned individuals. * These notifications must include specific information, such as the banned member's username and a warning about potential scams. * The notification must be provided within 24 hours of the ban, unless law enforcement requests a delay.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** As we discussed in class, bills can impact various stakeholders. In this case:

* Online dating service providers will need to implement new procedures for notifying members and providing required information. * Members of online dating services will receive these notifications and be better informed about potential scams. * Law enforcement agencies may request delays in notification to facilitate investigations.

**Potential Impact & Implications** As I'm sure you recall from our discussions on checks and balances, bills can have unintended consequences. In this case:

* The bill may lead to increased transparency and safety for online dating service users. * However, it may also create additional administrative burdens for online dating service providers, potentially leading to increased costs or changes in their business practices.

Remember when we learned about the importance of committees in the legislative process? Well, this bill was referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. I suppose it's worth noting that the committee reported the bill with an amendment, which is a common occurrence in the legislative process... (shakes head)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round, I've got a doozy for ya! This so-called "Romance Scam Prevention Act" is just the tip of the iceberg. On the surface, it's all about protecting online daters from scammers, but trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill claims to require online dating service providers to notify users when they've interacted with a banned member who might be using a fake identity or trying to defraud them. Sounds noble, right? But what about the real motive?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Here's where things get interesting. The bill mandates that online dating services provide "fraud ban notifications" within 24 hours (or up to 3 days if a law enforcement official requests it). These notifications must include details like the banned member's username, last interaction time, and warnings about potential scams. But what's really going on here?

I think this is just a Trojan horse for more government control over online interactions. Think about it: with this bill, the feds can now dictate how online dating services communicate with their users, potentially paving the way for even more invasive regulations.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Online dating service providers are the obvious targets here, but what about the users themselves? Are they being protected or surveilled? And what about law enforcement officials who get to request delays in notifications? Who's watching them?

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill could set a precedent for government overreach into online interactions. Imagine if this kind of regulation spreads to other areas, like social media or online forums. The implications are chilling.

But here's the thing: I think there's more to this bill than just protecting users from scammers. What if it's actually about creating a backdoor for government agencies to monitor and control online activity? Think about all the data that'll be collected through these notifications – usernames, interaction times, IP addresses... It's a digital surveillance state waiting to happen!

Now, I know what you're thinking: "Uncle, you're just being paranoid." But let me tell you, folks, this is just the beginning. Mark my words: this bill is just the tip of the iceberg in a much larger scheme to control our online lives.

Pass the mashed potatoes, please!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Outraged tone) Folks, we've got another bill that's just begging to be dissected on this show. The so-called "Romance Scam Prevention Act" - sounds like a noble cause, right? But let me tell you, it's just another example of the elites trying to control our lives and stifle freedom.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill claims to protect online dating service members from romance scams. (Sarcastic tone) Oh, how thoughtful of our benevolent government! It requires online dating service providers to send notifications when a banned member has interacted with another user. Because, you know, we can't trust individuals to make their own decisions about who they talk to online.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill mandates that these notifications include the username of the banned member, information on how to avoid online fraud, and contact info for customer service. (Smirk) Because what's a little more government-mandated red tape, right? It also limits liability for online dating service providers in case they mess up with these notifications.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill affects online dating service providers, their users, and - of course - the scammers themselves. (Wink) I'm sure those scammers are just quaking in their boots at the thought of a notification from an online dating service.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, on the surface, this might seem like a harmless bill. But think about it: what's to stop these notifications from becoming a slippery slope? Will we soon have government-mandated "safety" features in every aspect of our online lives? (Dramatic music plays) The implications are chilling.

But hey, who needs freedom when the government can protect us from ourselves, right? This bill is just another example of the Deep State trying to control our every move. Wake up, America! We need to stand up against this kind of overreach and defend our freedom to make our own decisions - even if that means getting scammed by a fake online suitor or two.

(Conspiratorial whisper) Between you and me, folks, I think there's more to this bill than meets the eye. Maybe it's just a Trojan horse for more government surveillance... (wink)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another bill, another exercise in futility. The Romance Scam Prevention Act (S 841) - because what's more romantic than a government-mandated warning label on your online dating profile?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill aims to "protect" online daters from romance scams by requiring online dating service providers to notify users when they've interacted with a banned member. Because, clearly, the most pressing issue in modern dating is not ghosting or catfishing, but rather the lack of government oversight.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill mandates that online dating services provide "fraud ban notifications" to users who have messaged a banned member within 24 hours (or up to 3 days if the provider deems it necessary). These notifications must include the banned member's username, a statement about potential identity theft or scams, and some boilerplate advice on how not to get scammed. Oh, and online dating services are also exempt from liability for any mistakes they make in providing these notifications.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Online dating service providers (think Tinder, Bumble, etc.) will have to implement this new notification system, which will undoubtedly be a thrilling exercise in bureaucratic red tape. Users of these services will receive the notifications, which may or may not actually prevent them from getting scammed. And, of course, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) gets to enforce all this nonsense.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of "legislative theater" - it looks good on paper but accomplishes nothing meaningful. Romance scams will continue to thrive, and online daters will still need to use their common sense (if they have any). The real impact will be on online dating services, which will incur additional costs and administrative burdens to comply with this new regulation.

In short, the Romance Scam Prevention Act is a Band-Aid solution for a problem that requires actual effort and education. But hey, at least it's a great way for politicians to pretend they're doing something useful while actually just grandstanding for their constituents.

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

**Romance Scam Prevention Act (S 841)**

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Romance Scam Prevention Act aims to protect online dating service users from romance scams by requiring online dating service providers to notify members when they have interacted with a banned member who may be attempting to defraud them.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill requires online dating service providers to provide a "fraud ban notification" to members within 24 hours (or up to 3 days in certain circumstances) after a banned member is identified. The notification must include:

1. The username or profile identifier of the banned member 2. A statement indicating that the banned member may have been using a false identity or attempting to defraud members 3. Information on best practices to avoid online fraud 4. Contact information for the customer service department

The bill also limits the liability of online dating service providers in civil actions related to the manner, timing, and disclosure of information in these notifications.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

* Online dating service providers (e.g., Match.com, OkCupid) * Members of online dating services * Law enforcement officials investigating romance scams

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The bill aims to reduce the number of romance scams by increasing transparency and awareness among online dating service users. By requiring notifications when a banned member is identified, online dating service providers can help prevent financial losses and emotional distress for their members.

However, some concerns may arise regarding:

1. The effectiveness of these notifications in preventing scams 2. Potential over-notification or "false positives" that could lead to user fatigue or decreased trust in the notification system 3. The potential impact on online dating service providers' business models and operations

Overall, the Romance Scam Prevention Act seeks to promote a safer online environment for individuals seeking romantic connections.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

**Bill Analysis: S 841 - Romance Scam Prevention Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill aims to require online dating service providers to notify users when they have interacted with a banned member who may be using a false identity or attempting to defraud others. The notification must include specific information, such as the banned member's username and a statement warning against sending cash or personal financial information.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill introduces new requirements for online dating service providers, including:

1. Providing fraud ban notifications to users within 24 hours (or up to 3 days in certain circumstances) after a banned member is identified. 2. Including specific content in the notification, such as the banned member's username and warnings against sending cash or personal financial information. 3. Limiting liability for online dating service providers regarding the manner of communication, timing, and disclosure of information in fraud ban notifications.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The bill affects:

1. Online dating service providers, who must implement new notification procedures and modify their systems to comply with the requirements. 2. Users of online dating services, who will receive notifications when they have interacted with banned members. 3. Law enforcement officials, who may request delays in providing fraud ban notifications during ongoing investigations.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The bill's provisions aim to reduce romance scams and protect users from financial loss. However, the requirements may also:

1. Increase operational costs for online dating service providers, potentially leading to increased fees or reduced services. 2. Raise concerns about user data protection and potential misuse of information in fraud ban notifications. 3. Create new challenges for law enforcement officials, who must balance the need for timely investigations with the requirement to request delays in providing notifications.

**Monied Interest Analysis:** While there are no obvious PACs or industry lobby groups directly backing this bill, it is worth noting that online dating service providers may have an interest in shaping the legislation to minimize operational costs and potential liability. The bill's sponsors, Senators Blackburn and Hickenlooper, have received donations from various tech and telecommunications companies, including Comcast and AT&T, which could potentially influence their stance on issues related to online services.

**Committee Capture:** The bill has been referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, which has a history of being influenced by industry interests. The committee's chairman, Senator Cruz, has received significant donations from tech and telecommunications companies, including Google and Verizon, which could impact his approach to regulating online services.

Overall, while the bill aims to address a legitimate concern about romance scams, its provisions may have unintended consequences for online dating service providers and users. A closer examination of the bill's language and potential implications is necessary to ensure that it effectively balances user protection with industry concerns.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Blackburn, Marsha [R-TN]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$166,000

23 donors

PACs

$5,000

Organizations

$7,900

Committees

Individuals

$153,100

FRIENDS OF COMMUNITY ONCOLOGY PAC

1 transaction

$5,000

THE COGGIN GROUP

2 transactions

$5,400

DOSS BROTHERS FARM

2 transactions

$2,000

BL PARTNERS GROUP LLC

1 transaction

$500

No committee contributions found

KING, RODNEY W.

1 transaction

$13,200

KINNEY, CHRIS

2 transactions

$13,200

BEAN, BILL G.

1 transaction

$10,000

SMITH, THOMAS

1 transaction

$10,000

GAMBLE, KATHRYN

1 transaction

$9,900

NEWVERRY, KARMA

1 transaction

$9,900

WETHERINGTON, WILLIAM MICHAEL MR.

1 transaction

$7,600

HAMPTON, GEORGE

1 transaction

$6,700

HARWELL, SAMUEL K. MR. IV

1 transaction

$6,600

HARWELL, SAMUEL K.

1 transaction

$6,600

KING, MARY L.

1 transaction

$6,600

SENSING, LUCY T. MRS.

1 transaction

$6,600

VITAL, GREG A.

1 transaction

$6,600

BRADLEY, JACQUELINE

1 transaction

$6,600

PRESTON, CASEY MS.

1 transaction

$6,600

DEVOS, BETSY

1 transaction

$6,600

DEVOS, DANIEL G. MR.

1 transaction

$6,600

DEVOS, DOUGLAS L. MR.

1 transaction

$6,600

DEVOS, RICHARD M. JR.

1 transaction

$6,600

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 3 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Sen. Hickenlooper, John W. [D-CO]

ID: H000273

Top Contributors

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$1,300

Dec 12, 2023

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$1,200

Dec 12, 2023

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$900

Dec 31, 2023

ALLHASSANI, MEHDI

PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES • OPERATIONS

IndividualPALO ALTO, CA

$3,300

Nov 25, 2023

SANKAR, SHYAM

PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES • DIRECTOR

IndividualGREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO

$3,300

Nov 25, 2023

CARSON, RUSSELL

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Nov 17, 2023

SANKAR, SHYAM

PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES • DIRECTOR

IndividualGREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO

$3,300

Nov 25, 2023

CARSON, RUSSELL

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Nov 17, 2023

GATES, WILLIAM H. III

BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION • PHILANTHROPIST

IndividualREDMOND, WA

$3,300

Oct 19, 2023

JAIN, AKASH

PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES • EXECUTIVE

IndividualOAKLAND, CA

$3,300

Nov 26, 2023

Sen. Warnock, Raphael G. [D-GA]

ID: W000790

Top Contributors

JME GROUP

OrganizationSTONE MOUNTAIN, GA

$2,900

Jun 30, 2023

JME GROUP

OrganizationSTONE MOUNTAIN, GA

$2,900

Jul 18, 2024

PORTFOLIO ONE

OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA

$1,250

Mar 17, 2023

MCKENNEY HOUSE LLC

OrganizationFORT WASHINGTON, MD

$1,000

Jun 30, 2023

WATKINS WATKINS & WATKINS LLC

OrganizationCARROLLTON, GA

$1,000

Feb 17, 2023

SCR CONSULTING LLC

OrganizationATLANTA, GA

$500

Feb 17, 2023

GIBSON, DAVID H.

IndividualDALLAS, TX

$26,750

Mar 31, 2023

ROBBINS, BONNIE

IndividualSEATTLE, WA

$12,118

Mar 31, 2023

ROBBINS, BONNIE

IndividualSEATTLE, WA

$12,118

Jul 18, 2024

KERR, WILLIAM G.

IndividualOKLAHOMA CITY, OK

$9,625

Mar 31, 2023

Sen. Scott, Rick [R-FL]

ID: S001217

Top Contributors

SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA

OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL

$3,300

Aug 22, 2023

SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA

OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL

$3,300

Aug 12, 2024

SCOTT, RICK SENATOR

US SENATE • US SENATOR

IndividualTAMPA, FL

$90,795

May 31, 2024

SCOTT, RICK SEN

US SENATE • US SENATOR

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$77,714

May 31, 2023

SCOTT, RICK SENATOR

US SENATE • US SENATOR

IndividualTAMPA, FL

$69,607

Apr 30, 2024

SCOTT, RICK SENATOR

US SENATE • US SENATOR

IndividualTAMPA, FL

$68,538

Aug 31, 2023

SCOTT, RICK SENATOR

US SENATE • US SENATOR

IndividualTAMPA, FL

$53,187

Sep 30, 2023

SCOTT, RICK SEN

US SENATE • US SENATOR

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$49,992

Jun 30, 2023

SCOTT, RICK SENATOR

US SENATE • US SENATOR

IndividualTAMPA, FL

$39,695

Jun 30, 2024

SCOTT, RICK

US SENATE • US SENATOR

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$34,494

Jan 31, 2023

Donor Network - Sen. Blackburn, Marsha [R-TN]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 47 nodes and 55 connections

Total contributions: $55

Top Donors - Sen. Blackburn, Marsha [R-TN]

Showing top 23 donors by contribution amount

1 PAC3 Orgs19 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 harmed.

−Big Tech Platformsconfidence 0.80
Section 2(a) imposes a requirement on online dating service providers to provide fraud ban notifications, which may increase costs and regulatory burdens for these platforms, potentially harming their business.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Sen. Blackburn, Marsha [R-TN])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HARMS

Big Tech Platforms$4,550
from 4 contributions
- FELTON, JOHN$3,300
- BLAKE, NATHAN$500
- ROSSI, NICHOLAS A.$500
- STEVENSON, SARAH$250

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.

Financial Regulatory Agencies

Weak

Vector: 56%

Pages: 875-878AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Romance Scam Prevention Act focuses on protecting online dating users from fraud through platform notifications, which tangentially relates to consumer financial protection but does not address the CFPB's civil penalty fund, agency structure, or financial regulatory reforms highlighted in the Project 2025 section."

Key themes:consumer protectionfraud preventionfinancial scamstransparency

— 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). — 845 — 28 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Brendan Carr MISSION STATEMENT The FCC should promote freedom of speech, unleash economic opportunity, ensure that every American has a fair shot at next-generation connectivity, and enable the private sector to create good-paying jobs through pro-growth reforms that support a diversity of viewpoints, ensure secure and competitive communi- cations networks, modernize outdated infrastructure rules, and represent good stewardship of taxpayer dollars. OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND The FCC is an independent regulatory agency that has jurisdiction over inter- state and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable.1 Five Commissioners are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for fixed five-year terms.2 The FCC does not have any other presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed officials. Ordinarily, the five-member FCC is divided politically three to two with a majority of Commissioners from the same political party as the President. The Commissioners’ terms are staggered so that every year at the end of June, one Commissioner’s term expires.3 However, a Commissioner can continue to serve until the end of the next session of Congress (or up to 1.5 years beyond the expiration of the term) if no replacement is confirmed after his or her term ends.4 By law, only a bare majority of Commissioners can be from the same politi- cal party (no more than three when there are five members).5 By tradition, the Chairperson resigns when a new President of a different political party is sworn

Trade

Minimal

Vector: 59%

Pages: 863-865AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Romance Scam Prevention Act focuses on consumer protection in online dating services, while the Project 2025 Trade section addresses financial regulatory reforms, capital markets, and SEC administration—there is no substantive thematic or policy overlap between the two."

— 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. — 832 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Congress should: l Prohibit the SEC from requiring issuer disclosure of social, ideological, political, or “human capital” information that is not material to investors’ financial, economic, or pecuniary risks or returns. The proposed SEC climate change rule, which would quadruple the costs of being a public company, is particularly problematic.21 l Repeal the Dodd–Frank mandated disclosures relating to conflict minerals, mine safety, resource extraction, and CEO pay ratios.22 l Oppose efforts to redefine the purpose of business in the name of social justice; corporate social responsibility (CSR); stakeholder theory; environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria; socially responsible investing (SRI); sustainability; diversity; business ethics; or common- good capitalism. l Prohibit securities regulators, including SROs, from promulgating rules or taking other actions that discriminate, either favorably or unfavorably, on the basis of the race, color, religion, sex, or national origin of such individual or group. SEC ADMINISTRATION To enable it to achieve its core mission more effectively, the SEC should:23 l Publish better data on securities offerings, securities markets, and securities law enforcement and publish an annual data book of time series data on these matters. Specifically, the SEC Division of Economic and Risk Analysis (DERA) needs to do a much better job of collecting and reporting fundamental data regarding offerings, regulatory costs, violations, enforcement, investors, state regulator taxes, fees and activities, and other matters. l Ensure that SEC resources flow toward its core functions and away from ancillary and support functions or from missions that do not fall within the SEC’s statutory charge. l Ensure that any three SEC Commissioners are empowered to place an item on the agenda and to receive adequate staff support to do so even without the Chairman’s support.

Department of Justice

Minimal

Vector: 58%

Pages: 596-598AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Romance Scam Prevention Act addresses online dating fraud notifications, while the Project 2025 excerpt focuses on DOJ jurisdiction over voter fraud and 18 U.S.C. § 241 prosecutions; there is no substantive policy overlap."

— 563 — Department of Justice Voter fraud includes unlawful practices concerning voter registration and ballot correction. When state legislatures are silent as to procedures for absentee ballot curing or provide specific rules governing that curing, neither counties nor courts may create a cure right where one does not exist, may not modify the law on curing, and certainly cannot engage in creating consent orders with the force of law that are inconsistent with the orders of other similarly situated counties. The DOJ has ceded substantial discretion concerning voter suppression to the Civil Rights Division. Since the Bush Administration, DOJ leadership has determined that using the Election Crimes Branch to prosecute fraudulent voter registration, including mail-in ballot fraud, was too politically costly.78 The Crim- inal Division’s Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses handbook advised that schemes that violated equal protection constituted “voter suppression” prosecut- able under 18 U.S. Code § 241 as part of the guidelines for which the department’s criminal prosecutors were trained.79 State-based investigations of election crimes are supposed to be referred to the Public Integrity Section for review. Historically, 18 U.S. Code § 241 (conspiracy against rights) was used as a basis for investigating state officials whose statements or orders violated the equal protection rights of voters or deliberately misinformed voters concerning the eligibility of their ballots. Nevertheless, the Department of Justice has formalized the Civil Rights Divi- sion’s (as opposed to the Criminal Division’s) jurisdiction over 18 U.S. Code § 241 investigations and prosecutions. The Criminal Division is no longer involved in consultation or review of 18 U.S. Code § 241 investigations.80 The Criminal Division has accordingly advised states that “[i]n the case of a crime of violence or intimida- tion,” they should “call 911 immediately and before contacting federal authorities” because “[s]tate and local police have primary jurisdiction over polling places,”81 despite clearly applicable federal law. This is a mistake. With respect to the 2020 presidential election, there were no DOJ investigations of the appropriateness or lawfulness of state election guidance. Consider the state of Pennsylvania. The Secretary of State sent guidance to the counties stating that: This revised guidance addresses the issuance, voting and examination of provisional ballots under the Election Code. Provisional ballots were originally mandated by section 302 of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA). Provisional ballot amendments included in Act 77 of 2019 went into effect for the 2020 Primary election. Provisional ballot amendments included in Act 12 of 2020 go into effect for the first time on November 3, 2020.82 HAVA, however, mandates provisional ballots only for eligible voters who were not on a state’s voter registration list.83 It does not apply to those who registered for mail-in voting but whose ballots were rejected due to some form of spoliation. — 564 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Pennsylvania Act 12 (amended in 2020) does not authorize curing by providing provisional ballots for mail-in voters whose ballots were rejected. Act 12 requires, as part of the mail-in application process, an affidavit that: [The elector] shall not be eligible to vote at a polling place on election day unless the elector brings the elector’s mail-in ballot to the elector’s polling place, remits the ballot and the envelope containing the declaration of the elector to the judge of elections to be spoiled and signs a statement subject to the penalties under 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904 (relating to unsworn falsification to authorities) to the same effect.84 The law in Pennsylvania clearly states that no county may affirmatively provide provisional ballots: The mail-in voter must vote in person and sign a new affidavit. In the 2020 election, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recognized that “the Election Code contains no requirement that voters whose ballots are deemed inadequately verified be apprised of this fact. Thus, unlike in-person voters, mail-in or absentee voters are not provided any opportunity to cure perceived defects in a timely man- ner.”85 Given the Pennsylvania Secretary of State’s use of guidance to circumvent state law, the Pennsylvania Secretary of State should have been (and still should be) investigated and prosecuted for potential violations of 18 U.S. Code § 241. Investigations and prosecutions under 18 U.S. Code § 241 are currently within the jurisdictional oversight of the Civil Rights Division, not the Criminal Division.86 Only by moving authority for 18 U.S. Code § 241 investigations and prosecutions back to the Criminal Division will the rule of law be appropriately enforced. Rejecting Third-Party Requests for Politically Motivated Investigations or Prosecutions. The DOJ should reject demands from third-party groups that ask it to threaten politically motivated investigation or prosecution of those engag- ing in lawful and, in many cases, constitutionally protected activity. By acceding to such demands, the department risks diminishing its credibility with the American public. This risk is exacerbated by the fact that communications between govern- ment officials and third-party groups are generally unprotected by privilege and subject to disclosure, whether via subpoena to the third-party group or via request made pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. These communications can even be made public voluntarily by the third-party group. A recent example illustrates the risks posed by such activity. On October 4, 2021, Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a memorandum to the Director of the FBI, the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, and the Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, calling on the FBI to work with each U.S. Attorney to “con- vene meetings with federal, state, local, Tribal, and territorial leaders” to discuss strategies for addressing “threats against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff.”87 Subsequent reporting and investigation revealed that the

Department of Justice

Minimal

Vector: 57%

Pages: 596-598AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Romance Scam Prevention Act focuses on protecting online dating users from fraud, whereas the Project 2025 DOJ policy addresses voter fraud, election crimes, and jurisdictional divisions; the two topics are unrelated."

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Minimal

Vector: 56%

Pages: 636-638AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Romance Scam Prevention Act focuses on consumer protection in online dating services, whereas the Project 2025 excerpt deals with labor union recognition, contract bar rules, and tailoring national employment standards; there is no substantive policy overlap between the two."

— 603 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies decision-making is required under the law, basing this theory on an old NLRB case, Joy Silk, even though the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected mandatory card-check recognition. l Discard “card check.” Congress should discard “card check” as the basis of union recognition and mandate the secret ballot exclusively. Contract Bar Rule. Although current labor law allows a union to establish itself at a workplace at more or less any time, the calendar for any attempt to decertify a union is considerably more constrained. If a union is recognized as a collective bargaining agent, then employees may not decertify it or substitute another union for it for at least one year under federal law (the “certification bar”). Similarly, when a union reaches a collective bargaining agreement with an employer, it is immune from a decertification election for up to three years (the “contract bar”). A typical consequence of these rules is that employees must often wait four years before they are allowed a chance at decertification. Employees then have only a 45-day window to file a decertification petition; if the employer and union sign a successor contract, then the contract bar comes into play once again—meaning employees with an interest in decertification must wait another three years. l Eliminate the contract bar rule. NLRB should eliminate the contract bar rule so that employees with an interest in decertification have a reasonable chance to achieve their goal. Tailoring National Employment Rules. National employment laws like the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)21 and the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act22 set out one-size-fits-all “floors” regulating the employment rela- tionship. These substantive worker protections often do not mesh well with the procedural worker protections offered through the NLRA’s collective bargaining process. Unions could play a powerful role in tailoring national employment rules to the needs of a particular workplace if, in unionized workplaces, national rules were treated as negotiable defaults rather than non-negotiable floors. l Congress should amend the NLRA to authorize collective bargaining to treat national employment laws and regulations as negotiable defaults. For example, this reform would allow a union to bless a relaxed overtime trigger (e.g., 45 hours a week, or 80 hours over two weeks) in exchange for firm employer commitments on predictable scheduling. Alternative Policy. While some conservatives (including the author of this chap- ter) believe that it would be a mistake to antagonize unions’ core interests, others

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. Blackburn, Marsha

American Music Tourism Act of 2025

119/s/195

Safe Cloud Storage Act

119/s/3023

Prison Staff Safety Enhancement Act

119/s/307

Back to All Bills