No Payoffs for Pardons Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Morelle, Joseph D. [D-NY-25]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Aug 3, 2026
Bottom line
The 'No Payoffs for Pardons Act' aims to increase transparency and accountability in the executive clemency process by requiring disclosures of financial benefits exchanged and strengthening anti-bribery laws related to pardons.
What it actually does
This bill establishes new financial disclosure requirements for recipients of executive clemency who have provided benefits to the President, their family, or related entities. It also expands the federal bribery statute to explicitly include the President and Vice President as 'public officials,' clarify that executive clemency is an 'official act' and 'anything of value' in bribery contexts, and extends the statute of limitations for clemency-related bribery offenses to 10 years.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill is a necessary response to perceived abuses of the presidential pardon power, particularly instances where clemency has allegedly been granted to political donors, loyalists, or individuals with direct access to the President, bypassing formal Department of Justice review. They contend it will restore public trust in the clemency process, prevent corruption, and ensure that pardons are granted based on merit rather than financial or political influence.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill unconstitutionally infringes upon the President's broad and absolute pardon power, which is explicitly granted by Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. They could contend that imposing disclosure requirements and expanding bribery statutes in this manner creates an undue burden on clemency recipients and could chill legitimate advocacy for pardons, potentially politicizing a process intended for mercy and justice.
The bill is concise and relatively straightforward, allowing an informed reader to grasp its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe, making it accessible for public evaluation.
Section 3, amending 18 U.S.C. Chapter 11 by adding Sec. 227A
Financial Disclosure Requirements for Clemency Recipients
This provision mandates that individuals who receive a presidential pardon, commutation, or other form of executive clemency must disclose any 'covered benefits' (anything of value over $10,000) they provided to the President, their immediate family, or related entities. These disclosures are required within 90 days of receiving clemency and annually for four subsequent years, detailing the benefit, its value, and the recipient. Payments for bona fide legal services are exempt, but mixed payments must be allocated.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that these disclosure requirements are essential to prevent corruption and the perception that pardons can be bought or traded for political favors. They contend that transparency will ensure clemency decisions are based on merit and justice, rather than personal connections or financial contributions, thereby restoring public trust in the executive clemency process.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that these disclosure requirements could be seen as an overreach, potentially chilling legitimate advocacy for clemency or creating an undue burden on individuals seeking a second chance. They may also contend that such requirements could be politically motivated and designed to target specific administrations rather than genuinely reform the system.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the public's interest in transparency and preventing corruption against potential concerns about infringing on the President's constitutional pardon power and the privacy of clemency recipients. It aims to deter quid pro quo arrangements without unduly hindering the legitimate exercise of clemency.
Section 3, amending 18 U.S.C. Chapter 11 by adding Sec. 227A(e)
Enforcement and Penalties for Disclosure Violations
This provision establishes civil and criminal penalties for clemency recipients who fail to comply with the new disclosure requirements. Knowingly failing to file or filing a materially false/incomplete report can result in a civil penalty of up to $50,000 per violation. Willful violations can lead to fines under title 18, imprisonment for up to 5 years, or both. The Attorney General is granted authority to investigate and pursue these enforcement actions.
Section 4(a), amending 18 U.S.C. Section 201(a)
Expansion of Federal Bribery Statute Definitions
This section explicitly amends the federal bribery statute (18 U.S.C. § 201) to clarify key definitions. It states that 'public official' includes the President and Vice President, and expands the definition of 'person who selects or is selected to be a public official' to include candidates for office regarding acts they would perform if elected. Crucially, it explicitly defines 'official act' to include executive clemency (pardons, commutations, reprieves) and clarifies that 'anything of value' in a bribery context also includes executive clemency itself.
Section 4(b), amending 18 U.S.C. Section 3282
Extended Statute of Limitations for Clemency-Related Bribery
This provision extends the statute of limitations for bribery offenses related to the granting, denying, withholding, promising, or offering of executive clemency to 10 years after the offense was committed. This is an increase from the general five-year statute of limitations for most federal offenses.
This finding explicitly states that while the Supreme Court held the President has absolute immunity for core constitutional powers (Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024)), this immunity does not extend to private individuals who corruptly offer things of value to obtain clemency or act as intermediaries. It asserts Congress's authority to address corruption by clemency seekers and intermediaries.
Section 2(11)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to provide a legal and factual basis for the bill's operative provisions, especially when navigating complex constitutional questions like presidential immunity. It sets the stage for the subsequent amendments to bribery and disclosure laws.
Case for: Supporters would argue this finding is essential for establishing the constitutional legitimacy of the bill, demonstrating that Congress is acting within its authority to combat corruption without directly challenging presidential immunity. It clarifies the scope of accountability.
Case against: Critics might argue that even with this finding, the bill implicitly attempts to circumvent the spirit of presidential immunity by targeting those around the President, potentially creating an indirect chilling effect on the exercise of the pardon power. They might view it as a political maneuver rather than a purely legal clarification.
Estimated impact: This finding provides the legal and constitutional underpinning for the entire bill, influencing how courts might interpret its scope and application, particularly concerning the President's role in clemency decisions.
The definition of 'covered recipient' for disclosure purposes explicitly excludes certain classes of publicly traded securities if the President and immediate family members do not serve as directors or officers of the issuer, and collectively own less than 10 percent of such securities.
Section 3(a), adding 18 U.S.C. Sec. 227A(a)(3)(B)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to provide specific carve-outs or limitations within broad definitions to prevent unintended consequences or overreach. It aims to distinguish between genuine financial influence and passive, widely held investments.
Case for: Supporters would argue this carve-out is reasonable, preventing the disclosure requirements from becoming overly burdensome or capturing routine, arm's-length financial transactions that do not imply undue influence. It focuses the disclosure on direct and significant financial ties.
Case against: Critics might argue that even passive investments in publicly traded companies could represent a conflict of interest or a potential avenue for influence, especially if the President or family members hold significant, albeit less than 10%, stakes. They might contend it creates a loophole.
Estimated impact: This provision limits the scope of financial disclosures, potentially reducing the administrative burden on some clemency recipients and focusing the disclosures on more direct and substantial financial relationships with the President or their family.