Stop Ballroom Bribery Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Garcia, Robert [D-CA-42]
- Committees
- Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Nov 18, 2025
Bottom line
The bill aims to enhance transparency and prevent undue influence by significantly restricting who can donate to projects and events associated with the President and Vice President, while also increasing disclosure requirements for such contributions.
What it actually does
This bill establishes comprehensive restrictions on donations for public property, buildings, or fixtures at the White House, Naval Observatory, or other properties used by the President or Vice President, as well as for events at these locations and monuments to living officials. It prohibits donations from individuals or entities involved in litigation with the federal government, seeking contracts, lobbying the executive branch, or seeking pardons or appointments. It also mandates a rigorous approval process involving the National Park Service and the Office of Government Ethics, and requires extensive public disclosure of donations and donor meetings.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill is a critical step to close loopholes in current ethics laws, prevent conflicts of interest, and restore public trust in government by eliminating the appearance of impropriety. They contend it ensures that donations are made for the public good, rather than as a means to gain personal or political favors, thereby safeguarding the integrity of the executive branch.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill creates unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles for legitimate philanthropic efforts, potentially limiting resources for the upkeep of historic properties or the hosting of important public events. Some may also contend that its broad restrictions could inadvertently impact individuals or organizations with only tangential interactions with the federal government, making the donation process overly complex and discouraging.
The bill is moderately complex but its length makes it accessible for a thorough read within a reasonable timeframe, allowing readers to fully grasp its implications.
Section 2(a)
Definitions of 'Covered Project' and 'Donation'
This section establishes what types of activities and properties are subject to the new donation restrictions. A 'covered project' includes maintenance or construction at the White House or Naval Observatory, monuments to living Presidents, Vice Presidents, or presidential appointees, and events at these locations. A 'donation' is broadly defined as anything of value, including services, whether made directly to the Federal Government or indirectly via another entity or person.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that clear, broad definitions are essential to prevent circumvention of the new anti-corruption measures, ensuring that all relevant activities and contributions are covered by the ethical safeguards.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that the broad definition of 'covered project' could inadvertently capture benign activities or donations, creating an overly restrictive environment for public-private partnerships and philanthropic efforts.
Tradeoffs
Balances the need for comprehensive anti-corruption measures against the potential for overreach that could stifle legitimate philanthropic support for public property and events.
Section 2(b)(1)
Mandatory Approval for Covered Project Donations
Before any donation for a covered project can be accepted or used, the Director of the National Park Service must make a written determination, with the concurrence of the Director of the Office of Government Ethics, that the donation complies with the bill's restrictions. This determination must then be submitted to relevant Congressional committees and published in the Federal Register.
Section 2(b)(2)(A)
Restrictions on Prohibited Donors
This provision prohibits the acceptance of donations for covered projects from individuals or entities who are currently or were, since the sitting President assumed office, involved in litigation with the federal government, subject to federal investigation, seeking federal contracts or grants, lobbying the executive branch, seeking a presidential pardon, or seeking a federal appointment by the President. This aims to prevent donations from being used to curry favor or influence government decisions.
Section 2(b)(2)(C)
Ban on Solicitation by President, VP, and Family
This clause explicitly forbids the President, Vice President, or their spouses or children from soliciting donations for any covered project. This aims to remove any direct pressure or perceived obligation that might arise from such solicitations, thereby reducing the potential for conflicts of interest.
Section 2(d)
Enhanced Transparency and Anti-Circumvention Measures
This subsection mandates significant transparency requirements, including that donors disclose any meeting or communication with the President, Vice President, their families, or federal employees within a one-year window before and after the donation. The National Park Service must quarterly publish reports detailing each donation and these associated meetings. It also explicitly prohibits 'straw donations' (donating in another's name) and anonymous donations, and requires attestations from donors affiliated with prohibited persons to ensure compliance.
Section 2(e)
Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties
This section outlines robust enforcement provisions, requiring the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) to issue regulations and allowing it to direct the return of non-compliant donations. It grants both state attorneys general and the U.S. Attorney General the authority to bring civil actions, and the U.S. Attorney General can also pursue criminal prosecutions. Penalties include civil fines up to $100,000 (or the donation value) and criminal penalties up to 5 years imprisonment for knowing and willful violations, along with disgorgement of benefits. A 10-year statute of limitations applies to all actions.
Prohibits donations that include an actual or implied condition of benefit, have been coerced, or would influence or appear to influence the performance of executive branch responsibilities or otherwise compromise the integrity or appearance of integrity of the executive branch.
Section 2(b)(2)(B)
Why it matters:This type of broad, principles-based language is common in ethics legislation to catch unforeseen scenarios and provide flexibility, but its placement and subjective nature can make it difficult to interpret and enforce objectively, potentially leading to varied application.
Case for: Supporters would argue that this broad language is necessary to provide a flexible ethical standard that can adapt to novel attempts at undue influence, capturing situations not explicitly covered by specific prohibitions and ensuring comprehensive ethical coverage.
Case against: Critics might contend that such subjective criteria create ambiguity and uncertainty for potential donors and enforcement agencies, making it difficult to determine what constitutes a violation and potentially leading to arbitrary or inconsistent enforcement.
Estimated impact: Could significantly broaden the scope of prohibited donations beyond explicit categories, depending on the interpretation and enforcement discretion exercised by the National Park Service and the Office of Government Ethics.
Establishes a 2-year 'cooling-off period' during which a person making a donation for a covered project may not engage in any lobbying activities directed at any officer or employee of the executive branch, including the President or Vice President.
Section 2(c)(2)
Why it matters:This is a standard legislative practice for ethics bills to ensure that influence is not immediately sought after a contribution, but its placement might mean it's not immediately apparent to a casual reader focused on the initial donation criteria.
Case for: Proponents would argue that a cooling-off period is essential to prevent donations from being immediately followed by lobbying efforts, thereby reducing the appearance or reality of quid pro quo arrangements and enhancing public trust.
Case against: Opponents might argue that this restriction could unfairly penalize individuals or organizations for legitimate lobbying activities, especially if their donation was made with no intent to influence policy and their lobbying is unrelated to the donation.
Estimated impact: Could significantly impact the lobbying activities of individuals and entities who choose to donate to covered projects, requiring them to strategically choose between making a donation and engaging in executive branch lobbying.