No Cashing In Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Pappas, Chris [D-NH-1]
- Committees
- Committee on House Administration (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 30, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to increase transparency and reduce the perceived influence of former Members of Congress by extending financial disclosure requirements and financially disincentivizing post-service lobbying activities.
What it actually does
This bill, titled the 'No Cashing In Act,' mandates that former Members of Congress file annual financial disclosure reports for ten years after leaving office, or for as long as they receive a federal annuity, whichever is longer. Additionally, it reduces the federal annuity of former Members by any income they receive from a 'substantial lobbying entity' for services rendered to that entity in the previous calendar year. A 'substantial lobbying entity' is defined as a company with more than three lobbyists or one that spends over $10,000 on lobbying annually.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill is a crucial step towards enhancing public trust in government by addressing the 'revolving door' phenomenon, where former lawmakers leverage their connections for private gain immediately after leaving office. They contend that increased transparency and financial disincentives for lobbying will reduce potential conflicts of interest and ensure that public service is not seen as a pathway to immediate, lucrative lobbying careers.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that the bill imposes an undue burden on former Members of Congress, potentially infringing on their privacy and their right to pursue legitimate employment after public service. They may contend that the definition of 'substantial lobbying entity' is overly broad, capturing many organizations that are not traditional 'K Street' firms, and that penalizing post-service income could discourage qualified individuals from seeking public office.
The bill is very short and straightforward, making it highly accessible for a quick read and evaluation.
Section 2(a)
Annual Financial Disclosure Reports for Former Members
This provision requires any individual who has served as a Member of Congress to continue filing annual financial disclosure reports. These reports must be filed for a period of ten years after their employment terminates, or for as long as they continue to receive a federal annuity, whichever duration is greater. This extends the transparency requirements beyond their term in office.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that extending financial disclosure requirements for former Members helps maintain public trust and accountability. It ensures that the public can monitor potential conflicts of interest or undue influence that may arise from their post-congressional careers, especially given their continued receipt of federal benefits.
Critics contend
Opponents may argue that this provision places an unnecessary and burdensome requirement on private citizens who have already completed their public service. They might contend that it infringes on personal privacy and could deter individuals from seeking public office due to prolonged scrutiny of their financial affairs.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the public's right to transparency and accountability from former public servants against the individual's right to privacy and freedom from government oversight after leaving office.
Section 2(b)
Annuity Reduction for Lobbying Income
This provision mandates that the federal annuity received by a former Member of Congress will be reduced. The reduction amount will be equal to any income that individual received in the previous calendar year from a 'substantial lobbying entity' for services provided to that entity. This aims to create a financial disincentive for former Members to engage in certain lobbying activities.
Defines 'substantial lobbying entity' as a company that has more than three lobbyists or spends more than $10,000 on lobbying in a year.
Section 2(c)(3)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for defining terms, but the specific threshold chosen has significant implications for the scope of the bill's impact.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this definition is essential for clarity and enforceability, providing a clear, quantifiable standard for determining which entities trigger the annuity reduction. The relatively low threshold ensures broad applicability to address the 'revolving door' comprehensively.
Case against: Critics might argue that the threshold for 'substantial lobbying entity' is quite low, potentially encompassing a wide array of organizations, including non-profits or smaller advocacy groups, not just large corporate lobbying firms. This could lead to unintended consequences or overreach.
Estimated impact: This definition directly determines which former Members will have their annuities reduced, potentially affecting a broader range of post-service employment than a higher threshold would.