No Corporate Crooks Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Schiff, Adam B. [D-CA]
- Committees
- Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 23, 2026
Bottom line
The 'No Corporate Crooks Act' aims to enhance integrity in the Federal executive branch by disqualifying individuals with a history of corporate corruption from holding federal positions, including mandating the removal of current employees who meet these criteria.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits any individual convicted of a specified corruption-related crime, where the conduct occurred while they were a chief executive officer of a non-Federal entity, from being appointed to a position in the executive branch of the Federal Government. It also mandates the removal of any current executive branch employee who would be ineligible under these criteria. The bill defines 'covered crimes' to include various Federal and comparable State offenses such as bribery, fraud, insider trading, wage theft, and tax evasion.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill is essential for restoring and maintaining public trust in government by ensuring that individuals with a proven record of corporate corruption and malfeasance are not entrusted with positions of public authority. They contend it closes a potential loophole, preventing conflicts of interest and upholding the highest ethical standards for those serving the nation, regardless of whether their past crimes were directly related to their official CEO duties.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill is overly broad in its definition of 'covered crimes,' potentially including offenses not directly relevant to public service integrity, or that it could be seen as infringing on principles of rehabilitation. Concerns may also be raised about the retroactive application of the disqualification to current employees, potentially leading to legal challenges regarding due process or employment rights. Some may also argue that existing vetting processes are sufficient.
The bill is very concise and clearly written, making it accessible for a quick and thorough understanding by any informed reader.
Section 2(a)(1)
Restriction on Executive Branch Service for Convicted CEOs
This provision makes any individual ineligible for appointment to a Federal executive branch position if they have been finally convicted of a 'covered crime' (as defined in the bill) and any part of that crime was committed while they were serving as the chief executive officer of any public or private non-Federal entity. This disqualification applies even if the criminal conduct was not part of their official duties as CEO.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision directly addresses concerns about integrity by preventing individuals with a history of corporate corruption from holding positions of public trust, thereby safeguarding government ethics and public confidence.
Critics contend
Critics may contend that the provision is overly broad by including conduct not committed in the course of official CEO duties, potentially disqualifying individuals whose personal offenses are not directly relevant to their fitness for public service. Concerns about the scope of 'chief executive officer' across diverse entities might also be raised.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the desire for stringent ethical standards in government against potential limitations on the pool of eligible candidates and the scope of disqualifying past conduct.
Section 2(a)(2)
Definition of 'Covered Crime'
This section defines 'covered crime' to include a specific list of Federal corruption-related offenses, such as bribery (18 U.S.C. 201, 666), copyright infringement (17 U.S.C. chapter 5), cybercrime (18 U.S.C. 1030), embezzlement (18 U.S.C. chapter 31), fraud (18 U.S.C. chapter 63), insider trading (15 U.S.C. 78j), wage theft (29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.), and tax evasion (26 U.S.C. 7201). It also includes any comparable State law offenses.
Section 2(b)
Removal of Ineligible Current Executive Branch Employees
This provision mandates that any individual currently serving in a position within the executive branch of the Federal Government on the date the Act is enacted, who would be ineligible for appointment under the criteria established in subsection (a), must be removed from their service or employment.
The disqualification applies 'without regard to whether the conduct was committed in the course of the official duties of the individual as chief executive officer'.
Section 2(a)(1)
Why it matters:While technically part of the definition, its placement within a longer sentence might make its significant broadening of scope less immediately apparent. It could be seen as standard legislative drafting to ensure comprehensive coverage.
Case for: Supporters would argue this ensures that individuals with a history of serious criminal conduct, even if personal and not directly tied to their corporate role, are still deemed unfit for public trust, reflecting a holistic view of integrity.
Case against: Critics might argue this broadens the scope excessively, potentially disqualifying individuals for crimes unrelated to their professional capacity or the specific ethical demands of public office, potentially leading to overreach.
Estimated impact: Significantly expands the potential pool of individuals subject to disqualification beyond those whose corporate actions were criminal.
The definition of 'covered crime' includes 'Copyright infringement, which includes a violation of chapter 5 of title 17, United States Code' and 'Cybercrime, which includes a violation of section 1030 of title 18, United States Code'.
Section 2(a)(2)(A)(ii) and (iii)
Why it matters:The inclusion of these specific crimes within a list primarily focused on financial corruption might be an attempt to cast a wide net for 'corporate crooks' but could be seen as less directly related to the core concept of public corruption. It could also be a deliberate choice to address emerging forms of corporate malfeasance.
Case for: Proponents would argue that these crimes, particularly cybercrime, can have significant corporate implications and demonstrate a lack of ethical judgment that is relevant to public service. Copyright infringement, especially on a large scale, can also reflect a disregard for law and property.
Case against: Opponents might argue that these offenses, while serious, are not typically what comes to mind when discussing 'corruption' in the context of public office and could be seen as an overreach, potentially disqualifying individuals for offenses that do not directly bear on their ability to serve the public trust.
Estimated impact: Expands the types of past convictions that could lead to disqualification, potentially including individuals whose offenses are not traditionally linked to financial or political corruption.