Anti-Bribery Improvement Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Kim, Andy [D-NJ]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 24, 2026
Bottom line
This bill broadens the scope of federal bribery law to criminalize explicit promises of influential access to public officials, aiming to close a perceived loophole in existing statutes.
What it actually does
This bill amends title 18, United States Code, specifically Section 201, to expand the definition of bribery. It explicitly includes the 'explicit promise or undertaking to provide access' to a public official as a form of bribery. 'Access' is defined as using a public official's ability to influence decisions or actions on matters before them in their official capacity.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill strengthens anti-corruption laws by explicitly criminalizing the exchange of money or value for 'access' to public officials, which can be a subtle but potent form of influence peddling not always clearly covered by existing bribery statutes. They contend it prevents undue influence and restores public trust by ensuring that official decisions are based on merit, not on who can afford to buy special access.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that existing bribery laws are sufficient to cover corrupt acts, and this expansion could lead to overreach, chilling legitimate lobbying or constituent interactions. They might contend that 'access' is a vague term that could be broadly interpreted, potentially criminalizing routine political activities or making it harder for officials to engage with stakeholders without fear of prosecution.
The bill is very short and clearly written, making it easy for any informed reader to understand its provisions within a few minutes.
Section 2(1)(C) and Section 2(2)(D) of the bill, amending 18 U.S.C. 201(a) and (b).
Inclusion of 'Access' in Bribery Offense Definitions
This provision amends federal bribery law (18 U.S.C. 201) to explicitly include 'access' as something that can be offered or received in a bribery scheme. It defines 'access' as using a public official's ability to influence decisions or actions on matters before them in their official capacity. This means that explicitly promising or undertaking to provide such access in exchange for an official act (or refraining from one) would now be considered bribery.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision closes a critical loophole where 'access' to decision-makers, rather than direct money, is exchanged for influence. They contend it ensures that all forms of corrupt influence are covered, promoting fairness and integrity in government.
Critics contend
Opponents might argue that this provision is overly broad and could criminalize legitimate activities such as fundraising events where donors gain opportunities to meet officials, or advocacy efforts where stakeholders seek meetings to present their views. They may contend that the term 'access' is too vague and could lead to arbitrary enforcement, chilling free speech and the right to petition the government.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the need to combat corruption and undue influence with concerns about potentially criminalizing legitimate political engagement and access to public officials. It aims to draw a clearer line around explicit promises of access while trying not to impede routine interactions.