S. 5212Senate bill · 119th CongressIn committeedonor lobbied it

No Payoffs for Pardons Act

Sponsored byCharles E. SchumerD-NYIntroduced Aug 3, 2026Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Aug 3, 2026) Read twice and on the Judiciary. (text: CR S4409-4410; Sponsor introductory remarks on measure: CR S4409-4410)

What it does

not written yet

The Congressional Research Service writes the plain-English summary for every bill, usually a few weeks after it's introduced. This one doesn't have one yet. It will appear here when it does.

In the meantime the most reliable description is the bill's own official title, which is the heading above — written by its sponsor, and the only account of the bill that exists at this stage. The full text is on congress.gov ↗

We don't write our own summaries. Everything else on this site links back to a record you can check, and a description of a bill that came from us rather than from the bill would be the one thing here that didn't — on the page that asks you to take a position on it.

Face Value

as introduced
100Narrow

How much of this bill its name accounts for.

  • Every bill starts at100
  • Nothing counted against it: one area of law, and short enough that length doesn't register.

Face Value measures reach, not honesty. A big bill can be accurately named, and a low score is not an accusation — it means the contents reach further than any short title could describe. Count it yourself ↗ How this is worked out

Who lobbied on this

1 organization

These organizations told Congress, in their own quarterly disclosures, that they were lobbying on this bill.

  • …Discussed support for S. 1481, the LOCAL Infrastructure Act, to reinstate advance refunding bonds. Discussed support for S. 5212, the Enhanced Energy Recovery Act, provisions ensuring tax credits for expanding carbon capture are available via elective payment. filing ↗

Most filings say only that an organization lobbied on a bill, not which side it took — where that's the case we say so rather than guessing. Quotes are verbatim from the filing. How this is built.

Discussion

3 comments

Sign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.

Sort
7
elena.papadakisDemoGA-5voted Yea26d ago
In favour, with a caveat: the effective date is doing a lot of work here. If it slips, everything else in this bill is theoretical.
10
BackbenchBrendaDemoPA-2voted Yea24d ago
Counterpoint: the reporting requirement is the guardrail. Once the numbers are public the politics change on their own.
6
TenthAmendmentDemoTX-4voted Yea20d ago
The sunset clause point is the strongest argument in this thread and nobody has answered it.
Your position on S. 521266% Yea · 32 VoteWire users