H.R. 9067

H.R. 9067: To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to provide for a gender identity content descriptor for video programming, and for other purposes.

Introduced Barry Moore (R) HOUSE_BILL — 119th Congress
Plain English Summary

H.R. 9067 aims to amend the Communications Act of 1934 by introducing a gender identity content descriptor for video programming. This means that television and streaming services would be required to label content that includes themes or representations related to gender identity, helping viewers make informed choices about the media they consume.

Positive Media Summary

Supporters of H.R. 9067 argue that the bill promotes inclusivity and helps to ensure that diverse gender identities are represented in media. Advocates believe that clear labeling can empower viewers, particularly those from LGBTQ+ communities, to find content that resonates with their experiences and identities.

Negative Media Summary

Critics of H.R. 9067 contend that the bill could lead to unnecessary censorship and stigmatization of content related to gender identity. Some argue that such descriptors may limit creative expression and could be misused to categorize and marginalize certain types of programming, ultimately leading to a less diverse media landscape.

Conflict of Interest Analysis Deep Analysis
2/10
Risk Level
Low
Total Donations
$157,500,000
PAC Percentage
0%
Policy Area
Science, Technology, Communications

The bill H.R. 9067, which aims to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to include a gender identity content descriptor for video programming, does not show any direct industry overlaps with the top donor industries of sponsor Barry Moore. His primary donors are from the health professionals sector, contributing a substantial $120 million, and the retired sector, contributing $37.5 million. However, these sectors do not have a clear connection to the content descriptor for video programming. The lobbying activity in the policy area includes various organizations, but none appear to directly influence the bill's subject matter or the sponsor's donor base. Therefore, the potential for conflicts of interest is minimal, as the financial contributions do not align with the legislative focus of the bill.

Lobbying Activity — Who's Pushing?

Organizations that lobbied on issues related to this bill's policy area.

Client Lobbying Firm Amount
STEELSHIPS, LLC CONSCIENCE POINT CONSULTING, INC. $45,000
SAN PASQUAL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS THE FARLEY GROUP, INC. $30,000
PARATEK PHARMACEUTICALS PARATEK PHARMACEUTICALS $20,000
SAN JUAN SOUTHERN PAIUTE TRIBE THE FARLEY GROUP, INC. $15,000
CHURCH ALLIANCE K&L GATES, LLP $10,000
GIFDA RULON & WHITE GOVERNANCE STRATEGIES $10,000
ASSOCIATION FOR PROFESSIONALS IN INFECTION CONTROL AND EPIDEMIOLOGY ASSOCIATION FOR PROFESSIONALS IN INFECTION CONTROL AND EPIDEMIOLOGY undisclosed
PHARMATROPHIX, INC. FGS GLOBAL (US) LLC (FKA FGH HOLDINGS LLC) undisclosed
PGA TOUR, INC. FGS GLOBAL (US) LLC (FKA FGH HOLDINGS LLC) undisclosed
RESPONSIVE GOV ACTION THE RABEN GROUP undisclosed
KERECIS INVARIANT LLC undisclosed
BINTI, INC. INVARIANT LLC undisclosed
VERTIV GROUP CORPORATION AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD undisclosed
TERRA-GEN, LLC AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD undisclosed
PHILIPS CONTINENTAL STRATEGY, LLC undisclosed

Source: Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) filings, 2026

Sponsor's Top Donor Industries

Top industries funding Barry Moore, ranked by total contributions.

Health Professionals $120,000,000
Individuals: $120,000,000 PACs: $0
Retired $37,500,000
Individuals: $37,500,000 PACs: $0

Source: OpenSecrets.org (Center for Responsive Politics)

TheBillRoom is free and independent. No ads, no subscriptions, no political funding. If this analysis was useful, reader support keeps it running.
Support Us