H.R. 9355

H.R. 9355: To amend title 28, United States Code, to reform the process for payment of certain compromise settlements, and for other purposes.

Introduced John Larson (D) HOUSE_BILL — 119th Congress
Plain English Summary

H.R. 9355 aims to change the way certain compromise settlements are paid out under title 28 of the United States Code. This likely involves reforms to streamline the payment process, making it more efficient or transparent for parties involved in legal settlements.

Positive Media Summary

Supporters of H.R. 9355 argue that the bill will enhance the efficiency of the settlement process, potentially reducing delays and ensuring that parties receive their payments more quickly. This reform is seen as a necessary step towards modernizing the legal framework governing settlements.

Negative Media Summary

Critics of H.R. 9355 express concerns that the proposed changes may undermine the rights of individuals seeking settlements, potentially favoring larger entities over individuals. There are fears that the reforms could lead to less oversight and accountability in the settlement process.

Conflict of Interest Analysis Deep Analysis
3/10
Risk Level
Low
Total Donations
$0
PAC Percentage
0%
Policy Area
Law

The analysis of H.R. 9355, sponsored by John Larson, indicates a low risk of conflicts of interest based on the available campaign finance data. There are no direct industry overlaps between the bill's subject matter and the sponsor's top donor industries. While there is significant lobbying activity in the policy area, the contributions from these entities do not appear to create a direct financial incentive for the sponsor to favor specific interests. For instance, Port of New Orleans contributed $130,000, but this does not directly relate to the reform of compromise settlements as outlined in the bill. The presence of various donors such as RPM International Inc. and the National Association for Oilheat Research and Education, with contributions of $40,000 and $10,000 respectively, also lacks a clear connection to the bill's objectives, further supporting the low-risk assessment.

Lobbying Activity — Who's Pushing?

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

Client Lobbying Firm Amount
CRYPTO COUNCIL FOR INNOVATION CRYPTO COUNCIL FOR INNOVATION $310,000
PORT OF NEW ORLEANS (PORT NOLA) SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS $130,000
RPM INTERNATIONAL INC THE CJR GROUP, INC. $40,000
LA MAESTRA FOUNDATION ON BEHALF OF LA MAESTRA FAMILY CLINIC, INC. SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS $20,000
JEFFERSON PARISH CORONER'S OFFICE ADAMS AND REESE, LLP $20,000
GREENVILLE WATER SYSTEM ADAMS AND REESE, LLP $20,000
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR OILHEAT RESEARCH AND EDUCATION SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS $10,000
CLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITY THE CJR GROUP, INC. $10,000
BELLEFAIRE JCB THE CJR GROUP, INC. $10,000
TERADAR BELTWAY GUIDED STRATEGIES $7,500
METABANK SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS undisclosed
MEAB SAL SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS undisclosed
M1 GROUP SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS undisclosed
US-INDIA STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP FORUM, INC. US-INDIA STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP FORUM, INC. undisclosed
H CYCLE, LLC SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS undisclosed

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

Sponsor's Top Donor Industries

Top industries funding John Larson, 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