H.R. 8816

H.R. 8816: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude strike benefits from gross income.

Introduced Steven Horsford (D) HOUSE_BILL — 119th Congress
Plain English Summary

H.R. 8816 aims to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to ensure that strike benefits received by workers are not counted as taxable income. This means that individuals receiving financial assistance during a strike would not have to pay taxes on those benefits, potentially providing them with more financial support during labor disputes.

Positive Media Summary

Supporters of H.R. 8816 have praised the bill as a vital step in protecting workers' rights and ensuring that those participating in strikes can maintain their financial stability. Advocates argue that this measure acknowledges the sacrifices workers make during labor disputes and helps to level the playing field against corporate interests.

Negative Media Summary

Critics of H.R. 8816 argue that excluding strike benefits from gross income could lead to significant revenue losses for the government. Some opponents also express concern that this legislation may incentivize strikes and disrupt economic stability, potentially encouraging more frequent labor disputes rather than fostering negotiation.

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

The analysis of H.R. 8816, which seeks to amend the Internal Revenue Code to exclude strike benefits from gross income, reveals no direct industry overlaps between the bill's subject matter and the sponsor Steven Horsford's top donor industries. Notably, the lobbying activity in this policy area includes various firms, but the disclosed amounts primarily stem from the National Electrical Contractors Association, which contributed $600,000. However, this contribution does not directly relate to the exclusion of strike benefits, indicating a lack of immediate conflict. The absence of direct financial ties between the sponsor's donors and the bill's provisions suggests that the risk of conflict is low, as there are no apparent incentives for the sponsor to favor specific donor interests over the public good.

Lobbying Activity — Who's Pushing?

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

Client Lobbying Firm Amount
NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION, INC. NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION, INC. $600,000
BSA, THE SOFTWARE ALLIANCE TIM YEHL, LLC $20,000
ENVISION GROUP LLC MR. ANDREW FUTEY undisclosed
GESCONTI GROUP,INC. GESCONTI GROUP,INC. undisclosed
JOHN BRIAN LEDBETTER MISSIONS CORPORATION JOHN BRIAN LEDBETTER MISSIONS CORPORATION undisclosed
KASICH COMPANY MARKQUEST undisclosed
MARKQUEST MARKQUEST undisclosed
AMERICAN FINANCIAL SERVICES ASSOCIATION MARKQUEST undisclosed
KASICH COMPANY MARKQUEST undisclosed
AMERICAN LOGISTICS ASSOCIATION MARKQUEST undisclosed
MARKQUEST MARKQUEST undisclosed
TRACKONOMY SYSTEMS, INC. ANCHOR & ARROW LLC undisclosed
HOLLY STRATEGIES INC. ON BEHALF OF 202 GROUP ANCHOR & ARROW LLC undisclosed
CITY OF ST LOUIS BRACY TUCKER BROWN & VALANZANO DBA BROWN & ASSOCIATES undisclosed
EMAD EL SAID YOUSSEF SAAD EL-GALADA THROUGH BOLT CAPITAL, LP NEXUSONE CONSULTING undisclosed

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

Sponsor's Top Donor Industries

Top industries funding Steven Horsford, ranked by total contributions.

Health Professionals $200,000,000
Individuals: $200,000,000 PACs: $0
Retired $62,500,000
Individuals: $62,500,000 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