H.R. 9694, known as the Epstein Files Transparency Act II, is a proposed law that allows state attorneys general, victims of Jeffrey Epstein and his associates, and members of Congress to take legal action against the Department of Justice (DOJ) if it fails to release all required documents related to Epstein's case. This bill aims to enforce the full disclosure mandated by the original Epstein Files Transparency Act, which the DOJ has been accused of not fully complying with.
Supporters of the Epstein Files Transparency Act II argue that it is a necessary step to ensure transparency and accountability. They believe that granting legal standing to state attorneys general, victims, and Congress members will compel the DOJ to release all pertinent documents, thereby upholding the public's right to know and facilitating justice for the victims.
Critics of the bill express concerns that allowing multiple parties to sue the DOJ could lead to a surge in litigation, potentially overburdening the judicial system. They also worry that the release of sensitive information might compromise ongoing investigations or infringe on the privacy rights of individuals named in the documents.
The analysis of H.R. 9694, sponsored by Thomas Massie, reveals no direct industry overlaps between the bill's subject matter and the sponsor's top donor industries. The lobbying activity related to this bill primarily involves organizations focused on education and natural resources, with significant contributions from the Association of Community College Trustees ($10,000) and the American Sportfishing Association ($60,000). However, these contributions do not directly correlate with the enforcement aspects of the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Given the lack of direct financial ties between the bill's content and the sponsor's donors, the risk of conflict of interest is assessed as low. Voters should be aware that while there are substantial lobbying amounts, they do not indicate a direct influence on the legislation at hand.
Organizations that lobbied on issues related to this bill's policy area.
| Client | Lobbying Firm | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| ALLEN CONTROL SYSTEMS | ALLEN CONTROL SYSTEMS | $230,000 |
| AMERICAN SPORTFISHING ASSOCIATION | AMERICAN SPORTFISHING ASSOCIATION | $60,000 |
| AIRBORNE SNOW OBSERVATORIES, INC. | NATURAL RESOURCE RESULTS LLC | $45,000 |
| PIXLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT | NATURAL RESOURCE RESULTS LLC | $30,000 |
| CALTROUT | NATURAL RESOURCE RESULTS LLC | $30,000 |
| NATIONAL FOREST FOUNDATION | NATURAL RESOURCE RESULTS LLC | $30,000 |
| MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT OF ORANGE COUNTY | NATURAL RESOURCE RESULTS LLC | $20,000 |
| BONEFISH & TARPON TRUST | NATURAL RESOURCE RESULTS LLC | $20,000 |
| SITES PROJECT AUTHORITY | NATURAL RESOURCE RESULTS LLC | $20,000 |
| TEHAMA-COLUSA CANAL AUTHORITY | NATURAL RESOURCE RESULTS LLC | $20,000 |
| TOWN OF HARRISBURG | LUMIN STRATEGIES | $16,500 |
| RESTORE AMERICA'S ESTUARIES | NATURAL RESOURCE RESULTS LLC | $15,000 |
| ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE TRUSTEES | ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE TRUSTEES | $10,000 |
| PIKES PEAK WATERWAYS ENTERPRISE CORPORATION | NATURAL RESOURCE RESULTS LLC | undisclosed |
| AMERICAN BEVERAGE LICENSEES | AMERICAN BEVERAGE LICENSEES | undisclosed |
Source: Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) filings, 2026
Top industries funding Thomas Massie, ranked by total contributions.
Source: OpenSecrets.org (Center for Responsive Politics)
