Citizens’ League · Operation Citizen · Find who can act

Who can act—and what can you ask them to do?

Use: Action route finder. Name your concern and leave with a responsible public actor, the limit on that actor's power, and one next step.

Begin with your concern. This tool finds the public office that can act, explains where its power stops, and sends you to a citizen action you can complete.

Citizen route finder · Accountability Five and Rights Eight · Sources checked through September 3, 2026

Your starting point

Name the concern in your own words.

You do not need to know the office, statute or procedure before you begin.

What you will leave with

One responsible actor and one next step.

Each result tells you whether the route is available now, needs a law or amendment, or should be replaced with a lawful alternative.

Understand → choose an action

What is your concern?

Select the closest citizen concern. The result will explain who controls the next decision, what that office can do, what you can ask for, and what public evidence would show action.

This is an understanding and route-selection tool. You should leave it with one responsible office, one specific request, and a link to the action tool that helps you carry it out.

What the short labels mean

A5 means five expectations for making Congress more accountable. R8 means eight economic-security commitments drawn from the Second Bill of Rights. A label such as A5-1 simply keeps the same subject connected across the book, pledge, and source research.

PSV is a source-reference number. It helps an editor or researcher find the legal source behind a result. As a reader, you can open the named source when you want to inspect it; you do not need to memorize the number.

What kind of power is this?

These labels describe routes in the preserved research matrix. They do not certify current law or approve a proposed use. Select a record to see its actor, instrument, contrary authority and required legal changes.

Institutional power
Internal rules, scheduling, oversight or coordination within an institution.
Federal relationship power
Power exercised through a federal funding, benefit, contract, participation or supervised-enterprise relationship.
Sovereign regulatory power
General regulation, investigation or enforcement under the identified statute.
Contingent/emergency power
Power dependent on a specific statutory trigger, status or approval; this category does not mean every entry is an emergency power.
Voluntary political commitment
A personal public pledge, not an enforceable new qualification for office.
Private court action
The source identifies a route for injured private parties through courts. Standing, injury, proof and the requested remedy remain case-specific.
Proposed legislation or amendment
A change requiring new legislation or constitutional action according to the source. This label does not establish that every proposed design would be lawful.
Route not established by the source
The source does not establish authority for the proposed actor and instrument. A different legislative or constitutional route may still serve the public objective.

A voluntary promise, a private lawsuit and a proposed law are different kinds of citizen action. An unavailable executive shortcut does not settle the merits of the reform.

Read every assignment and the classification method

FEC capacity: check before assigning the next action

Checked 2026-09-05. Two commissioners listed; key Commission enforcement decisions require four votes. Staff may process complaints, publish data and investigate matters previously authorized.

New investigation authorization, enforcement approvals, advisory opinions and rulemaking require Commission capacity. This concerns FEC Commission action, not independent DOJ authority. Recheck the official roster and applicable procedures before relying on an action. This is a dated check, not a live feed.

A received complaint is not a newly authorized investigation. Keep the receipt, any action the agency reports and its eventual disposition separate.

Official rosterInspector General explanation, pages 3–4Readable dated evidence record

Return to the book

Return directly to the place in the online book that opened this tool:

These links return you to the same place in the current online book.

Chamber ethics: define the safeguard and the procedure.

A5-01-RULE proposes internal conflict safeguards. Keep a committee assignment, discipline of a seated member, and exclusion from Congress separate. In Powell v. McCormack, the Court held that an otherwise qualified elected member had been unlawfully excluded. The case does not certify every proposed restriction on committee service. Read the 1969 decision.

The vote needed to adopt a measure can differ from the vote needed to reach it. The Senate’s voting guide distinguishes majority adoption of a rules amendment from its two-thirds cloture requirement. Cloture is the procedure for ending debate. Expulsion of a senator also requires two-thirds, for a separate constitutional reason. Senate voting guide. Do not read the source’s “majority” entry as a guarantee that debate can be ended or a vote scheduled.

A citizen request for a rule that can be inspected

Ask the member and relevant ethics or rules committee to identify the proposed resolution, covered conflicts, disclosure duties, decision-maker, notice and response process, sanctions and waivers. Ask separately how the proposal reaches a vote under that chamber’s current rules.

Keep the proposed and adopted texts, procedural votes, final vote and implementation records. Look for conflicts resolved and rules applied consistently. A resolution’s introduction is not adoption; adoption is not enforcement. The source’s Day 1–100 horizon is a planning estimate, not a legal deadline.

Record the commitment and response. Checked September 5, 2026. The exact safeguard, current procedure, later case law and present capacity still require review. Original research text and risk rating remain unchanged.

Contract wages: identify the contract before claiming the rate.

R8-01-WAGE concerns existing wage protections on covered government contracts. It does not give an agency a general power to set every worker’s wage.

Construction: DOL describes Davis–Bacon coverage for covered construction contracts above $2,000, with local prevailing wages and fringe benefits for laborers and mechanics. Related Acts extend protections to specified federally assisted projects. The work and funding authority must qualify. DOL construction coverage.

Services: DOL describes prevailing-wage and fringe-benefit requirements for service employees on covered prime contracts above $2,500. A predecessor collective bargaining agreement can affect the required rates. Identify the applicable determination and contract clauses. DOL service-contract coverage.

Enforcement limits: DOL’s construction page identifies a June 24, 2024 preliminary injunction affecting three rule provisions: specified supplier/contractor distinctions, delivery-driver coverage and automatic application of omitted contract clauses. DOL says the rest of the rule remains in effect. Check the current guidance and relevant orders for the work at issue. This is an agency-guidance check, not an independent review of later court proceedings.

Prepare a pay-reconciliation request.

Keep the employer’s name, work location, dates, hours, tasks, pay statements and benefit records. Add the contract number and wage determination if available. Do not assume that a job title alone identifies the correct work classification.

Ask the Wage and Hour Division and the contracting agency: “Which wage determination and classification apply to this work? Please explain the required wage and fringe benefits, compare them with the pay records, and identify any coverage exception or enforcement limit.”

Wage and Hour Division · Record the request and response. Track a complaint, an agency finding and actual payment separately. The source’s Green/Low research rating and planning horizon are not a case decision or an agency deadline.

Checked September 5, 2026. Original matrix unchanged. Particular contracts, exemptions, later court orders and office capacity require separate review.

Contractor contributions: match the person, contract and dates.

A5-01-CONTRACTOR proposes comparing federal awards with campaign receipts. A matching name is a lead to investigate. It is not proof of a prohibited contribution.

The federal rule covers a defined direct contracting relationship with the United States. A state or local contract does not qualify merely because federal funds support it. Employees may give personal funds if otherwise eligible. Individual federal contractors and sole proprietors cannot avoid the restriction by using their personal funds. FEC’s October 18, 2024 explanation.

The covered period starts at the earlier of negotiations or requests for proposals. It ends at the later of completed performance or ended negotiations. An award date alone cannot establish the full period. 11 CFR Part 115, displayed through September 1, 2026. 52 U.S.C. §30119 also preserves specified separate-fund activity; do not treat every associated PAC as the contractor itself.

Build a record that can be checked

  1. Identify the legal donor and recipient committee. Save the contribution date, amount, report and any amendment or refund.
  2. Identify the actual contracting party and federal agency. Keep the contract or solicitation identifier and the records establishing the covered dates.
  3. Explain why the donor and contractor are the same legal person. Keep employees, affiliates and separate political funds distinct. Mark any uncertain match.
  4. Ask the responsible office to explain the apparent overlap. Preserve the reply and any published disposition. A referral is not an enforcement finding.

Prepare the evidence packet · Keep OC’s separate no-corporate-PAC demand visible.

Checked September 5, 2026. Specific contracts, legal exceptions, later court decisions, present FEC/DOJ capacity and formal filing requirements still need case-specific review. The original matrix’s risk color and timing remain research judgments, not a promise of enforcement.

Two health-demonstration routes

Medicaid demonstrations: state proposal and bounded approval

R8-06-1115

Section 1115(a) lets the HHS Secretary approve experimental projects likely to promote Medicaid objectives and waive specified requirements for the necessary period. It is not authority to waive every law or create an unrestricted national health program. Section 1115(d) requires processes for state and federal public input, reporting and evaluation.

CMS identifies a new statutory budget-neutrality certification for approvals, amendments and renewals on or after January 1, 2027. The Chief Actuary must certify the spending condition. This date matters: the new certification and the longstanding federal budget-neutrality policy are not the same requirement.

Ask the state Medicaid agency for the application, requested waivers, coverage projections, public-comment dates and evaluation plan. Compare access and outcomes after approval. A citizen can comment on a proposal; a comment is not a state application or federal approval.

Section 1115(a) and (d) · CMS: current demonstration framework and 2027 transition

Innovation models: testing is not nationwide expansion

R8-06-CMMI

Section 1115A requires evaluation of tested models, including care quality and spending, and public release of evaluation results. Initial testing need not be budget neutral. After testing begins, continuation is subject to statutory spending and quality conditions.

Expansion uses rulemaking. The HHS Secretary must find that it is expected to reduce spending without reducing quality, or improve quality without increasing spending. The CMS Chief Actuary must certify no increase in net program spending, and the Secretary must find that expansion will not deny or limit benefits. Section 1115A(d)(2) also restricts review of specified model decisions.

Ask the CMS Innovation Center for the model terms and public evaluation. For expansion, identify the rule and required findings. Track patient access and quality alongside spending. A model announcement alone does not establish that these conditions were met.

Section 1115A(b)(3)–(4), (c) and (d)(2)

Scope checked September 5, 2026. Original research rows preserved. Particular approvals, litigation, later guidance and current operational capacity require separate review.

Health-program exclusion: a defined enforcement power

The R8-06-EXCLUDE record concerns HHS OIG. Section 1128 of the Social Security Act distinguishes mandatory exclusion after specified convictions from discretionary exclusion on listed grounds. The latter include certain licensing actions, substandard services and prohibited conduct. A citizen allegation alone does not establish those grounds.

Exclusion restricts payment by federal health care programs for covered items or services furnished, ordered or prescribed by an excluded person or entity. It is not a general power to close a business. OIG describes notice and appeal procedures, including review by an administrative law judge and the Departmental Appeals Board. OIG’s authority and process explanation.

Citizen next step: preserve dates, billing records and the specific conduct at issue. Distinguish what you witnessed from what you suspect. Use the official HHS OIG reporting guidance to check whether the matter belongs there. Track receipt, investigation and disposition separately; do not label a report as an exclusion order.

Scope checked September 5, 2026. Original research row preserved. This check does not determine a particular case or certify current staffing and capacity.

Private antitrust action: two different remedies

The preserved R8-04-PRIVATE entry mentions damages and injunctions but lists only section 15. The citation for injunctions should also include section 26.

Damages — money for a qualifying injury
15 U.S.C. § 15(a) addresses injury to business or property caused by an antitrust violation. It provides three times the damages sustained, litigation costs and reasonable attorney fees, subject to the statute’s limits.
Injunction — a court order against threatened harm
15 U.S.C. § 26 addresses threatened loss or damage from an antitrust violation. A preliminary injunction requires the statutory showing of immediate danger of irreparable harm and the applicable court procedures. The section also contains an exception for private injunction suits against common carriers under the Surface Transportation Board’s jurisdiction.

These provisions do not give every citizen a claim merely because a market is concentrated. The source record’s requirements concerning injury, standing, causation and proof still matter. A court decides the available relief in a particular case.

Citizen next step: preserve the conduct, dates, parties and records of actual or threatened injury. For a proposed lawsuit, obtain a case-specific assessment of the claim and remedy. This kit does not make that assessment.

Citation distinction checked September 5, 2026 against LII’s reproduced U.S. Code. Full case-law and eligibility review remains open. Original research text unchanged.