Support for reform means a commitment to deliver it.
The precise promise, the lawful route, and what the official controls.
The five sections preserve the Field Guide’s language. The research records retain their original qualifications. A risk color is not permission to act, and a conduct score is not a signed reform commitment.
Put a concrete question to the office.
Record the commitment and response or prepare an oversight packet. Add the source, date, and measure of compliance. These are suggested questions; no message is sent by this page.
Which assignment fits the actor?
Select an actor’s record to inspect the proposed instrument and its limits. These are all 22 A5 entries from the September 3 authority research, including routes that require legislation or constitutional change. They are not all available now.
A5-5 / Healthcare floor access
Follow one bill. Do not fill missing steps with assumptions.
H.R. 3069, the Medicare for All Act in the 119th Congress, is a worked record-reading example. The retrieved Congress.gov record identifies Rep. Pramila Jayapal as sponsor, introduction and referral on April 29, 2025, and status “Introduced.” It lists seven referral committees. Inspect the bill’s official action record.
Official GovInfo bill-status data retrieved September 5, 2026 carries a July 17, 2026 update timestamp. It lists April 29, 2025 referral as the latest action. Its nine action entries contain only introduction and referral types, including repeated entries; they are not nine legislative advances. Inspect the saved action recordOfficial source data. This is a dated source check, not a continuously updated tracker. Committee records and later changes still need checking.
The observed stopping point is referral. The record collected here does not establish who blocked later action or why.
Choose a step to see the evidence to seek. This is a map of questions, not a mandatory sequence: hearings can be omitted, floor routes vary, and discharge is an alternate route.
General process: Congress.gov committee consideration and House floor procedures. Discharge: preserved authority row A5-05-DISCHARGE and PSV-005 in the primary-source appendix.
Keep the outcome ledger. A dated refusal can support a finding about that decision. An absent entry supports a narrower statement about what the checked record does not show.
Keep the demand distinct from the measure.
A5 names the public terms for accountable conduct. CL-001 records conduct under its own method. A5-5’s healthcare floor-access application asks for a procedural act; it does not convert a cosponsor count into proof of a floor vote or a delivered right.
Sources: Field Guide A5 section, complete authority matrix, and Congressional Blueprint. PSV identifiers refer to the primary-source appendix. New questions and record-reading guidance are editorial additions; original research is preserved below without revision.
Ask for the next act, and keep the answer
The official Congress.gov bill page was rechecked September 6, 2026. It still labels H.R. 3069 “Introduced” and lists April 29, 2025 introduction and referral as the latest action. The saved GovInfo dataset, retrieved September 5 with a July 17, 2026 update timestamp, contains nine entries describing those two events and the seven committee referrals; they are not nine legislative advances. Neither record establishes a named blocker or a reason for inaction.
A request you can adapt
Please identify the next action your office can take on H.R. 3069 in the 119th Congress. If the bill remains in committee, will you request a hearing or markup, and publish the request and response? Please identify the committee, any scheduled proceeding, and the public record supporting your answer. If you oppose that step, please state your reason. I am asking for the specific act your office controls and a date by which I can check it.
Send your adapted request through your representative’s official contact route. If you contact a committee, identify the provision and its jurisdiction rather than assuming one committee controls the whole bill. Save the exact message and reply. Cosponsorship, a request for consideration, a scheduled proceeding, a vote and enactment are different results.
A search that finds no hearing is a lead for a question, not proof that someone suppressed the bill. Record “no later action found in the checked record” until the evidence supports more.
Official bill actionsReadable chronology and source limitsRecord the commitment
Build the power to change the rules
Build Citizen Power connects thirteen reform proposals to responsible actors, legal limits and a first citizen step: governing rules, enforceable public duties and organized collective action.
Return to the book
Return directly to the place in the online book that opened this tool:
No corporate PAC money: define what the promise covers.
A corporate political action committee, or PAC, is distinct from the company’s treasury. A company can establish a separate segregated fund, supported by permitted contributions. Federal rules prohibit corporate treasury contributions to federal candidates and to the company’s own fund, while allowing specified costs of running that fund. Rejecting corporate PAC contributions is a voluntary campaign standard beyond simply refusing prohibited treasury money. FEC: separate fund and treasury distinctions.
Personal donations from executives or employees are another category. Their employer does not turn each personal donation into a corporate PAC contribution. Reimbursement or use of another person’s name raises a different legal question. FEC: permitted and prohibited contributors.
Independent spending supporting a candidate is also different from a contribution accepted by the campaign. It must be assessed separately; legal coordination rules can change the classification. Do not count an outside advertisement as a campaign receipt merely because it helps the candidate. FEC: independent expenditures.
Keep the citizen standard separate from the campaign promise
OC’s demand is zero corporate-PAC contributions in the current election cycle. A campaign may write a narrower pledge. Record its exceptions, but do not use them to lower the OC test. Show two findings: what the public filings establish under OC’s demand, and whether the campaign kept its own promise. If a donor’s classification is unresolved, say so. Do not turn uncertainty into a passing score.
Build a record another citizen can reproduce
- Save the dated pledge. Identify the election cycle, covered committees and what counts as a corporate PAC. Ask how it handles trade-association PACs, affiliated committees, transfers and refunds.
- Use the candidate’s FEC identifier to locate the campaign committees. Save the report period, filing date and amended reports. Identify donors by committee ID and connected organization, not by a familiar-sounding name alone.
- List each corporate-PAC receipt with amount, date, donor ID and filing reference, including receipts the campaign excludes from its own pledge. Record refunds separately. A refund does not erase the original receipt; whether it cures a breach of the campaign’s own pledge depends on that pledge’s published terms. A refunded receipt is not the same record as no receipt. Record the correction without silently awarding an OC pass.
- Report what the reviewed filings establish through a named date. Do not declare a full-cycle zero when the cycle or required reporting is incomplete. Keep missing or unresolved records visible.
Open FEC public records · Record the commitment and supporting filings.
A funding ratio needs a published method
Before calculating an industry share, state the time period, committees, denominator and rules for classifying donors. Explain refunds, transfers, loans, unitemized receipts and missing employer information. Match committee jurisdiction to the relevant dates. Publish the source rows and ambiguous cases. Outside spending belongs in a separate measure. A funding pattern can identify a dependency to investigate; it does not by itself prove a purchased vote or unlawful conduct.
Ask the campaign: “What exactly does your no-corporate-PAC pledge cover? Please reconcile these receipts and refunds with that promise.” Keep the reply alongside the filings. A legal violation and a broken voluntary promise require different evidence and different remedies.
Stock trading: disclosure does not remove the conflict.
The STOCK Act of 2012 affirmed that members of Congress are subject to insider-trading law. It required reports of covered transactions; it did not impose a blanket ban on trading. A citizen can ask for a stronger rule without erasing the rule that already exists. Public Law 112–105, sections 3–6.
House guidance requires disclosure of certain securities transactions above $1,000 within 30 days of learning of the transaction, and no later than 45 days after it. The current House form specifies a $200 penalty for a report more than 30 days late. That fee is not the full enforcement system: the form also warns of possible civil penalties and criminal sanctions for knowing and willful falsification or failure to file. A late report and insider trading are different findings. House disclosure guidance · House report instructions, pages 3–4.
What the 86 percent measures
The Program for Public Consultation’s May 19–30, 2023 survey included 2,625 respondents. After arguments for and against, 86.2 percent favored its proposal covering members and family living with them. Existing individual-company stocks would be sold or placed in a blind trust; diversified funds remained allowed. The reported margin of error was ±1.9 percentage points. This supports a dated finding about that proposal, not every later bill. Questionnaire and results, pages 1–3.
Follow the vote to the rule
The House Clerk records passage of H.R. 7008 on July 22, 2026, by 232–198. House passage is a documented step, not proof of enactment or of a complete trading ban. The Congress.gov page returned during this check stopped at February 3, before that vote. It cannot establish the latest status. Later Senate action, final text and any enactment remain to be reconciled. House roll call 280 · Bill action record.
Ask for a control you can inspect
Ask your representative: “Will you support a rule that removes individual-stock conflicts? Identify the bill and version, who it covers, what holdings and trades remain allowed, and who enforces it. Show your vote and the next step.” Compare that answer with the text and record. Timely disclosure alone does not establish compliance with Operation Citizen’s stronger no-trading demand. Nor does a disclosed trade alone prove insider trading.
Keep the commitment, vote and follow-up together · Return to the book passage.
Term limits: four different commitments
A promise to leave office, a limit on chairing a committee, and a constitutional limit on serving in Congress are different acts. Ask which one a candidate supports.
| Route | What can change | What to record |
|---|---|---|
| Voluntary pledge | A candidate can promise not to seek another term. The pledge does not create a new legal qualification for office or allow election officials to exclude the candidate. | The signed wording, terms counted, intended final election and later conduct. Replace “irrevocable” with an observable political commitment. |
| Internal tenure rule | A chamber or party can address service in internal positions through its applicable rules. This does not end membership in Congress. The precise post, rulemaking body, exceptions and amendment process matter. | The adopted rule, covered positions, counting method, waiver decisions and assignment roster. Do not assume identical House, Senate and party rules. |
| Mandatory congressional service limit | The Supreme Court’s U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton opinion states that this change must use Article V, rather than ordinary federal or state legislation. | The amendment text, proposal votes and ratification record. An introduced proposal is not an adopted limit. |
| State-added congressional ballot limit | Thornton invalidated Arkansas’s attempt to keep otherwise qualified congressional candidates off the ballot because of prior service. Calling a term cap a ballot rule does not cure that problem. | Keep state-office proposals separate from restrictions on federal congressional service. Do not present the latter as an available substitute for amendment. |
The amendment route has two stages
Proposal can come from two-thirds of both houses of Congress, or from a convention Congress calls on applications from two-thirds of state legislatures. Ratification requires three-fourths of states, through legislatures or conventions as Congress specifies. The President does not approve or veto a proposed amendment. A state application is not itself ratification.
A precise citizen question
“Will you make a personal commitment, support an internal tenure rule, or propose a constitutional amendment? Please identify the text, who must adopt it, any exceptions, and the next recorded action you will take.”
Record the request and response. A clearer pledge makes accountability possible; it does not establish that a tenure limit will improve every policy outcome.
What the polling establishes
Pew’s July 10–16, 2023 survey found 87 percent of U.S. adults favored limiting congressional terms: 90 percent of Republicans and Republican leaners, and 86 percent of Democrats and Democratic leaners. The question did not specify a twelve-year cap. This is a dated finding, not a thirty-year series. Pew results. The survey had 8,480 respondents; Pew reports a full-sample margin of sampling error of ±1.5 percentage points. Methodology.
Test the commitment and the result separately
Serving fewer than twelve years does not show that a member supports term limits. Ask for a written personal limit or support for a named amendment, then track the relevant conduct. Keep those two commitments separate. A vote for a proposed amendment is not its ratification.
Term limits aim to open seats and reduce entrenched power. The counterargument is that they can remove experience and leave elected members more dependent on staff and lobbyists. CRS describes both positions. Neither the poll nor the legal route proves which effect will prevail. Track who gains influence, how decisions change, and whether citizens gain access.
The claim that reform has never moved is too broad: CRS records House votes on proposed amendments in 1995 and 1997. Both fell short of the required two-thirds majority. A failed vote is still part of the accountability record. CRS policy and legislative history, March 10, 2023 · Read the revised book passage.
Sources and scope
- U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 837–838 (1995): majority opinion, amendment boundary.
- Article I, section 5: chamber rulemaking authority, not a uniform party tenure rule.
- National Archives: constitutional amendment process: proposal, ratification and the President’s absence from the process.
- CRS, March 10, 2023: term limits policy and legal overview: supporting analysis; its list of proposals is historical.