New Ethics Bill Bans Donations to White House Projects from Companies Seeking Federal Contracts

The aptly named “Stop Ballroom Bribery Act” is laser-focused on cleaning up the gray area where private donations meet public, presidential property. The core of this bill is a set of strict rules designed to prevent individuals or organizations who are actively dealing with the federal government from funding projects, maintenance, or events at places like the White House or the Vice President’s residence.

The Ban List: Who Can’t Donate?

This isn’t a blanket ban on all donations for these projects, but it does create a very specific “no-fly list” for potential donors. If you, your company, or your nonprofit fall into one of these categories at the time of the donation (or anytime since the sitting President took office), the government cannot accept your money for these specific projects:

• You’re in a legal fight with the Feds: Anyone involved in litigation or the subject of a federal investigation or enforcement action.
• You’re chasing government business: Anyone seeking or holding an active contract, grant (where funds haven’t been fully spent), or business relationship with the Federal Government.
• You’re a lobbyist: Anyone involved in lobbying activities targeting the executive branch.
• You’re seeking a favor: Anyone seeking a presidential pardon or appointment to a federal position.

Think about it this way: If you’re a construction CEO trying to land a multi-million dollar federal contract, you can’t also donate $50,000 to refurbish the White House bowling alley. The bill is trying to eliminate the appearance that a donation could buy influence or access. It also explicitly bans donations from foreign governments unless Congress signs off.

The Bureaucracy of Ethics: Who’s The Gatekeeper?

Before a single dollar can be accepted for a “covered project”—which includes maintenance, construction, or even events near the White House or VP’s residence—two high-ranking officials must agree to it in writing: the Director of the National Park Service (NPS) and the Director of the Office of Government Ethics (OGE). This moves the decision out of the hands of the President’s staff and puts it into the hands of career ethics and property management experts. Their written determination must then be sent to Congress and published for the public to see in the Federal Register. This dual sign-off requirement (Section 2) is the bill’s main defense against questionable donations slipping through.

Transparency Rules: The Meeting Disclosure

The bill understands that influence isn’t always bought with cash; sometimes it’s bought with access. That’s why it includes a major transparency requirement: Any person who makes a donation (directly or indirectly) must disclose any meeting or communication they have with the President, Vice President, their families, or their agents. This disclosure covers a two-year window—one year before the donation and one year after. The disclosure must detail the topics discussed and the date of the meeting.

Furthermore, the NPS Director must publish a quarterly report listing every single donation, including the identity of anyone who contributed an aggregate amount of more than $200 in that quarter. This level of public scrutiny means that small donations are tracked, and any donor who met with an executive official will have that information publicly linked to their contribution.

Real-World Impact and Penalties

For most people, this bill won't change your daily routine, but it does affect the integrity of the government you rely on. It’s about ensuring that decisions affecting your taxes, regulations, and public services aren't influenced by who paid for the new curtains in the Oval Office. The bill also has sharp teeth: it bans “straw donations” (donating in someone else’s name) and anonymous donations, and violators face serious penalties.

If you knowingly violate the rules, you could face civil penalties up to $20,000 or the full value of the donation. If the donation value exceeds $50,000 in a year, the penalty jumps to $100,000. Criminal violations can result in up to five years in prison, plus being forced to give up any benefit derived from the violation. This bill makes it clear that trying to use donations to skirt ethics rules for access or influence is a high-risk, high-cost gamble.