PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H4819)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 30, 1997
Apprehension of Tainted Money Act of 1997 - Amends the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) to require a political committee intending to return any contribution given to the committee in an amount of $500 or more to the person making the contribution (other than a contribution returned within 60 days of receipt by the committee), to transfer the contribution to the Federal Election Commission (Commission), with a request that the Commission return the contribution to the person making the contribution. Directs the Commission to consider the return of any contribution, and any circumstances surrounding such return, in determining whether it has reason to believe that a person has committed a violation of FECA, Federal criminal law, or the Internal Revenue Code. Establishes a single interest-bearing escrow account for contributions transferred. Requires the Commission, upon receiving amounts from a political committee to: (1) deposit the amounts in the account established; and (2) notify the Attorney General of the receipt of the amounts from the political committee. Permits the Commission or the Attorney General to require any contribution deposited in the escrow account to be used as follows: (1) to be applied toward the payment of any fine or penalty imposed against the person making the contribution involved; and (2) if such fine or penalty is imposed, to be applied toward the costs incurred by the Commission or the Attorney General in conducting any investigation of the contribution involved. Provides for the return of a contribution after deposit in the escrow account to the person making the contribution under specified circumstances. (Sec. 3) Directs the Commission and the Attorney General to issue final regulations to carry out the amendments of this Act no later than 30 days after enactment.
People & committees
Rep. Gekas, George W. [R-PA-17] · R–PA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H4819)
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law.
Referred to House Judiciary
Referred to the Committee on House Oversight, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to House Oversight
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H2052-2053)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 21, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1494 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1494 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1494 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1494 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.