PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to House Administration
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 5, 2010
Separate Taxpayer Dollars from the Election Process Act of 2010 - Amends the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) to require a financial institution receiving federal funds in connection with assistance under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to: (1) transfer an amount equal to the total unexpended amount of any such funds received before enactment of this Act into a separate, segregated account and maintain them in the segregated account until they are expended; and (2) deposit any such funds received after enactment of this Act in a separate, segregated account and maintain them in the segregated account until they are expended.
Amends the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit the use of federal funds for any expenditure or electioneering communication if such funds are required to be segregated under this Act.
People & committees
Rep. Walz, Timothy J. [D-MN-1] · D–MN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to House Administration
Referred to the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committee on House Administration, 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 Financial Services
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 14, 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.4617 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.4617 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.4617 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.4617 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.