HR-10032-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Joseph Morelle (D-NY)
What it does
This bill would require recipients of presidential pardons, commutations, reprieves, and other forms of executive clemency to file financial disclosure reports with the Attorney General identifying any payments or transfers of value of $10,000 or more made to the President, the President's family members, or entities connected to the President — covering a window starting one year before the President took office through four years after clemency was granted. It would also explicitly add the President, Vice President, and presidential candidates to the federal bribery statute, and would define a pardon or commutation itself as "anything of value" under that statute. Finally, it would extend the statute of limitations for bribery offenses related to executive clemency from five years to ten years.
Who benefits
Ordinary clemency petitioners who go through the formal Department of Justice review process and who may benefit if the pardon process becomes more transparent and merit-based. Victims of crimes committed by pardoned individuals, who may gain visibility into financial relationships surrounding clemency decisions. Journalists, watchdog organizations, and the general public who would gain access to a searchable public database of clemency-related financial disclosures. Federal prosecutors, who would gain a longer window to investigate and charge bribery related to clemency. Competing businesses or individuals harmed by pardoned white-collar offenders whose restitution obligations were erased.
Who is hurt
Recipients of executive clemency — including those pardoned for non-corrupt reasons — who would face new mandatory disclosure obligations, civil penalties up to $50,000 per violation, and potential criminal liability of up to five years in prison for non-compliance. Attorneys who represent clemency seekers and whose fees could be subject to disclosure scrutiny, even with the bona fide legal services exemption. The President and the executive branch broadly, whose constitutional clemency authority would face new statutory constraints and oversight. Future presidents of either party, who would be subject to the same disclosure and bribery framework. Individuals pardoned for politically motivated or controversial reasons who may face public scrutiny through mandatory disclosures.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the pardon power is one of the least checked authorities in the Constitution, and that transparency requirements do not eliminate the power — they simply create a public record of financial relationships surrounding its use. They contend that existing federal bribery law (18 U.S.C. § 201) has never been applied to the President, creating a gap that allows corrupt clemency arrangements to go unpunished as long as the President is the recipient. They further argue that the bill targets private actors — clemency seekers and intermediaries — not the President directly, and that Congress has clear authority to regulate bribery and corruption by private citizens regardless of presidential immunity under Trump v. United States (2024).
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the pardon power is explicitly vested in the President alone under Article II, Section 2, and that Congress cannot use disclosure mandates or bribery statutes to effectively condition or chill its exercise — a concern reinforced by the Supreme Court's recognition of broad presidential immunity for core constitutional acts in Trump v. United States (2024). They contend that defining a pardon itself as "anything of value" under the bribery statute is constitutionally novel and untested, and could expose future presidents and clemency recipients to politically motivated prosecutions. They further argue that the bill's findings section is explicitly partisan, targeting a named sitting president, which undermines its legitimacy as a neutral legal framework applicable to all future administrations.
Constitutional context
The pardon power is granted exclusively to the President under Article II, Section 2. The bill's findings section explicitly references Trump v. United States (2024), which held that presidents have absolute immunity for core constitutional acts, while arguing that immunity does not extend to private individuals who offer value to obtain clemency. The bill's expansion of the federal bribery statute to cover the President and to define pardons as "anything of value" raises unresolved questions about whether Congress can indirectly regulate the exercise of an Article II power by criminalizing the conduct of private parties surrounding it.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (the President) would lose some practical freedom in exercising the pardon power, as clemency recipients would face disclosure obligations and potential bribery liability; the legislative branch gains oversight authority, and the Attorney General — an executive branch official — would administer and enforce the disclosure regime, creating a potential intra-branch tension.
Historical precedent
No directly analogous federal statute has previously imposed financial disclosure requirements on pardon recipients or explicitly defined a presidential pardon as "anything of value" under the federal bribery statute; the bill represents a novel legislative approach to clemency oversight.