HR-10659-119
Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Sponsored by Madeleine Dean (D-PA)
What it does
The bill would require that campaign work done by a person receiving Social Security disability benefits (SSDI or SSI), and any pay they receive for it, be disregarded when deciding whether they qualify for benefits and how much they get. This would apply to any federal program and to any state or local program paid for at least partly with federal funds. "Campaign work" means work done as a candidate for federal, state, or local elected office.
Who benefits
People who receive SSDI or SSI because of a disability and who run for federal, state, or local office, who could keep benefits such as cash assistance, Medicaid, or housing aid while campaigning. Voters in districts where disabled candidates might be more able to run. Disability advocacy groups seeking broader political representation for people with disabilities.
Who is hurt
Federal, state, and local benefit agencies that would need to change how they screen income and work activity, which may add administrative costs. Taxpayers and program budgets, which may pay modestly more in benefits to candidates who would otherwise lose them. Other benefit recipients who work in non-campaign jobs and get no similar exclusion. Program integrity officials who may find it harder to distinguish campaign work from other earnings.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that current benefit rules can force disabled people to choose between health coverage and running for office, because campaign work or pay may count as income or evidence of work capacity. They contend that disregarding it removes a financial barrier to candidacy, and that the small number of people affected means a modest cost and a meaningful gain for democratic representation.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill creates a special income exclusion for one category of activity, which complicates benefit rules and may invite uneven treatment of other kinds of unpaid or low-paid work. They contend that the definition of campaign work is broad and that carving it out of eligibility tests could be hard to administer and monitor across many federal, state, and local programs.
Constitutional context
Congress's power to set conditions on federal spending (Art. I, §8, cl. 1) supports defining how income counts in federal benefit programs, and the Supremacy Clause lets it direct how federally funded state programs treat income. South Dakota v. Dole (1987) upheld conditions on federal funds, and NFIB v. Sebelius (2012) limits coercive conditions, though this bill adds no new funding conditions beyond income counting rules.
Checks and balances
Congress would set the income-counting rule, which the Social Security Administration and federal, state, and local benefit agencies would apply, with courts available to review disputes over eligibility decisions.
Historical precedent
Existing law already excludes certain income and work activity from benefit calculations, such as the Social Security work incentive provisions and the Ticket to Work program, but none specifically cover campaign work by candidates.