The Restoring Integrity in Democracy Resolution would amend the Rules of the House to prohibit Members, Delegates, and Resident Commissioners from serving on the boards of for-profit entities. It inserts a new clause into Rule XXIII and renumbers the surrounding clauses to accommodate the change.
The resolution is a straightforward governance reform aimed at reducing conflicts between official duties and private financial interests. Enactment would establish a clear, enforceable standard for outside board service within the House, subject to the procedures and oversight that apply to Rule changes.
At a Glance
What It Does
It inserts new clause 19 into Rule XXIII establishing a blanket prohibition on any Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner serving on the board of directors of a for-profit entity. It also reindexes existing clauses 19–22 to 20–23 to accommodate the new clause.
Who It Affects
Directly affects all Members, Delegates, and Resident Commissioners of the House, and any external for-profit boards engaging with those individuals.
Why It Matters
Sets a clear, enforceable boundary between public duties and private equity or governance roles, reducing the potential for conflicts of interest and enhancing institutional integrity.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill makes a concrete change to how Members of the House can participate in outside governance roles. By adding a new prohibition to Rule XXIII, it prevents Members, Delegates, and Resident Commissioners from serving on for-profit boards.
The change also adjusts the numbering of related clauses to fit the new prohibition. The intent is to make ethics expectations easier to understand and harder to circumvent by relying on informal norms or ambiguous language.
The resolution appears as an internal rule change rather than a new statute, and it would be enforced as part of the House’s existing ethics framework once adopted.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds a new clause to Rule XXIII prohibiting service on for-profit boards by Members, Delegates, and Resident Commissioners.
Existing clauses 19–22 are renumbered to 20–23 to make room for the new prohibition.
The rule applies to any for-profit board, regardless of compensation or role.
There are no explicit carve-outs or exceptions stated in the resolution.
The resolution is a House rule change introduced by Rep. Angela Craig on June 4, 2025 and referred to the House Ethics Committee.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
New prohibition on for-profit board service
The core mechanism is the insertion of new clause 19: “A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not serve on the board of directors of any for-profit entity.” This creates a hard floor for refereeable behavior and aligns private board activity with public accountability expectations.
Renumbering of existing clauses
To fit the new clause, the bill redesignates clauses 19 through 22 as 20 through 23. This preserves the structural integrity of Rule XXIII and avoids ambiguity in cross-references within the rulebook and related House procedures.
Scope of prohibition
The prohibition covers all Members, Delegates, and Resident Commissioners and applies to any for-profit board, without explicit exceptions listed in the text. The practical effect is to bar directorships that could influence official duties, disclosures, or perceived bias.
Enforcement mechanisms
Enforcement would fall under the House’s rules and the Committee on Ethics, consistent with other integrity rules. Violations would be subject to investigation, with potential disciplinary actions under the House rule framework.
Process and immediate effect
As a resolution, this is a procedural change that would take effect if adopted by the House and published as part of the House Rules. It reflects the sponsor’s intent to codify ethical expectations around outside board service.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- House Members who want clear, unambiguous rules reducing personal risk and reputational exposure
- The House Ethics Committee and staff, gaining a clearer standard for enforcement and compliance oversight
- District voters and the public, through strengthened integrity and diminished appearance of conflicts
Who Bears the Cost
- Members who currently serve on or plan to join for-profit boards may need to resign to comply
- For-profit boards that would lose potential or existing directorships held by Members
- House administrative resources allocated to enforce and monitor compliance with the new rule
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether a broad prohibition best protects integrity and trust or whether it unduly restricts Members’ ability to participate in external governance roles that could, in some cases, provide valuable expertise while enabling public accountability through disclosure and oversight.
The amendment offers a straightforward mechanism to reduce conflicts of interest by removing the possibility of private financial influence through for-profit board service. However, the blanket prohibition raises questions about how it interacts with long-standing norms about outside professional engagement and whether any practical carve-outs exist for noncontrolling roles or nonvoting advisory positions.
The resolution does not specify exemptions, which could lead to disputes or inconsistent application as it unfolds within the House’s ethics framework.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.