I 
119TH CONGRESS 
1ST SESSION H. R. 2692 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to end the tax subsidy for 
employer efforts to influence their workers’ exercise of their rights around 
labor organizations and engaging in collective action. 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
APRIL 7, 2025 
Mr. NORCROSS (for himself, Mr. BOYLE of Pennsylvania, Ms. CHU, Mr. 
SMITH of Washington, Mr. GREEN of Texas, Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ, Ms. 
ADAMS, Ms. CRAIG, Mrs. MCCLAIN DELANEY, Ms. BALINT, Ms. MCCOL-
LUM, Mr. FOSTER, Mr. SHERMAN, Mr. SCHNEIDER, Ms. PINGREE, Mr. 
DELUZIO, Ms. HOULAHAN, Mr. GARCI´A of Illinois, Mr. GOLDMAN of New 
York, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. SOTO, Mrs. DINGELL, Ms. WASSERMAN 
SCHULTZ, Mrs. RAMIREZ, Ms. DEGETTE, Ms. TITUS, Mr. EVANS of 
Pennsylvania, Ms. NORTON, Mr. CLEAVER, Mrs. SYKES, Mr. SORENSEN, 
Mr. MRVAN, Mr. PALLONE, Ms. WILSON of Florida, Mr. LATIMER, Mr. 
CONNOLLY, Mr. CISNEROS, Ms. MENG, Mr. CASAR, Ms. STEVENS, Mr. 
JOHNSON of Georgia, Mr. CUELLAR, Mr. CONAWAY, Ms. OMAR, Mrs. 
HAYES, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. GOLDEN of Maine, Mr. NADLER, Ms. 
TOKUDA, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. GOMEZ, Mr. PANETTA, Mr. NEGUSE, Mr. 
LARSON
of 
Connecticut, 
Mr. 
GARAMENDI, 
Mr. 
MANNION, 
Mr. 
OLSZEWSKI, Mr. GOTTHEIMER, Mrs. BEATTY, Ms. BROWNLEY, Ms. MOR-
RISON, Mr. MULLIN, Ms. SCHRIER, Ms. MCDONALD RIVET, Mr. MFUME, 
Mrs. MCIVER, Ms. FRIEDMAN, Ms. UNDERWOOD, Ms. SA´NCHEZ, Mrs. 
FLETCHER, Mr. DOGGETT, Ms. LOIS FRANKEL of Florida, Mrs. TRAHAN, 
Mrs. MCBATH, Ms. DEAN of Pennsylvania, Mr. VEASEY, Ms. KAPTUR, 
Mr. DESAULNIER, Mr. POCAN, Mr. TAKANO, Ms. SCANLON, Ms. DEX-
TER, Ms. WATERS, Mr. FROST, Ms. STANSBURY, Mr. QUIGLEY, Ms. 
SHERRILL, Mr. MCGARVEY, Ms. BARRAGA´N, Ms. WILLIAMS of Georgia, 
Ms. BUDZINSKI, Ms. VELA´ZQUEZ, Mr. RYAN, Mr. TONKO, Ms. JAYAPAL, 
Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI, Ms. TLAIB, Mr. LARSEN of Washington, Mr. 
TORRES of New York, Mr. KHANNA, Mr. GARCIA of California, Mr. 
MENENDEZ, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. BISHOP, Ms. ELFRETH, Ms. MCBRIDE, 
Mr. CASTEN, Mr. MAGAZINER, Mr. MOULTON, Ms. DAVIDS of Kansas, 
Ms. BROWN, Mr. THANEDAR, Mr. LYNCH, Mr. HORSFORD, Ms. LEE of 
Pennsylvania, Ms. DELBENE, Ms. BONAMICI, Ms. GARCIA of Texas, Mr. 
LIEU, Mr. SUOZZI, Mr. CARTER of Louisiana, Ms. HOYLE of Oregon, Ms. 
ANSARI, Ms. CLARKE of New York, Mr. KENNEDY of New York, and Mr. 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
21:53 Apr 15, 2025
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6652
E:\BILLS\H2692.IH
H2692
kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
CROW) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 
on Ways and Means 
A BILL 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to end the 
tax subsidy for employer efforts to influence their work-
ers’ exercise of their rights around labor organizations 
and engaging in collective action. 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘No Tax Breaks for 
Union Busting (NTBUB) Act’’. 
SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 
Congress makes the following findings: 
(1) The National Labor Relations Act (29 
U.S.C. 151 et seq.) declares that it is the right of 
employees to form, join, or assist labor organiza-
tions. 
(2) The National Labor Relations Act further 
declares that it is ‘‘the policy of the United States 
to eliminate the causes of certain substantial ob-
structions to the free flow of commerce and to miti-
gate and eliminate these obstructions when they 
have occurred by encouraging the practice and pro-
cedure of collective bargaining and by protecting the 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
21:53 Apr 15, 2025
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2692.IH
H2692
kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
exercise by workers of full freedom of association, 
self-organization, and designation of representatives 
of their own choosing . . .’’. 
(3) Despite Congress’ intention to give workers 
full agency in these matters, many employers regu-
larly choose to involve themselves, lawfully or unlaw-
fully, in the decisions of their employees about 
whether to avail themselves of their rights under the 
National Labor Relations Act and the Railway 
Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 151 et seq.). 
(4) Employers frequently violate labor laws 
around organizing and collective action. The Eco-
nomic Policy Institute finds that in approximately 4 
of 10 labor organization elections in 2016–2017 em-
ployers were charged with committing an unfair 
labor practice. Among larger bargaining units of 61 
employees or more, over 54 percent of elections have 
an unfair labor practice charge. 
(5) In practice, these unfair labor practices 
often include charges such as employees being ille-
gally fired for labor organization activity, refusal to 
bargain in good faith with labor organizations, or co-
ercion and intimidation. Employers also frequently 
use captive audience meetings, workplace surveil-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
21:53 Apr 15, 2025
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2692.IH
H2692
kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
lance, and other lawful or unlawful tactics to sway 
labor organization elections. 
(6) Whether or not there are charges of unlaw-
ful behavior, employers spend millions of dollars to 
sway the opinions of their employees with respect to 
whether or how to exercise their rights under the 
National Labor Relations Act and the Railway 
Labor Act. According to the Economic Policy Insti-
tute, companies spent $340,000,000 yearly on out-
side consultants to sway their workers’ opinions 
about labor organization activities. This and other 
spending interferes with the United States goal of 
‘‘encouraging the practice and procedure of collective 
bargaining’’. 
(7) The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 has 
long recognized that spending by businesses with the 
purpose of influencing the general public with re-
spect to elections, while it may be lawful, is not tax 
deductible. Congress should extend that principle to 
spending done by employers to influence workers’ 
elections and collective bargaining decisions. These 
free choices to exercise the rights to engage in collec-
tive bargaining, labor organization representation, 
and other lawful collective activities should be made 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
21:53 Apr 15, 2025
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2692.IH
H2692
kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
without taxpayer subsidies of undue outside influ-
ence from employers. 
SEC. 3. DENIAL OF DEDUCTION FOR ATTEMPTING TO IN-
FLUENCE EMPLOYEES WITH RESPECT TO 
LABOR ORGANIZATIONS OR LABOR ORGANI-
ZATION ACTIVITIES. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 162(e)(1) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘or’’ at the 
end of subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end 
of subparagraph (D) and inserting ‘‘, or’’, and by adding 
at the end the following new subparagraph: 
‘‘(E) any attempt to influence the tax-
payer’s employees with respect to labor organi-
zations or labor organization activities, includ-
ing with respect to the opinion of such employ-
ees regarding such organizations or activities.’’. 
(b) LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; LABOR ORGANIZATION 
ACTIVITIES DEFINED.—Section 162(e) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating para-
graph (6) as paragraph (7) and by inserting after para-
graph (5) the following new paragraph: 
‘‘(6) LABOR ORGANIZATIONS AND LABOR ORGA-
NIZATION ACTIVITY DEFINED.—For purposes of this 
subsection— 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
21:53 Apr 15, 2025
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2692.IH
H2692
kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
‘‘(A) LABOR
ORGANIZATION.—The term 
‘labor organization’ has the meaning given such 
term in section 3 of the Labor-Management Re-
porting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (29 U.S.C. 
402). 
‘‘(B) LABOR ORGANIZATION ACTIVITY.— 
‘‘(i) IN
GENERAL.—The term ‘labor 
organization activity’ means labor organi-
zation elections, labor disputes, collective 
actions, and such other related activities 
identified by the Secretary. 
‘‘(ii) OTHER TERMS.—For purposes of 
clause (i)— 
‘‘(I) COLLECTIVE
ACTION.—The 
term ‘collective action’ means any ac-
tion, including collective bargaining, 
described in section 7 of the National 
Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 157) 
or any action that is a right of em-
ployees or labor organizations under 
the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 
151 et seq.). 
‘‘(II) 
LABOR
DISPUTE.—The 
term ‘labor dispute’ has the meaning 
given such term under section 3 of the 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
21:53 Apr 15, 2025
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2692.IH
H2692
kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB