New York Assembly Bill A00373

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/8/25
• Refer: 1/8/25
• Refer: 1/7/26

Caption

Establishes the reputational insight and oversight transparency act; restricts investments by certain firms that receive investments from any public retirement system or pension funds.

Summary

This bill would create the “Reputational Insight and Oversight Transparency Act,” or “RIOT Act,” and add a new section to the Retirement and Social Security Law governing investments made by the New York State Common Retirement Fund and similar public pension funds. The bill is framed around concerns that, after the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, some firms and political groups that supported efforts to overturn the presidential election received backing from private equity firms and large corporations. Based on those findings, the bill seeks to incorporate reputational risk into public pension investment decisions. Under the bill, firms in which a public retirement fund invests would be barred from making direct corporate contributions to super PACs, federal tax-exempt political organizations under Internal Revenue Code section 527, and 501(c)(4) organizations. The bill would also prohibit senior executives at those firms from making individual contributions above $10,000 to those same entities. Executives making smaller contributions would have to disclose them to the relevant oversight office, such as the state comptroller, the New York City comptroller, or the Department of Audit and Control, depending on which entity oversees the fund.

Impact

The bill would amend the Retirement and Social Security Law by adding a new section 177-f, creating new investment-related conditions for firms that receive public pension money. It would affect companies seeking or maintaining investment relationships with New York public retirement systems, as well as senior executives of those firms, by limiting certain political spending and requiring disclosure of some contributions. In practical terms, it would give pension fund overseers a new basis to screen or restrict investments based on political activity and reputational concerns.

Sentiment

No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative debate or recorded support/opposition in the materials supplied. The bill text itself shows a clear policy preference for using pension investment power to discourage corporate political spending tied to election-related controversies. Overall, the framing suggests a reform-oriented, accountability-focused approach rather than a neutral technical change.

Contention

The main points of contention likely concern whether a public pension fund should use investment policy to regulate corporate political activity, and whether the bill’s restrictions could be seen as overreaching or as a form of compelled disclosure. Supporters would likely emphasize reputational risk, fiduciary protection, and accountability for firms backing controversial political efforts. Opponents would likely focus on free-speech and association concerns, the breadth of the contribution limits, and the possibility that the measure could discourage investment or create administrative burdens for pension fund managers and covered firms.