Like Countable?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H.R. 79

Should it be Easier for Startups to Pitch Their Plans to Angel Investors?

Argument in favor

For startups to grow and create jobs they need access to capital early in the process. This bill would accomplish that by making it easier for them to connect with investors through a commonsense, bipartisan reform.

Benjamin's Opinion
···
01/09/2017
I think the biggest thing is making conduits for funding more well known and transparent. Developments of these types shouldn't only be limited to high cost of living areas of the country, easier access and easier ability to enter the pipeline for potential funding could help activate economic development in many more corners of our country.
Like (56)
Follow
Share
jameslj's Opinion
···
01/10/2017
Good start. Long-term this entire regulation should be abolished.
Like (11)
Follow
Share
Craig's Opinion
···
01/11/2017
Small businesses are a strong part of our nation and can use all the help they can get
Like (10)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

This bill muddies the waters surrounding the SEC’s definition of accredited investors, and as a result it diminishes important investor protections. Plus the SEC already allows an exemption for certain pitch events.

Gil's Opinion
···
01/10/2017
There is no clear justification for or against this proposed legislation, either from the perspectives of the investor, the entrepreneur, or the general public. The problem to be solved is not clearly identified, described or quantified. It is hard to asses the impact the proposed legislation would have on the problem if it exist.
Like (75)
Follow
Share
CPMonroe's Opinion
···
01/09/2017
There are already rules - and exemptions - for Angel Investors. Loosening regulations concerning any type of investments, especially when ROI's (returns on investments) are involved, serves to bypass the SEC & IRS. It's bad enough that unregulated monies flow into our political process & news organizations. Do you want US businesses taken over by foreign interests as well?
Like (22)
Follow
Share
Docheatherb's Opinion
···
01/12/2017
I feel like the "Main Street Growth" tag is a bit of a gimmick here. The law specifies that this is for companies with market capitalization of $1B or less in the small business trends reference listed. This isn't a bill designed to help someone start a chimney cleaning business or a new dry cleaning shop in town. It feels more like a loophole bill. I would agree that startups that have the potential to create jobs should be supported, but startups by nature are risky so if the risk hasn't been fully disclosed to investors and proper due diligence isn't being pursued and the start up fails, who does that help?
Like (17)
Follow
Share

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
      senate Committees
      Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
  • The house Passed January 10th, 2017
    Roll Call Vote 344 Yea / 73 Nay
      house Committees
      Committee on Financial Services
    IntroducedJanuary 3rd, 2017

Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!

Bill Activity

  • action
    Introduced in House
  • referral
    Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
  • action
    Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 33 Reported to House. The resolution provides for both bills to be considered under a structured rule for one hour of general debate. The resolution also provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions on both H.R. 5 and H.R. 79.
  • action
    Rule H. Res. 33 passed House.
  • action
    Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 33.
  • action
    The resolution provides for both bills to be considered under a structured rule for one hour of general debate. The resolution also provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions on both H.R. 5 and H.R. 79.
  • action
    House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union pursuant to H. Res. 33 and Rule XVIII.
  • action
    The Speaker designated the Honorable Mike Bost to act as Chairman of the Committee.
  • action
    GENERAL DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with one hour of general debate on H.R. 79.
  • action
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 33, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Velazquez Part B amendment No. 1.
  • action
    POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Velazquez amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote announced that the noes had prevailed. Ms. Velazquez demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until a time to be announced.
  • action
    DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 33, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Clay Part B amendment No. 2.
  • action
    POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Clay amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Clay demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until a time to be announced.
  • action
    Mr. Huizenga moved that the Committee rise.
  • action
    On motion that the Committee rise Agreed to by voice vote.
  • action
    Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union rises leaving H.R. 79 as unfinished business.
  • action
    Considered as unfinished business.
  • action
    The House resolved into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for further consideration.
  • action
    The House rose from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to report H.R. 79.
  • action
    The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
  • vote
    On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 344 - 73 (Roll no. 31).
  • action
    Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
  • referral
    Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
      senate Committees
      Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
  • The house Passed January 10th, 2017
    Roll Call Vote 344 Yea / 73 Nay
      house Committees
      Committee on Financial Services
    IntroducedJanuary 3rd, 2017

Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!
    I think the biggest thing is making conduits for funding more well known and transparent. Developments of these types shouldn't only be limited to high cost of living areas of the country, easier access and easier ability to enter the pipeline for potential funding could help activate economic development in many more corners of our country.
    Like (56)
    Follow
    Share
    There is no clear justification for or against this proposed legislation, either from the perspectives of the investor, the entrepreneur, or the general public. The problem to be solved is not clearly identified, described or quantified. It is hard to asses the impact the proposed legislation would have on the problem if it exist.
    Like (75)
    Follow
    Share
    There are already rules - and exemptions - for Angel Investors. Loosening regulations concerning any type of investments, especially when ROI's (returns on investments) are involved, serves to bypass the SEC & IRS. It's bad enough that unregulated monies flow into our political process & news organizations. Do you want US businesses taken over by foreign interests as well?
    Like (22)
    Follow
    Share
    I feel like the "Main Street Growth" tag is a bit of a gimmick here. The law specifies that this is for companies with market capitalization of $1B or less in the small business trends reference listed. This isn't a bill designed to help someone start a chimney cleaning business or a new dry cleaning shop in town. It feels more like a loophole bill. I would agree that startups that have the potential to create jobs should be supported, but startups by nature are risky so if the risk hasn't been fully disclosed to investors and proper due diligence isn't being pursued and the start up fails, who does that help?
    Like (17)
    Follow
    Share
    Good start. Long-term this entire regulation should be abolished.
    Like (11)
    Follow
    Share
    Small businesses are a strong part of our nation and can use all the help they can get
    Like (10)
    Follow
    Share
    One of the major concerns of this bill is protections for the investor, and I feel as if some of that concern is misplaced. Many people who invest in startups already have large amounts of disposable income so I see little need to worry too much about them. I'd much rather make it easier for more small businesses to compete with larger corporations who can already leverage their outside investors.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    I work at a startup myself and understand the challenges many startups face. Additionally, it makes it more fair for people who may not be considered "accredited" investors to participate in opportunities that would previously be closed off to them.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    The current regime works very well. No need to fix what isn't broken, especially when this could compromise the prophylactic, shareholder-protective effect of Regulation D.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Anything that creates jobs that creates value for customers should not have restrictions; this even less so. Getting started is the hardest part; let those willing to risk their funds on friends and family to do so.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Free up the opportunities. Free up communication between start-ups and potential investors. If the best argument against this is "investor protection," to that I say that it's not your job to protect me from myself. If there is a problem with the ability of start-ups and investors to get connected and to communicate, I'd love to try solving it with more freedom instead of less.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    This should not be your focus right now please vote no on this bill.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    I don't agree with the passing of this bill
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    In principle, democratizing financial opportunity is a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, as written, this also opens the door for significant fraud. Companies that would like to raise capital from a widened pool of angels (aka less experienced investors & people with less disposable income) should also be held to higher disclosure standards. That way, a new class of investors are given the information needed to make an informed decision.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    Will help entrepreneurs trying to get a start in business.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    We need more entrepreneurs if these start up business are restricted then the door needs to be opened and access available. Small business have it rough, I'm for helping the small business.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    Businesses should be able to arrange for funding in whatever manner facilitates their interests legally.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    This bill needs better defined mechanisms, and seems like it could easily be misapplied to circumvent SEC rules.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    Good plan
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    Consumer protection is important, so I am against this as written, but not in spirit. I am a big fan of another change where the SEC's opened up crowdsourcing for equity. It will probably need tweaking as time goes on, because it will be hard to open this door without letting fraud in with it which is why it was so hard to pass in the first place. However, if I can put in 25$ to buy a share of stock in a mom and pop startup bakery for example, it could be the biggest boom to small business growth the world has ever seen in the long term perspective.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE