H.R. 1604 · 105th Congress · enacted
Michigan Indian Land Claims Settlement Act
Became Public Law No: 105-143.
Latest official action 1997-12-15 · Enacted
The bill, briefly
Provides for the division, use, and distribution of specified judgment funds among the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Michigan, Bay Mills Indian Community, Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians of Michigan, Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians of Michigan, and the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians of Michigan pursuant to dockets numbered 18-E, 58, 364, and 18-R before the Indian Claims Commission.
Congressional Research Service · 1997-05-14
Who reported lobbying on this bill?
Amount spent specifically on this bill: not disclosed
The reports below name this bill and disclose an organization’s overall lobbying expenses or a firm’s client income for the period. They can cover many bills and issues. These amounts are not payments to the bill or its politicians.
No matching lobbying report is imported yet. This is not evidence that no lobbying occurred.
2,409 latest lobbying reports imported. Some source imports are still in progress.
Politicians behind the bill
Sponsors and cosponsors from the official source, limited to members currently in office. Campaign amounts are cycle-wide and are not payments for this bill.
No current-officeholder sponsorship match is available. Historical sponsors may have left office.
3 of 3 source cosponsor records retrieved; only current officials and unwithdrawn sponsorships appear.
PAC donors to the listed sponsors
These are all-cycle contributions to the listed sponsors’ and cosponsors’ campaigns. FEC does not attribute them to this bill. A donation plus sponsorship does not establish why a politician acted.
The largest 40 donor totals appear here. Open each politician for their complete, paginated PAC donor list.
What happened after enactment?
Dated agency-reported implementation and uptake measures are shown with their scope. They do not by themselves establish causal success. If no evidence is listed, the outcome is not established.
Measured outcome: not established
Enactment alone does not show whether a law improved its intended outcome. We need a dated evaluation, observed result or verified implementation record before claiming success or failure.