Timmer gives both links but time is fleeting so presuming little difference accords with Occam's razor.
Timmer, here.
HF 3739, here.
In reviewing the fairly short but turgid and uduly and elastically vague meanderings of the bill text my anchor was how would this affect a civics class discussion of Stormy Daniels and hush money. I urge readers to review the bill from that identical perspective.
I could find no answer. Is there an ideology of hush money? I believe there is, if you promise and sign a contract to get hands on a hundred and thirty thousand bucks, you should shut up and not suffer seller's remorse. Nobody twisted the lady's arm. The money was green and the election days away and the option to do A or do B was fresh and pertinent.
Now that relies upon centuries of Anglo-American contract law of offer and acceptance and such and if one thing is certain, lawyers can always disagree, hence a multiplicity of outlooks could take an entire semester to explore in the context of Ms. Daniels and Republican bill objectives and accompanying world views. Diversity of opinion must rule, no lockstep thinking would suffice.
But what about global warming? Or "White Men Can't Jump?" How would bill text enhance or curtail educational value of debate, or of asserting a chilling effect on the warming or the jumping questions? I have no answer. A suspicion is the bill authors have none either.