Tina Peters’ situation has become a cause celebre in the election conspiracy movement.

The House unanimously voted 426-0 Wednesday night to claw back language in last week’s government funding bill that could award some GOP senators hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages for having their phone records unknowingly obtained by former special counsel Jack Smith. The language, which was quietly slipped into the shutdown-ending package last week by Senate Majority Leader John Thune, drove bipartisan outrage in the House. Even outspoken critics of Smith — including House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), who is leading an investigation into the Biden-era probe — supported the effort to repeal a politically toxic measure that was quickly branded as a taxpayer-funded windfall for a select few. “That policy, in my opinion — in the opinion I think of all the members of this institution — is unacceptable,” said House Administration Committee chair Bryan Steil (R-Wis.), during floor debate. “No one should be able to enrich themselves because the federal government wronged them, no elected official should be able to.” The provision would allow senators to sue the federal government for $500,000 or more if their electronic data was subpoenaed without proper notification. But there are concerns over the language’s retroactivity — which would extend protections to at least eight Republican senators whose records were obtained as part of Smith’s investigation into Donald Trump’s attempts to subvert the 2020 election results. There are no guarantees the bill to repeal the language will get a vote in the Senate. The revelations that Smith obtained lawmakers’ private data has enraged Republican senators, who argue his probe amounted to a politicization of the Justice Department. But Smith’s subpoena was narrowly tailored for data around the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, and investigators did not receive the contents of their calls. Several GOP lawmakers whose phone data was subpoenaed have distanced themselves from the provision. But it may be too late. Thune hasn’t shown any interest in bringing the bill to the Senate floor, even amid the pushback from his members over his quiet decision to include it in the funding package. Thune told reporters Wednesday that additional conversations are necessary to reach a consensus about how to change the provision. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who has indicated he intends to sue for a significant monetary reward, has proposed expanding who can sue under the legislative language.