Bill Overview
Title: Transparency in Government Officials Trading Act
Description: This bill advances the deadline for certain public employees and officials who must file a report of a securities transaction from 30 days after receiving notification of the transaction to within 24 hours after conducting the transaction. The bill requires that these reports be filed electronically. The bill also sets a penalty for failing to file a timely report—a fee in the amount of the transaction for which a report was not timely filed. Under existing law, the securities transaction reporting requirement applies to the President, Vice President, Members of Congress, and certain executive and legislative branch officers and employees.
Sponsors: Rep. Gibbs, Bob [R-OH-7]
Target Audience
Population: People in government positions required to report securities transactions
Estimated Size: 20000
- The bill affects government officials and employees who are required to report securities transactions.
- The pre-existing law identifies that the President, Vice President, Members of Congress, and specific other executive and legislative personnel must file reports on securities transactions.
- By requiring transactions to be reported within 24 hours instead of 30 days, a significant increase in compliance is necessitated for these individuals.
- Since the requirement applies only to U.S. government officials and employees, the impact is confined to this group, estimated with the number of people in these roles.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily affects government officials who are required to report securities transactions, an estimated group of 20,000 people.
- Those not in government roles will have minimal direct impact from this policy, but may experience indirect effects through increased transparency.
- The budget suggests a significant administrative cost for compliance monitoring and execution of penalties.
- Promotion of transparency might improve public trust, indirectly affecting wellbeing by fostering a sense of accountability.
- Officials with frequent transactions may experience stress or burden with the 24-hour requirement, potentially impacting their wellbeing negatively.
- Individuals with fewer transactions may not see much change in their day-to-day activities.
- The focus on electronic filing indicates a push towards modernization and efficiency within government processes.
Simulated Interviews
Member of Congress (Washington D.C.)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I understand the need for transparency, but the 24-hour requirement is quite burdensome.
- There's a possibility of errors under such tight deadlines, which could lead to unintended penalties.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Federal Judge (New York)
Age: 43 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm in favor of the change; it upholds our ethical standards.
- Most of my colleagues support measures that enhance transparency to preserve trust.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
State Governor (Texas)
Age: 61 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy introduces unnecessary bureaucratic pressure.
- While transparency is good, this is an unrealistic and poorly thought-out requirement.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Congressional Staffer (California)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This reform is much needed to keep officials accountable.
- The electronic reporting system will be a major update that’s beneficial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Executive Branch Employee (Florida)
Age: 58 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about privacy and overreach.
- This could discourage qualified individuals from serving in government roles.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Legislative Branch Staffer (Illinois)
Age: 46 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support the initiative, but implementation seems rushed.
- Technological adjustments may make it smoother in the long run.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Assistant in Executive Office (Virginia)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our office should have no trouble adhering to this requirement.
- Such transparency measures strengthen democracy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
President of a lobbying firm (Ohio)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The 24-hour filing is impractical for those constantly trading.
- Politicians need space to focus on governance, not compliance policing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Senate Aide (Washington D.C.)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This measure is great for transparency, albeit challenging at first.
- Long-term effects on public confidence could be considerable.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Junior Executive at a Federal Agency (Minnesota)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see this as a turning point for compliance culture.
- Though there might be growing pains, the ultimate goal justifies the means.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $8000000)
Year 2: $5200000 (Low: $3200000, High: $8200000)
Year 3: $5400000 (Low: $3400000, High: $8400000)
Year 5: $5800000 (Low: $3800000, High: $8800000)
Year 10: $6400000 (Low: $4400000, High: $9400000)
Year 100: $8000000 (Low: $6000000, High: $11000000)
Key Considerations
- The technological infrastructure of agencies needs to handle real-time reporting efficiently.
- There is a need for clear guidelines and training for officials about the new requirements.
- Ensuring reasonable timelines and capacities so not to overly burden the reporting individuals with technical issues.
- Balance of enforcement cost versus expected savings and revenues from penalties needs consideration.