Bill Overview
Title: SCAM PAC Act
Description: This bill generally prohibits a political committee from disbursing funds to an entity that is owned or controlled by an individual, or the immediate family member of an individual, who has authority to carry out specified activities for the committee (e.g., soliciting funds) or is employed by the committee to provide it with professional services. This prohibition does not apply to (1) a political committee that certifies that a majority of the funds disbursed by the committee were for expenses other than administrative costs, fundraising costs, and employee salaries; or (2) an authorized committee of a candidate, a committee of a political party, or a separate segregated fund of a corporation or labor organization. Further, the bill prohibits a political committee from employing these individuals or allowing them to volunteer on its behalf if the related entity accepted funds from a political committee.
Sponsors: Rep. Malinowski, Tom [D-NJ-7]
Target Audience
Population: People involved with political committees
Estimated Size: 5000000
- The bill targets political committees, which are involved in fundraising and political advocacy.
- Such committees exist globally, where democratic processes allow for such organizational structures.
- Political committee regulations mainly impact those employed by or directly interacting with such committees, including committee employees and volunteers.
- Many countries have political committees or their equivalents that fundraise for political causes, but the legislation directly pertains to U.S. law, suggesting a smaller global impact.
Reasoning
- The SCAM PAC Act impacts a niche group within the broader population, specifically those directly involved in political committee operations.
- Given the policy budget, significant outreach or enforcement efforts are likely limited to high-profile PACs rather than all individuals involved with political committees.
- The policy targets a population of around 5 million in the U.S., with varying degrees of involvement and potential exposure to such practices.
- It's important to include perspectives from different roles within PACs to understand the broad impact of this policy, including those unaffected or only minimally impacted.”
Simulated Interviews
PAC Manager (Washington D.C.)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy will deter some of the unethical practices I've seen in the industry.
- It could make fundraising a bit more difficult initially, but in the long run, more transparency will be beneficial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Volunteer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't think this policy will impact my volunteer work significantly.
- The committees I work with are pretty transparent already.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Political Consultant (Austin, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Small PACs like the ones I work with could face challenges due to increased scrutiny.
- This policy might increase operational overheads, affecting our budget for strategic activities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Accountant (Chicago, IL)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is a step towards more ethical operations in PACs.
- Our firm stands to gain more clients ensuring compliance.
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 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Intern (New York, NY)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As an intern, I'm still learning, but increased transparency feels like a positive change.
- I hope it leads to a fairer political environment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
PAC Treasurer (Miami, FL)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've always tried to maintain ethical practices.
- The policy will likely enhance trust in our fundraising efforts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Fundraising Director (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 38 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy may restrict some fundraising channels temporarily.
- It will likely force us to find more creative, transparent fundraising methods.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Political Analyst (Seattle, WA)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Overall, the policy aligns with the ethical standards I endorse.
- It might enhance public trust in PACs and lead to more regulatory developments in the future.
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 |
Digital Campaign Manager (Denver, CO)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might limit some of our ad partnerships but could increase credibility.
- Trust is crucial for successful online campaigns, so this might help in the long run.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Legal Advisor (Houston, TX)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy means more work for me, but it might lead to a positive shift in how PACs operate.
- Increased compliance needs could create job opportunities for legal experts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 2: $11000000 (Low: $9000000, High: $13000000)
Year 3: $11500000 (Low: $9500000, High: $13500000)
Year 5: $12000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $14000000)
Year 10: $12500000 (Low: $10500000, High: $14500000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The effectiveness of the SCAM PAC Act will largely depend on the FEC's capacity to monitor and enforce the new regulations.
- Potential opposition and litigation challenges could slow implementation and increase associated enforcement costs.
- The overall impact on political fundraising, particularly for small- to medium-sized PACs, needs careful consideration.