Bill Overview
Title: Lobbyist Accountability Act
Description: This bill subjects allegations by legislative branch employees that a lobbyist has engaged in sexual harassment or sexual assault to the same administrative and judicial dispute resolution process for allegations of sexual harassment or sexual assault that applies to legislative offices.
Sponsors: Rep. Gaetz, Matt [R-FL-1]
Target Audience
Population: People working in and around legislative branches affected by lobbyist interactions
Estimated Size: 3000000
- The bill specifically addresses the process for handling allegations of sexual harassment or sexual assault involving lobbyists.
- Legislative branch employees who might file such allegations are directly affected.
- Lobbyists who may be accused of sexual harassment or assault are directly impacted by the bill's provisions.
- The administrative and judicial systems handling these cases are involved, impacting their operations.
- Potential victims and accused parties will have their cases addressed under this new standardized process.
Reasoning
- Given the policy budget constraints, approximately $1,000,000 USD in the first year, and the expansive reach designed at both state and federal legislative levels, the scope of the policy implementation will likely be focused on immediate procedural enhancements rather than large-scale infrastructure or support systems.
- The total population potentially affected by this policy includes 3,000,000 at various interaction levels with lobbyists, but direct immediate impact like filing and resolving cases will focus more on those closest to legislative operations – potentially a smaller subset of the larger impacted community.
- Lobbyists themselves, as primary subjects of this accountability enhancement, number around 10,000 registered (with unregistered extras), making them a crucial part of the directly impacted group for better or worse outcomes depending on their conduct.
- Given the nature of allegations' sensitivity, the administrative and judicial procedures will likely undergo enhanced scrutiny initially resultant of the additional funding and focus, influencing primarily the legislative employees and direct interactions more than the broader affected category.
- Aspects like legislative employees' sense of safety and efficacy in workplace reporting may evolve as systemic protections are standardized, though exact wellbeing market shifts for all is unpredictable and likely variable depending on individual exposure or experiences.
Simulated Interviews
Legislative Analyst (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe the policy is overdue. It will potentially give me and my colleagues more peace of mind when dealing with persistent lobbyists.
- Initially, the new processes may seem cumbersome, but they bring needed standardization and fairness.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Lobbyist (Sacramento, CA)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There's concern this imposes more on our interactions, potentially making routine work engagements feel overly scrutinized.
- Yet, it does heighten awareness to conduct better personally and professionally.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Judicial Mediator (Springfield, IL)
Age: 53 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy equips the judiciary with clearer pathways for resolution, which is essential to just outcomes.
- My workload might increase, but this policy should reduce cases' complexity through administrative streamlining.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Legislative Intern (Austin, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Feels supportive knowing these processes are formalized, reducing risk of exploitation or misunderstanding early in my career.
- It might deter some lobbying but establishes clear boundary expectations.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
HR Manager, Legislative Office (New York, NY)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Implementing this policy is resource-intensive for HR departments, requiring substantial follow-up.
- Yet, it offers clearer guidance and expectations which can lead to a healthier work environment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
Unregistered Lobbyist (Miami, FL)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I expect this will add new layers of bureaucracy, inadvertently affecting my operational freedoms adversely.
- However, it will project lobbying practices more transparently, hopefully combating negative stereotypes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
Legal Consultant (Denver, CO)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy represents a step in aligning lobbying with existing HR practices rather than special treatment.
- The immediate adoption by firms may be slow, but ultimately safeguards everyone.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Legislative Assistant (Raleigh, NC)
Age: 26 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This gives my role and actions more legitimacy against unchecked lobbyist behavior, raising trust levels.
- But, I worry about excess friction in our workplace balance.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Retired Legislative Worker (Madison, WI)
Age: 61 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act could be the needed pressure for architecture integrity in legislative practices post my career span.
- Hopeful for future generations to institutionalize stronger legislator-lobbyist dynamics.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
NGO Lobby Coordinator (Seattle, WA)
Age: 44 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy clarity nationwide can only help prevent conflicts and promote consistency on ethical lines.
- Some rural NGOs might need assistance in integrating new procedures smoothly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $1500000)
Year 2: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $1500000)
Year 3: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $1500000)
Year 5: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $1500000)
Year 10: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $1500000)
Year 100: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $1500000)
Key Considerations
- The policy affects internal administrative processes within legislative branches and associated lobbyists, not public-facing or revenue-generating aspects.
- Costs associated with training, communication, and procedural implementation are a primary budgetary concern.
- Indirect savings might come from improved case handling efficiency and reduced legal inconsistencies.