Bill Overview
Title: Stop Funding Rioters Act
Description: This bill makes a person convicted of an offense relating to the assault of a law enforcement officer or a person convicted of a felony in connection with a riot that results in the destruction of a small business ineligible for any assistance or program administered by the Small Business Administration.
Sponsors: Rep. Van Duyne, Beth [R-TX-24]
Target Audience
Population: individuals convicted of riot-related felonies resulting in small business destruction
Estimated Size: 50000
- Individuals convicted of assaulting law enforcement officers.
- Individuals convicted of felonies connected to riots resulting in small business destruction.
- The U.S. Small Business Administration programs typically give support to small businesses or those engaging in entrepreneurial efforts in the U.S.
- Assault on a law enforcement officer during a riot is already a criminal offense; this bill adds financial repercussions via SBA assistance ineligibility.
Reasoning
- The individuals most impacted by this policy would be those few who have been convicted of riot-related offenses or felony assaults against law enforcement, as these convictions would make them ineligible for SBA assistance.
- There are likely many who think they may be affected but are not, given the relatively low likelihood of being convicted of these specific offenses.
- The policy aims to deter participation in riots by increasing the consequences but does not directly impact individuals outside this context.
- Support for impacted groups through other channels may shift, as the policy does not reduce the need for financial assistance; it changes the eligibility condition.
- The policy's budget is relatively small considering the total number of business-related grants and loans typically processed by the SBA; hence, its financial effect is tailored towards reducing program misuse rather than overall expenditure.
Simulated Interviews
Freelance Journalist (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the policy seems strict, but I understand its intentions to stop violent riots.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Small Business Owner (Portland, OR)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This adds another layer of difficulty for small business recovery.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 4 |
Software Developer (Austin, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's important to protect businesses, but I worry about how broad definitions can sometimes misapply policies.
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 | 7 | 7 |
Retired (Chicago, IL)
Age: 56 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm indifferent, as I am not seeking business assistance.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Construction Worker (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Such measures are alright as long as they truly target only the guilty parties.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Graduate Student (Seattle, WA)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might suppress freedom to protest by increasing fear of financial repercussions.
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 | 7 | 7 |
Public Defender (New York, NY)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will add pressure on defendants who are already struggling.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Tech Startup Founder (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies that mitigate risk to the system are important, but must be balanced with fairness.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Police Officer (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy should deter dangerous riots, which makes my job safer.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Nonprofit Executive Director (Denver, CO)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this policy doesn't discourage engagement with genuine social causes.
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 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $8000000)
Year 2: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $8000000)
Year 3: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $8000000)
Year 5: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $8000000)
Year 10: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $8000000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $8000000)
Key Considerations
- The deterrence factor might lead to social benefits not directly quantifiable but relevant to the policy's success.
- Low likelihood of significant economic disruption given the small percentage of ineligible individuals in business context.