Bill Overview
Title: Bipartisan Ban on Congressional Stock Ownership Act of 2022
Description: This bill prohibits Members of Congress and their spouses from owning or trading stocks, bonds, commodities, futures, or any other form of security. Each current Member must divest within 180 days after the bill is enacted and each new Member must divest within 180 days after becoming a Member. However, Members and their spouses have 5 years to divest from specified complex investment vehicles. The bill does not apply to certain investments, such as investments in widely held investment funds that are diversified and do not present a conflict of interest and investments held in government employee retirement plans. A Member or spouse who violates the bill may be subject to a fine of up to $50,000 for each violation. The bill permits a Member or spouse who is required to divest property under the bill to avoid recognizing gain for income tax purposes from the sale of that property to the extent that the Member or spouse purchases permitted bonds or diversified investment funds within 60 days of the divestiture.
Sponsors: Rep. Jayapal, Pramila [D-WA-7]
Target Audience
Population: Members of Congress and their spouses
Estimated Size: 1000
- Members of Congress are directly impacted as they are prohibited from owning or trading certain financial instruments.
- The spouses of Members of Congress are also directly impacted by the same prohibitions.
- Current Members of Congress have a divestment deadline of 180 days after the bill is enacted.
- Future Members must divest within a similar time frame of 180 days after taking office.
- The bill allows for investments in diversified investment funds, which mitigates conflicts of interest.
- Members or their spouses are subject to financial penalties if they violate these prohibitions.
- The bill impacts how Members of Congress and their spouses manage and invest their finances.
- There are provisions to avoid recognition of capital gains if reinvested in permitted funds after divesting.
Reasoning
- The target population is limited to a relatively small group consisting of Members of Congress and their spouses, estimated to be around 1000 individuals.
- This policy could potentially impact members' financial planning and security, influencing their self-reported wellbeing.
- Since the impact is very specific to an economic and financial provision, the primary effect is likely on those directly affected, rather than the general population.
- The overall cost of implementing the policy is within the budget constraints when considering the size of the directly impacted population and the enforcement mechanisms.
Simulated Interviews
U.S. Senator (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 58 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I understand the need for transparency and reducing conflicts of interest, but this policy complicates my financial planning.
- I have worked in the private sector before entering politics, and many of my investments are long-term.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 8 |
Congresswoman (California)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.5 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a new member, I have minimal investments to divest, so it's less impactful for me.
- I support the idea that we should not profit from insider knowledge.
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 |
Retired Congressman (Texas)
Age: 64 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am glad I am no longer in Congress and don't have to adhere to these restrictions.
- These rules would have created a significant hassle in managing our family assets.
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 |
Spouse of Congressman (New York)
Age: 51 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is an inconvenience, especially since my career is closely tied to corporate interests.
- We will have to reassess our entire portfolio.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Congressional staffer (Illinois)
Age: 45 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy doesn't directly affect me but complicates my advisory role.
- I believe that this policy increases the trust between Congress and the public.
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 |
Retired Senator (Florida)
Age: 70 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Given my age and investment in safe funds, this wouldn't have affected me as much.
- It's a fair policy to limit potential conflicts of interest.
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 |
Congressman (Georgia)
Age: 36 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am mostly invested in our family farm, so the impact is minimal.
- I do worry about future financial flexibility.
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 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Spouse of Senator (Virginia)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We have a mix of investments, some of which are affected. It's a hassle but manageable.
- I think it promotes fairness.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Aide to a Congresswoman (Ohio)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is an excellent step towards reducing conflicts of interest.
- As staff, our roles are complicated in explaining and adapting to these changes swiftly.
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 |
Congresswoman (Montana)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The ranch is left mainly unaffected, but I must rethink other investments.
- I support this morals-wise, even if it can be financially restrictive in the short term.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 2: $10000000 (Low: $7500000, High: $15000000)
Year 3: $10000000 (Low: $7500000, High: $15000000)
Year 5: $10000000 (Low: $7500000, High: $15000000)
Year 10: $7000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $10000000)
Year 100: $10000000 (Low: $7500000, High: $15000000)
Key Considerations
- Enforcement costs may be significant in ensuring compliance among Members and their spouses, especially initially.
- Revenue from fines could offset costs but is uncertain and likely minor.
- Administrative costs include systems to ensure financial disclosure and auditing compliance with new restrictions.