Bill Overview
Title: STOCK Act 2.0
Description: This bill expands restrictions on investment practices and requirements for financial disclosures that apply to specified high-level government officials. In particular, the bill bars individual stock trading by (1) Members of Congress, (2) the President and Vice President, (3) Supreme Court Justices, (4) governors of the Federal Reserve Board, and (5) presidents and vice presidents of Federal Reserve banks. Additionally, the bill requires financial disclosures to include loans, contracts, and other benefits (excluding salaries, compensation, or tax refunds) from the federal government. It also requires additional officials, namely judges and senior leaders of Federal Reserve banks, to make the disclosures. Further, the bill directs supervising ethics agencies to make the disclosures publicly available in formats that are easily searchable, sortable, and downloadable.
Sponsors: Rep. Porter, Katie [D-CA-45]
Target Audience
Population: High-level government officials in the United States
Estimated Size: 600
- The bill affects high-level government officials who have the authority or potential to influence federal policies, which presents conflicts of interest when investing in individual stocks.
- Members of Congress include approximately 535 individuals: 435 Representatives and 100 Senators.
- The President and Vice President of the U.S. are two individuals.
- There are 9 Supreme Court Justices.
- The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is made up of 7 members.
- The Federal Reserve has 12 regional banks, each led by a president and vice president, thus including 24 positions.
- The bill extends financial disclosure requirements to additional judicial and Federal Reserve officials, which could number in hundreds but primarily involves high-ranking officials.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily impacts a very small segment of the population, specifically high-level government officials with significant authority.
- These individuals are a tiny fraction - represented by around 600 officials in a country of over 331 million people.
- The policy aims to prevent conflict of interest by restricting stock trading to align officials' actions with public interest rather than personal financial gains.
- Its effects, in terms of wellbeing or financial impact, are highly concentrated among these officials.
- While taxpayer money funds the implementation through required budget allocations, the broader public might not see direct immediate effects on their wellbeing scores, except through potential improvements in governance trust.
Simulated Interviews
Congressman (Washington D.C.)
Age: 58 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill restricts my personal financial freedom which is disappointing.
- However, I understand the need for transparency and reducing conflicts of interest.
- It might lead to less temptation in decision-making processes, making my job easier in some ways.
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 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Federal Reserve Bank Vice President (Chicago, IL)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The restriction on personal investments may streamline focus towards my professional responsibilities only.
- The disclosure requirements add significant paperwork, but overall, I think it aligns with our ethical standards.
- Long-term impacts seem minimal.
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 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Supreme Court Justice (New York, NY)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I acknowledge the fair intentions behind limiting stock trades.
- This will lessen outsider scrutiny and distrust.
- Making disclosures public is burdensome but may ultimately prove helpful in maintaining integrity.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 10 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 10 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 10 |
Federal Judge (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy helps refocus our judicial roles away from personal financial interests.
- While it curbs some financial opportunities, it ensures our decisions remain unbiased.
- High administrative demand for disclosure might be challenging.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Federal Reserve Board Governor (Miami, FL)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's crucial to align our financial actions with public good.
- The ban certainly introduces restrictions, but it's necessary for transparency.
- Long-term benefits to governance outweigh personal limitations.
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 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 10 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 10 |
State Judge (Dallas, TX)
Age: 43 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The transparency aspect is positive, yet also intrusive to personal life.
- Public access to financial details raises privacy concerns.
- I would prefer fewer restrictions on personal finance, but understand the policy's intent.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Congressman (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I will miss profits from active trading; however, my role is to represent public interest.
- This policy re-aligns focus back to legislative duties over personal gains.
- It should reduce any perceived self-serving actions by policymakers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Regional Federal Reserve President (Denver, CO)
Age: 48 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This change brings increased focus on fiduciary responsibility.
- Handling multiple disclosure formats is daunting initially.
- Restrictions align interests better with economic objectives.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 10 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 10 |
Congresswoman (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm supportive of any policy fostering transparency and trust.
- Real estate investments typically have less perceived conflicts but full transparency is key.
- Feeling that this leads to better strategic focus.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Federal Reserve Vice President (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Ethical concerns are at the forefront of this role, supported by these policies.
- There is less room for bias with these restrictions.
- Hopeful that the public sees the commitment to fair practice.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $25000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $40000000)
Year 2: $20000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $35000000)
Year 3: $20000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $35000000)
Year 5: $20000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $35000000)
Year 10: $20000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $35000000)
Year 100: $20000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $35000000)
Key Considerations
- Initial development and implementation costs will be significant due to the need for an advanced digital platform.
- Staffing may need to be increased to handle the expanded financial disclosure process.
- Costs could reduce over time as the systems stabilize and become more efficient.