Bill Overview
Title: Restoring Trust in Public Servants Act
Description: This bill prohibits a public official or the spouse or dependent of a public official from owning or trading a covered investment. Any official who violates the prohibition is subject to a civil fine equal to the official's salary for each month that the official is in violation. The bill also prohibits Members of Congress from receiving any outside income or having any outside employment while in office. Further, the bill revises post-employment lobbying restrictions on former Members of Congress. Specifically, it makes permanent the post-employment lobbying ban on a former Member of the Senate (currently, two years) or a former Member of the House of Representatives (currently, one year).
Sponsors: Rep. Kim, Andy [D-NJ-3]
Target Audience
Population: Public officials, including their spouses and dependents
Estimated Size: 1000000
- The bill directly impacts public officials, including Members of Congress, and their ability to own or trade investments, receive outside income, and engage in post-employment lobbying.
- The spouses and dependents of public officials would also be indirectly affected as the investment restrictions apply to them as well.
- The bill aims to address issues of financial conflicts of interest and lobbying, which public servants are often scrutinized for.
- The global population of public officials, their spouses, and dependents will be directly impacted, although the most immediate and concrete impact will be on U.S. public officials due to the national legislative scope.
- The estimated number includes Members of Congress and other officials who have investment portfolios or sources of outside income that might be affected.
Reasoning
- The policy is primarily aimed at reducing conflicts of interest and increasing public trust in officials by limiting their financial involvements.
- The primary group impacted will be federal and state public officials who have investments or outside income.
- Spouses and dependents of officials will also be affected due to the investment restriction.
- The population directly affected is relatively small compared to the total U.S. population, although public trust could indirectly affect societal well-being.
- The budget constraints indicate a focus on monitoring and enforcing the policy rather than broad public spending.
Simulated Interviews
U.S. Senator (Washington D.C.)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I understand the need to restore trust in public service. However, this policy greatly disrupts my family's financial planning.
- Furthermore, the permanent lobbying ban may dissuade qualified individuals from seeking public office.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 8 |
State Government Employee (Sacramento, CA)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't think the policy affects me directly as I'm not involved in trades or lobbying.
- It's a good move to ensure our leaders are focused on their roles and not personal financial gain.
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 Federal Worker (Baton Rouge, LA)
Age: 65 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like these seem necessary, but I worry about potential unintended consequences such as dissuading good professionals.
- While I'm retired, the rules around investments affect our family dynamics.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
Lobbyist (New York, NY)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a lobbyist, my entire career path might shift due to the lobbying restrictions.
- This change could force me to completely rethink my career options.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 2 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 5 |
Startup Founder (Chicago, IL)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My husband's role is being subject to these restrictions, which impacts our business's capitalization strategies.
- I'm worried about how this policy might affect our financial security in the future.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 8 |
Energy Sector Consultant (Houston, TX)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it's a necessary move to ensure officials prioritize national interests.
- The post-employment lobbying ban is crucial for maintaining integrity.
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 |
Tech Company CEO (Austin, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 12.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- These rules will largely impact how we manage our investments personally.
- Though I understand the reasoning, it feels restrictive on personal freedoms.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 9 |
Non-Profit Director (Miami, FL)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's about time there were stronger checks on those in power.
- I’m not directly affected, but this policy seems crucial for democratic integrity.
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 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Journalist (Seattle, WA)
Age: 36 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is a good step towards transparency and accountability in politics.
- Curious to see how effective it will truly be at changing behaviors.
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 |
University Professor (Boston, MA)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy aligns with ethical governance practices I advocate for in academia.
- Its implications on the next generation of public servants will be significant.
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 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $7000000, High: $15000000)
Year 2: $11000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $16000000)
Year 3: $11500000 (Low: $8500000, High: $16500000)
Year 5: $12500000 (Low: $9000000, High: $17000000)
Year 10: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $20000000)
Year 100: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Key Considerations
- The primary purpose of the bill is to enhance ethical standards and trust in public servants rather than to impact financials directly.
- Enforcement mechanisms will need to be robust to achieve the bill's aims, implying significant initial and ongoing operational costs.
- The broader economic implications include potential long-term benefits from increased trust in institutions, though these benefits are not easily quantifiable.