Bill Overview
Title: FIRE Act
Description: This bill prohibits the use of campaign funds to compensate the immediate family member of a candidate or an individual holding federal office. It also requires disclosure of payments made to immediate family members. Specifically, the bill prohibits an authorized committee of a candidate or any other political committee that is established, maintained, or controlled by a candidate or an individual holding federal office from directly or indirectly compensating the immediate family member of the candidate or individual for services provided to or on behalf of the committee. The prohibition does not apply to a political committee of a political party. Next, the bill requires a political committee to report on disbursements to an immediate family member of the candidate or the individual holding federal office. Finally, the bill requires any penalty for a violation of the bill to be imposed on the candidate or the individual holding federal office if the candidate or individual involved knew of the violation. Further, it prohibits the committee involved from reimbursing the candidate or individual for the penalty.
Sponsors: Rep. Fallon, Pat [R-TX-4]
Target Audience
Population: Candidates for federal office, current and future, including their immediate family members and associated political committees
Estimated Size: 2000
- The bill directly impacts candidates or individuals holding federal office since it prohibits them from compensating their immediate family members using campaign funds.
- Immediate family members of candidates or individuals holding federal office will also be impacted as they could potentially lose a source of income from services provided to political committees.
- Political committee treasurers and administrators will be impacted since they will need to ensure compliance with new reporting requirements related to disbursements to immediate family members.
- The bill affects the operations of political committees by imposing new restrictions on financial transactions to family members of candidates.
- Campaign finance regulators and enforcement bodies will have heightened roles in overseeing compliance and implementing penalties for violations.
Reasoning
- The FIRE Act is focused on campaign finance reform, particularly impacting candidates for federal office and their immediate family members who might receive financial compensation from campaign funds. However, the average American is unlikely to be directly impacted unless they fall into these categories.
- The most significant impact would be on families of candidates who have relied on campaign funds as a source of income. These individuals might experience a reduction in financial wellbeing due to loss of income opportunities.
- The policy implementation would require additional resources for compliance, possibly affecting political committees and campaign staff, but not the general population.
- The policy's budget and implementation efforts are targeted at a relatively small and specific group—the policy's legislative intent is not broad in scope relative to the general population of the United States.
- The Cantril Ladder Scale is used here to model perceived wellbeing and its changes over time for individuals directly impacted by the policy.
- The impact on public trust in the political process is an indirect effect and is hard to quantify in individual interviews, but could have a societal wellbeing impact if the policy is seen as promoting fairness.
Simulated Interviews
Political campaign manager (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate the transparency this policy brings, but it complicates staffing decisions for campaigns.
- It's challenging for families relying on this income, but it might ensure funds are used more judiciously.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Federal office holder (California)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy holds us accountable and enhances integrity, but my family needs alternative income sources.
- It's fair if all candidates play by the same rules.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Campaign finance analyst (Florida)
Age: 30 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy adds a layer of complexity to campaign finance management, but it's manageable.
- Better transparency might increase public trust in elections.
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 | 6 |
Stay-at-home parent (Texas)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy limits our income streams, there's concern if it's not supplemented by new roles.
- It does bring a fairness aspect to campaigns, which is reassuring.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Political consultant (New York)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our operations need restructuring due to this policy, but it ensures cleaner campaign processes.
- It mitigates potential conflicts of interest in staffing.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Federal election candidate (Illinois)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy changes how we reward long-term, trusted family contributions, impacting morale.
- Overall, it’s a positive step for electoral integrity.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Activist (Georgia)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see this policy as beneficial for democracy, but it doesn't affect me personally.
- Hope it reduces nepotism in politics.
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 |
Non-profit director (Ohio)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy underscores the importance of ethical campaign practices, but irrelevant to my finances.
- Glad to see stricter rules on campaign finance.
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 |
Political science professor (Virginia)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a crucial policy for enforcing transparency, could improve public opinions on our system.
- For academics, it’s a case study in the effects of law on campaign strategies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Retired (Nevada)
Age: 67 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe the policy aids in fair elections, but no direct personal impact.
- Hope it diminishes undue influence in political families.
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: $50000 (Low: $30000, High: $70000)
Year 2: $50000 (Low: $30000, High: $70000)
Year 3: $50000 (Low: $30000, High: $70000)
Year 5: $50000 (Low: $30000, High: $70000)
Year 10: $50000 (Low: $30000, High: $70000)
Year 100: $50000 (Low: $30000, High: $70000)
Key Considerations
- The bill's effectiveness will greatly depend on the rigorous compliance and enforcement by federal election authorities.
- Implementation will require initial investments in training and technology updates for political committees to ensure compliance.
- Potential pushback from political candidates who utilize family members heavily in their campaigns may influence the bill's real-world application.