Bill Overview
Title: Fighting Foreign Influence Act
Description: This bill addresses foreign influence in federal elections. For example, the bill (1) requires tax-exempt charitable organizations to disclose in annual reports contributions and gifts exceeding $50,000 received from foreign governments and foreign political parties; and (2) prohibits any individual from registering or otherwise serving as the agent of a foreign principal if the individual at any time served as a Member of Congress, a senior political appointee, or a general or flag officer of the Armed Forces.
Sponsors: Rep. Golden, Jared F. [D-ME-2]
Target Audience
Population: People involved in influencing or attempting to influence U.S. federal elections through foreign entities
Estimated Size: 50000
- The bill targets foreign influence in U.S. federal elections, which suggests its primary global impact is on foreign governments and political parties that might have interests in U.S. elections.
- By imposing restrictions and disclosure requirements on U.S. charitable organizations, the bill indirectly affects these organizations and their foreign contributors.
- Restricting former high-ranking U.S. government officials from representing foreign principals will directly impact these individuals across the globe as well as the foreign entities that might seek their services.
Reasoning
- The primary target population in the U.S. consists of former Members of Congress, senior political appointees, or general/flag officers of the Armed Forces due to the restrictions on serving as agents of foreign principals. This is a small and elite group with potential geopolitical influence.
- Charitable organizations receiving substantial foreign donations might see a shift in operational strategy if they rely on these funds, affecting their employees and stakeholders.
- Given the targeted nature of this law and its focus on federal elections, the general American public largely remains unaffected, except potentially in terms of indirect benefits to electoral integrity.
Simulated Interviews
Lobbyist (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 67 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy complicates my career options post-Congress, limiting potential lucrative offers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Charity Director (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We might lose funding due to increased disclosure requirements, which could impact our projects.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Investment Banker (Miami, FL)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While not directly impacted, the restrictions could indirectly affect some international clients.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Political Analyst (New York, NY)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is a positive step for electoral integrity and could enhance trust in elections.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Retired Military Officer (Dallas, TX)
Age: 59 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I planned to consult for international defense firms, now I'll have to reconsider.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Software Developer (Boston, MA)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't see how this policy would affect me personally.
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 (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might lead to more transparency, which is good for my reporting.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Retired Senior Appointee (Chicago, IL)
Age: 68 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm retired, and while the policy initially seemed restrictive, I have not planned to work with foreign agents.
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 |
College Student (Vermont)
Age: 25 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Interesting policy from an academic perspective, but it doesn't impact me directly.
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 |
Nonprofit Worker (Seattle, WA)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The transparency requirements could create administrative burdens but might overall be beneficial.
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 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $3000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $4000000)
Year 2: $3100000 (Low: $2100000, High: $4200000)
Year 3: $3200000 (Low: $2200000, High: $4300000)
Year 5: $3400000 (Low: $2400000, High: $4500000)
Year 10: $3800000 (Low: $2800000, High: $5000000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $6000000)
Key Considerations
- The potential for increased transparency could lead to positive reputational effects for U.S. elections, albeit hard to quantify in economic terms.
- Administrative efficiency and coordination among agencies are crucial for minimizing compliance costs.
- The prohibition on former officials may affect potential earnings of these individuals and demand for their services abroad.