Bill Overview
Title: SHAME Act
Description: This bill prohibits registered agents or lobbyists of foreign adversaries from receiving compensation for their services. Violations are subject to civil penalties.
Sponsors: Rep. Wilson, Joe [R-SC-2]
Target Audience
Population: Registered agents and lobbyists of foreign adversaries
Estimated Size: 12000
- The SHAME Act targets registered agents or lobbyists working on behalf of foreign adversaries.
- Persons involved in lobbying and representing foreign adversaries in the US will be directly impacted.
- Indirectly, foreign adversaries could be impacted because their ability to influence US policy might be restricted.
- The bill affects those who gain financially from these lobbying activities.
Reasoning
- The SHAME Act directly impacts a niche population—registered agents and lobbyists representing foreign adversaries. This population is relatively small, estimated at around 12,000 people in the US.
- The policy has an indirect effect on the general public by potentially reducing foreign influence in US policy, which might sway public sentiment and trust in government.
- Financially, those directly affected may experience a loss in income, causing changes in their wellbeing scores, particularly if their primary income source is from such foreign lobbying activities.
- Considering the budget limitations, the enforcement of the law might cover legal and administrative costs, suggesting the primary impact is regulatory rather than financial on the targeted individuals.
- Public sentiment towards the act could vary widely based on political views and beliefs about foreign influence in US affairs, which might indirectly affect perceived wellbeing benefits of the policy.
Simulated Interviews
Lobbyist (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy jeopardizes my career as it directly targets my client base.
- I might need to pivot my practice to remain compliant and maintain income.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 8 |
PR Consultant (New York, NY)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I might feel some impact indirectly, as firms reconsider their compliance strategies.
- It's a positive shift for transparency but likely to change industry dynamics.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Trade Analyst (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is unlikely to affect my day-to-day work.
- It could curb foreign interference which is a national interest concern for me.
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 |
Policy Advisor (Chicago, IL)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The act reflects a strong stance on foreign policy integrity.
- Unlikely to impact me directly, could improve public faith in governance.
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 |
Digital Marketer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy has insignificant implications for my work.
- Might see changes in corporate communication strategies due to the policy.
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 |
Corporate Lawyer (Houston, TX)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Clients are concerned about compliance; more work may arise in advisory roles.
- I see it as an opportunity but a challenge for clients.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Economics Professor (Boston, MA)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy change is an interesting case of economic implications of regulation.
- My work may slightly shift to cover new policy impacts.
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 |
International Business Consultant (Miami, FL)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Some clients are impacted, must adjust advisory strategies accordingly.
- The policy isn't targeting me, but it shapes the business environment.
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 |
Nonprofit Director (Seattle, WA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy supports the principles my nonprofit stands for.
- Good step towards reducing undue foreign influence; little direct impact on us.
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 |
Freelance Journalist (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This presents new angles and topics for covering foreign influence in US politics.
- As an observer, there's little personal impact beyond work scope.
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: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $2500000)
Year 2: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $2500000)
Year 3: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $2500000)
Year 5: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $2500000)
Year 10: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $2500000)
Year 100: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $2500000)
Key Considerations
- The effectiveness of compliance monitoring and enforcement mechanisms.
- The ability of existing legal frameworks to administrate civil penalties efficiently.
- Cost savings from reduced foreign influence must be weighed against potential enforcement costs.