Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/9216

Bill Overview

Title: PORTFOLIO Act

Description: This bill generally prohibits federal employees and officials from owning or trading in synthetic assets (i.e., tokenized derivatives). It also establishes financial disclosure requirements with respect to cryptocurrency. Specifically, the bill prohibits federal employees, Members of Congress, the President, and Vice President from owning or trading investments in a security, a commodity, a future, cryptocurrency, or any comparable economic interest acquired through synthetic means, such as through a derivative. Such investments must be divested through gift or donation, cashing out, or a qualified blind trust. The appropriate ethics office may grant temporary exemptions in certain situations, such as for preexisting complex financial arrangements from which investments cannot be withdrawn, and may assess fees for violations. The Department of Justice may also bring civil actions for violations. The bill also (1) incorporates cryptocurrency and other digital assets into current financial disclosure requirements; (2) modifies the categories and timelines for financial disclosures; and (3) requires agencies, ethics offices, and the Department of Justice to regularly report on violations of this bill and other related requirements.

Sponsors: Rep. Schweikert, David [R-AZ-6]

Target Audience

Population: Federal employees and officials

Estimated Size: 500000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Congressional Representative (Washington, DC)

Age: 52 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm concerned about the limitations on trading as it directly impacts my financial strategy.
  • This policy increases transparency, but I fear it may overly restrict how I manage my own portfolio.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 6
Year 2 5 6
Year 3 4 6
Year 5 5 6
Year 10 6 6
Year 20 6 7

Federal Judge (San Francisco, CA)

Age: 45 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy doesn't affect me greatly as I don't engage in the assets being restricted.
  • I support the increase in transparency this policy brings.

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

Federal Program Analyst (New York, NY)

Age: 38 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I need to adjust my portfolio but it's a minor nuisance.
  • Policy helps ensure fair practices and reduces conflicts of interest.

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 8 7

Federal Department Head (Austin, TX)

Age: 55 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • It's quite burdensome to restructure my investments due to this act.
  • I agree with the principles of accountability but feel unfairly targeted.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 4 5
Year 2 4 5
Year 3 5 5
Year 5 5 6
Year 10 5 6
Year 20 5 6

White House Appointee (Chicago, IL)

Age: 50 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm minimally affected by the policy in terms of my investments.
  • I support any moves that increase government accountability.

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 8 7
Year 20 8 8

Federal Contractor (Miami, FL)

Age: 30 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 14/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This doesn't impact me directly, but seems like it creates a fairer environment.
  • Limited trading freedom for some officials may lead to a more ethical workspace.

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 9 8
Year 20 9 9

Federal Environmental Researcher (Seattle, WA)

Age: 47 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'll need to divest from a few assets, which is inconvenient.
  • I understand the need for greater oversight of elected officials' finances.

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 8 7
Year 20 8 8

Retired Federal Employee (Los Angeles, CA)

Age: 60 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 9

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I appreciate the integrity this policy may bring to government operations.
  • Though not impacted, I support efforts for financial fairness.

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 10 10

Congressional Staffer (Boston, MA)

Age: 29 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Restrictions are frustrating as I see crypto as a part of my financial future.
  • Policy creates accountability but might stifle personal financial growth.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 4 5
Year 2 5 5
Year 3 5 6
Year 5 5 6
Year 10 6 6
Year 20 6 7

Federal Auditor (Denver, CO)

Age: 42 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I am not personally affected, but I value a policy that increases transparency.
  • Honest disclosures are beneficial for trust in government.

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: $2500000 (Low: $2000000, High: $3000000)

Year 2: $2500000 (Low: $2000000, High: $3000000)

Year 3: $2500000 (Low: $2000000, High: $3000000)

Year 5: $3000000 (Low: $2500000, High: $3500000)

Year 10: $3500000 (Low: $3000000, High: $4000000)

Year 100: $4000000 (Low: $3500000, High: $4500000)

Key Considerations