Bill Overview
Title: Stop Corporate Capture Act
Description: This bill modifies the process for federal agency rulemaking. Specifically, it (1) requires interested parties who submit a study or research as part of a comment to a proposed rule to disclose the source of the funding for the study or research, (2) limits the use of the negotiated rulemaking process to government agencies, (3) provides statutory authority for the judicial principle that requires courts to defer to an agency's reasonable or permissible interpretation of a federal law when the law is silent or ambiguous (i.e., the Chevron doctrine), and (4) establishes an Office of the Public Advocate to support public participation in the rulemaking process.
Sponsors: Rep. Jayapal, Pramila [D-WA-7]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals in the United States affected by federal regulations
Estimated Size: 331890000
- The bill modifies the federal agency rulemaking process, which can impact regulations affecting all individuals and organizations in the U.S.
- Rulemaking processes determine how laws are enforced and interpreted, affecting compliance costs, regulatory burdens, and public protections.
- The requirement for transparency in research funding sources affects researchers and organizations submitting studies, potentially discouraging biased influence on regulations.
- Restricting negotiated rulemaking to government agencies primarily impacts how regulations are developed, affecting efficiency and stakeholder influence.
- The codification of the Chevron Doctrine affects legal challenges to agency rules, influencing how laws are enforced and interpreted.
- Establishing an Office of the Public Advocate directly impacts individuals and organizations engaging in the regulatory process by potentially enhancing public influence.
Reasoning
- The policy targets how federal regulations are developed, impacting various stakeholders across industries and individuals who might not directly engage but are affected by the outcomes.
- The disclosure of funding sources for studies in rulemaking could reduce biased influence, potentially benefiting the public by ensuring more transparent and equitable rule development.
- The establishment of an Office of the Public Advocate could increase public participation in the rulemaking process, encouraging policies that better reflect citizens' needs across diverse sectors.
- This policy, while aimed at federal processes, indirectly affects private and public organizations, legal bodies, and the general public, who are subject to the regulations that are crafted and enforced.
Simulated Interviews
Environmental Policy Advisor (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The transparency in research funding is crucial for unbiased policy making.
- Limited negotiated rulemaking might slow down policy development but ensure more focused outcomes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Legal Analyst (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Chevron doctrine codification might make legal interpretations more predictable.
- More barriers in negotiated rulemaking can limit corporate influence in regulations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Academic Researcher (Chicago, IL)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Transparency in funding sources for studies is essential for credibility.
- Enhanced public advocacy may lead to research-backed public health regulations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Corporate Executive (New York, NY)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- New rulemaking rules might slow business operations.
- Clarity from Chevron doctrine might be beneficial for legal certainty, but might increase costs if public advocacy is strengthened.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Healthcare Professional (Hartford, CT)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Public involvement can bring attention to overlooked healthcare issues.
- Enhanced transparency could reduce backdoor deals impacting healthcare regulations.
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 |
Retired Engineer (Raleigh, NC)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Making the rulemaking process more public can ensure fair regulations.
- The Chevron doctrine's codification simplifies legal processes, aiding understanding.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Tech Entrepreneur (Seattle, WA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Keeping corporate interests in check can foster fair competition.
- Public participation might lead to more inclusive digital privacy regulations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Freelance Journalist (Austin, TX)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy increases transparency, which is great for journalistic endeavors.
- An Office of the Public Advocate could improve regulatory outcomes by amplifying diverse voices.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Small Business Owner (Denver, CO)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More public oversight is crucial in preventing unfair labor regulations.
- Neglect of corporate negotiation can lead to slower regulatory processes impacting business adaptability.
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 |
Oil and Gas Industry Consultant (Houston, TX)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Regulations shape the industry's landscape significantly.
- Chevron doctrine provides a stable legal backdrop, but heightened public advocacy could impose additional constraints.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 2: $45000000 (Low: $35000000, High: $55000000)
Year 3: $45000000 (Low: $35000000, High: $55000000)
Year 5: $45000000 (Low: $35000000, High: $55000000)
Year 10: $45000000 (Low: $35000000, High: $55000000)
Year 100: $45000000 (Low: $35000000, High: $55000000)
Key Considerations
- Costs associated with setting up and maintaining the new Office of the Public Advocate.
- Potential reduction in legal challenges due to codification of the Chevron Doctrine, which could lead to long-term savings.
- Impact on innovation and economic activity due to changes in regulatory processes.