Bill Overview
Title: SANTOS Act
Description: This bill requires congressional candidates to file additional personal information with their principal campaign committees and the Federal Election Commission. The bill also imposes criminal penalties for knowingly and willfully violating this requirement, such as by providing false information. Specifically, the bill requires any individual who is a candidate for the House of Representatives or the Senate to provide information about their educational background, military service (if any), and employment history.
Sponsors: Rep. Torres, Ritchie [D-NY-15]
Target Audience
Population: Candidates for the House of Representatives and Senate
Estimated Size: 2500
- The SANTOS Act primarily targets individuals who are running for congressional office, specifically candidates for the House of Representatives and the Senate.
- Candidates will be required to submit additional personal information including educational background, military service, and employment history.
- The bill imposes criminal penalties for providing false information, therefore impacting individuals who might not be truthful in their disclosures.
- While it directly affects congressional candidates, it indirectly impacts voters by increasing transparency and potentially influencing the choices available during elections.
Reasoning
- The SANTOS Act is primarily impacting a small group of individuals directly, mainly congressional candidates. Given the estimated number of candidates, this group is relatively small compared to the broader U.S. population, thus making the direct impact limited in scope.
- On the broader scale, indirect effects will be seen among voters and other entities engaged in overseeing the political process, potentially contributing to elevated perceived integrity in political candidates.
- The policy's budget, although significant, is allocated over a wide span, indicating a focus on medium- to long-term monitoring and audit processes to ensure compliance.
- For those directly involved as candidates, the effect on their wellbeing would vary based on their adherence to the truth in their past representations. Honest candidates may see an increase in wellbeing due to improved transparency and trust.
- Distrustful candidates may feel pressure or stress due to heightened scrutiny and potential criminal penalties, leading to a possible reduction in their wellbeing.
Simulated Interviews
Congressional Candidate (New York, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I have always been upfront about my background, so this act doesn’t bother me too much. It actually levels the playing field.
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 |
Political Consultant (Austin, TX)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is much needed to bring some integrity back into the system. I support this change even though it may mean extra work initially.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Senate Challenger (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I find this requirement daunting as it adds an additional layer of stress to an already difficult process, but I understand its necessity.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Voter (Rural Kentucky)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Anything that makes our representatives more trustworthy is a good move in my book, but I hope this doesn't discourage good people from running.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Journalist (Denver, CO)
Age: 40 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act increases the reliability of public figures and helps journalists like me facilitate better-informed voting.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Campaign Staffer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The new requirements mean more work for us, but it’s essential to keep campaigns honest and fair.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Nonprofit Director (Orlando, FL)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increasing transparency might improve public trust significantly, but the law’s enforcement needs to be clear-cut.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Voter (Birmingham, AL)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The SANTOS Act could deter dishonest individuals from entering politics, fostering a healthier democracy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Data Analyst at FEC (Seattle, WA)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There'll be more work due to more stringent checks, but it’s essential for better transparency.
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 |
Retired Military Officer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a step forward for accountable leadership in our country. It is vital to maintaining public faith in government institutions.
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 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 2: $8000000 (Low: $6000000, High: $10000000)
Year 3: $8000000 (Low: $6000000, High: $10000000)
Year 5: $8000000 (Low: $6000000, High: $10000000)
Year 10: $8000000 (Low: $6000000, High: $10000000)
Year 100: $8000000 (Low: $6000000, High: $10000000)
Key Considerations
- Enforcing the SANTOS Act will require changes to the Federal Election Commission's processes for candidate filing, imposing some initial administrative costs.
- The bill's impact is more qualitative, focusing on increased transparency and accountability, rather than direct financial implications.
- Long-term impacts on political transparency could improve public trust, although this is not directly measured in budgetary terms.