Bill Overview
Title: Abuse of the Pardon Prevention Act of 2022
Description: This bill restricts the authority of the President with respect to presidential pardons, including by prohibiting the President from pardoning himself or herself and requiring the Department of Justice to conduct oversight and submit materials to Congress regarding certain pardons, such as those arising from an investigation in which the President is a target, subject, or witness.
Sponsors: Sen. Cortez Masto, Catherine [D-NV]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals potentially impacted by altered presidential pardon procedures
Estimated Size: 100000
- The primary impact will be on individuals who are potential recipients of presidential pardons, particularly those involved in investigations where the President is implicated.
- This includes potential high-profile criminals who might expect a pardon from the President, especially those related to political scandals or crimes where the President or their associates are implicated.
- It also indirectly affects the President's administrative staff and legal team who manage and process pardon requests, as this bill would alter the procedures and scope of their duties.
- While the general population may not be immediately impacted, there is an implicit benefit to citizens due to increased governmental transparency and reduced potential for abuse of power.
Reasoning
- We have considered the primary groups affected by the policy which are individuals involved in federal crimes seeking pardons, and those associated with them.
- These individuals often have substantial stakes in the outcomes of relevant legal cases and would be most sensitive to changes in legislation regarding pardoning powers.
- The general population may benefit from greater governmental transparency and might view the policy favorably, though individual wellbeing may not be directly impacted by these changes.
- Public awareness and trust in fairness and justice might see a slight improvement among those who follow political processes closely, leading to indirect effects on self-reported wellbeing.
Simulated Interviews
Legal Analyst (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 56 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe the policy strengthens the rule of law and provides a necessary check on presidential power.
- The change may lead to a fairer justice system and increase public trust in government actions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Business Executive (New York, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could personally affect me as it alters expectations regarding clemency chances.
- I find it concerning as it might restrict avenues for relief despite reformation efforts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Journalist (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support this legislative measure as it adds transparency and could deter corrupt practices.
- It might encourage more accountability among officials.
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 Government Official (Miami, FL)
Age: 72 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy strengthens institutional integrity and sets boundaries for presidential actions.
- Oversight is crucial for justice and preventing misuse of power.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Civil Rights Activist (Chicago, IL)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am optimistic about this policy fostering judicial fairness and enhancing civil liberties.
- It’s a small step towards accountability in governance.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Federal Prosecutor (Houston, TX)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act allows for greater prosecutorial effectiveness by limiting uncertain outcomes from unexpected pardons.
- Positive adjustments to legal oversight and enforceability.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Human Rights Lawyer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 53 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Ensuring checks on presidential clemency will help protect individuals against discriminatory practices.
- It promotes a stronger democratic framework.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Political Advisor (Dallas, TX)
Age: 46 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I recognize the necessity of this policy to maintain public confidence in executive branch decisions.
- However, it could potentially complicate the decision-making processes within the administration offices.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Software Engineer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This isn't something that affects me directly, but I support measures that ensure government accountability.
- Curious to see how it affects the political climate over time.
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 |
Public Defender (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any increase in oversight and transparency in the pardon process is beneficial to equitable justice.
- It acts as a deterrent against misuse by high-ranking officials.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $3000000)
Year 2: $2100000 (Low: $1550000, High: $3150000)
Year 3: $2200000 (Low: $1600000, High: $3300000)
Year 5: $2400000 (Low: $1700000, High: $3600000)
Year 10: $2800000 (Low: $1900000, High: $4200000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Key Considerations
- The policy adds layers of oversight which involve bureaucratic processes, potentially slowing down the pardon system.
- Public perception of the presidential pardon power may shift, reducing expectations of its use as a political tool.
- Integration and cooperation between the Department of Justice and Congress will be required, impacting efficiency and effectiveness.
- Potential legal challenges about the constitutionality of restricting presidential powers might arise.