Bill Overview
Title: Ban Congressional Stock Trading Act
Description: This bill requires each Member of Congress to divest or place in a blind trust any specified investment owned by the Member, the Member's spouse, or a dependent of the Member. This requirement applies for the entire period of a Member's service in Congress and for 180 days after that service ceases. A Member of Congress who does not comply with the bill's requirements is subject to a fine equal to the Member's monthly congressional salary. The fine must be assessed 30 days after notice of the violation is issued and at least every subsequent 30 days.
Sponsors: Sen. Ossoff, Jon [D-GA]
Target Audience
Population: Members of Congress and their immediate family members
Estimated Size: 1605
- The legislation specifically targets current Members of Congress who hold specified investments.
- There are 535 Members of Congress, including both the Senate and House of Representatives.
- Each Member of Congress is likely to have close family members (spouses and dependents) who are financially impacted by this legislation.
- The indirect effects may extend to Congressional staff who handle financial disclosures or related tasks, though not directly involved.
- The families of Members, who depend on their financial planning, might also have secondary impacts.
Reasoning
- The policy is designed to eliminate conflicts of interest for Members of Congress by requiring divestment or blind trusts for investments. This directly impacts a small, finite group: members themselves, their immediate family, and possibly congressional staff significantly tangentially connected to financial dealings.
- Given that there are 535 members, each with potentially spouses and dependents, estimating impacts extends to approximately 1605 individuals.
- Budget allocations for the policy are substantial, with $30 million over ten years, indicating enforcement and compliance monitoring, possibly through technology or a designated agency/third party, are expected to ensure adherence. The budget might cover staffing, legal frameworks, auditing, and enforcement costs.
- Most Americans will not be directly impacted, only those tied to the legislative body. Indirectly, there's a potential for secondary impacts on trust in governance and financial ethics, affecting broader public perceptions.
Simulated Interviews
U.S. Senator (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 57 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will eliminate any potential conflicts of interest or the appearance thereof.
- Divesting is a hassle, but it's necessary for integrity.
- Financially, we'll manage fine with the trust handling our assets.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Spouse of Congress Member (California)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The blind trust limits my personal ability to manage our investments.
- I understand the need for transparency and trust from the public.
- Adapting to this change will require some adjustment in our family planning.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Financial Advisor (Texas)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This changes how I advise clients who are Congress members or their families.
- Leads to a more streamlined focus on blind trust structures.
- Potentially affects fee-based income but increases demand for compliance services.
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 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Congressional Staffer (Virginia)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This will significantly increase our workload with more frequent audits and verifications.
- Might increase job funding or staffing in our office.
- Necessary measure for ethical governance though.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Dependents of Congress Member (New York)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Understanding the mechanics of these financial regulations is more of an academic interest.
- No significant direct impact on my immediate plans.
- Family will adjust accordingly; it's a learning experience for me.
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 |
Retired Congress Member (Ohio)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.5 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The 180-day extension post-retirement imposes on subsequent career moves.
- Will need careful financial planning during this period.
- Supports the public confidence in Congress's ethics.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Lawyer specializing in Government Ethics (Florida)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a key step towards ethical transparency in government.
- It sets the stage for similar measures at state and local levels.
- Potential for increased activity in legal services for blind trust establishments.
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 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Public Policy Professor (Chicago)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy serves as a model for future ethical reforms in politics.
- Enhances public trust, crucial for our democratic system.
- Effects on family assets are mixed with public and professional satisfaction.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Congressional Researcher (Connecticut)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Creates a new dynamic in legislative financial research.
- Requires analysis of the efficacy of this policy over time.
- Adds layers to the transparency of financial dealings and monitoring.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Journalist (Seattle)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This legislation is a breakthrough in financial ethics.
- Provides significant material for media coverage.
- Public interest and scrutiny could lead to broader discussions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $3000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $4000000)
Year 2: $3000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $4000000)
Year 3: $3000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $4000000)
Year 5: $3000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $4000000)
Year 10: $3000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $4000000)
Year 100: $3000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $4000000)
Key Considerations
- The operational burden may initially be higher as systems are set up and adjusted to ensure monitoring and compliance; however, this should stabilize over time.
- Possible indirect savings due to improved efficiency and clarity in financial disclosures, potentially reducing other oversight and compliance costs associated with political financial entanglements.
- The bill's long-term effectiveness relies on consistent enforcement of its provisions which requires stable funding for oversight.