Bill Overview
Title: STOCK Act 2.0
Description: This bill expands restrictions on investment practices and requirements for financial disclosures that apply to specified high-level government officials. In particular, the bill bars individual stock trading by (1) Members of Congress, (2) the President and Vice President, (3) Supreme Court Justices, (4) governors of the Federal Reserve Board, and (5) presidents and vice presidents of Federal Reserve banks. Additionally, the bill requires financial disclosures to include loans, contracts, and other benefits (excluding salaries, compensation, or tax refunds) from the federal government. It also requires additional officials, namely judges and senior leaders of Federal Reserve banks, to make the disclosures. Further, the bill directs supervising ethics agencies to make the disclosures publicly available in formats that are easily searchable, sortable, and downloadable.
Sponsors: Sen. Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY]
Target Audience
Population: High-level government officials in the United States
Estimated Size: 8000
- The bill specifically targets individual stock trading activities for a defined group of individuals.
- High-level government officials include Members of Congress, the President and Vice President, Supreme Court Justices, governors of the Federal Reserve Board, and presidents and vice presidents of Federal Reserve banks.
- The requirement for financial disclosures expands to include additional officials like judges and senior leaders of Federal Reserve banks.
- The bill aims to increase transparency and prevent conflicts of interest in investment practices.
- Although the bill directly affects the specified officials, indirectly, it impacts the public by potentially increasing trust in government operations and reducing corruption.
Reasoning
- The policy directly affects a very small population, specifically high-level government officials who already have resources and support for legal compliance.
- The indirect benefit might be the restoration of trust from the public due to increased transparency and reduced potential for conflicts of interest.
- The budget's primary purpose might be to ensure compliance and to create systems for public access to disclosures.
- Most individuals in everyday roles (non-government officials) would not be directly affected by this policy but might experience a social or moral boost.
- The policy does not require large-scale operational changes among the general populace, hence simplicity and digital systems can keep costs low. The effects are largely preventive and ethical.
Simulated Interviews
Senator (Washington D.C.)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe the STOCK Act 2.0 will clarify and alleviate public concerns about our loyalties to our constituents.
- Understanding and abiding by these new transparency requirements is not daunting with the resources available.
- This could restore some trust that might feel lost in recent times, although my work will remain largely the same.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Federal Judge (New York)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Making these disclosures is a minor intrusion on my workflow, yet I see the public utility.
- I'm glad to see judges included explicitly, as this can further ensure public confidence in judiciary impartiality.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Federal Reserve Bank President (San Francisco)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support tightening regulations to ensure full transparency and maintain our economic stability.
- The adjustments required are minimal compared to the confidence gained from our stakeholders.
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 | 8 |
Retired Government Official (California)
Age: 70 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My direct impact is minimal at this stage in life, but I appreciate changes that aim to enhance clarity and halt financial deception.
- Beyond complying during my tenure, I see the value for future governance.
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 |
Public School Teacher (New York)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy seems to target only high-level officials, but I'm glad that our leaders will be held accountable to avoid conflicts of interest.
- I hope this increases accountability standards overall.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Software Engineer (Chicago)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- None of my immediate life circumstances are affected, however, seeing governmental transparency is crucial for a fairer America.
- Trust in our leaders impacts my general view of society's direction.
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 | 7 | 5 |
Vice President of Federal Reserve Bank (Texas)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy change reinforces the integrity of our operations.
- My team and I will need minor procedural adjustments but fundamentally endorse and welcome measures fostering transparency.
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 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Activist for Government Accountability (Oregon)
Age: 45 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy appears to be a significant step forward in preventing conflicts of interest.
- Although indirectly affected, seeing high-level officials held to these standards gives me optimism for our advocacy work.
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 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Finance Consultant (Florida)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy impacts my clients' understanding of federal transparency, which in turn affects trust in federal loans and financial protections.
- I expect this could amplify public trust over time, though not immediately visible in my work environment.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Journalist (Ohio)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a journalist, covering these disclosure changes will affect narratives around corruption and policy effectiveness.
- The job requires diligence to differentiate ethical from disclosure violations, helping public scrutiny increase.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $30000000)
Year 2: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $20000000)
Year 3: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $20000000)
Year 5: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $15000000)
Year 10: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $8000000)
Year 100: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Key Considerations
- The initial cost will be partially offset by the fact that some financial disclosure infrastructure is already in place for most of the government officials covered.
- Ensuring compliance with this bill will require ongoing monitoring and validation from ethics agencies, potentially incurring further costs.
- Indirect effects on public trust and perception of governmental transparency and integrity could have non-monetary benefits.