Bill Overview
Title: Bipartisan Ban on Congressional Stock Ownership Act of 2022
Description: This bill prohibits Members of Congress and their spouses from owning or trading stocks, bonds, commodities, futures, or any other form of security. Each current Member must divest within 180 days after the bill is enacted and each new Member must divest within 180 days after becoming a Member. However, Members and their spouses have 5 years to divest from specified complex investment vehicles. The bill does not apply to certain investments, such as investments in widely held investment funds that are diversified and do not present a conflict of interest and investments held in government employee retirement plans. A Member or spouse who violates the bill may be subject to a fine of up to $50,000 for each violation. The bill permits a Member or spouse who is required to divest property under the bill to avoid recognizing gain for income tax purposes from the sale of that property to the extent that the Member or spouse purchases permitted bonds or diversified investment funds within 60 days of the divestiture.
Sponsors: Sen. Warren, Elizabeth [D-MA]
Target Audience
Population: Members of the US Congress and their spouses
Estimated Size: 1070
- The bill affects all current and future Members of the U.S. Congress, which includes the Senate and the House of Representatives.
- As of the 117th Congress, there are 535 voting members: 100 Senators and 435 Representatives.
- The population of 535 members would also include their spouses if married, potentially doubling the number of individuals directly affected.
- This bill impacts the financial activities of these individuals, particularly in stock trading and investment activities.
Reasoning
- The population directly targeted by this policy comprises only Members of Congress and their spouses, which is a relatively small and very specific group. It's expected to impact their financial strategies, especially concerning direct stock and security holdings.
- Direct impact on wellbeing is likely limited to financial stress or alterations in financial strategy due to pivoting to allowed forms of investment, but for a high-influence, low-commonness group.
- The budget constraint suggests that enforcing the policy is minimal relative to national policy budgets, focusing more on compliance penalties rather than resource-expensive direct interventions.
- Wellbeing variations will largely depend on individual wealth managers and financial strategies pre-divestiture.
Simulated Interviews
US Senator (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I understand the intent to remove any perceived conflicts of interest.
- This policy adds a layer of trust in public service.
- The transition period is reasonable for diversified investments, but it creates pressure for less liquid holdings.
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 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
US House Representative (New York, NY)
Age: 63 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel this could lead to financial losses due to hasty sales.
- The focus should be on ethics training rather than divestment.
- Restructuring our investments will require additional time and resources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
US House Representative (Texas)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it could potentially distract from policy-making activities initially.
- It's important to align Congressional financial interests with public trust.
- I'm curious if there are exemptions that should be reconsidered.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
US Senator (California)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe it's a necessary step towards increasing public trust.
- Our financial strategy already aligns well with policy requirements.
- There's minimal personal impact due to our current adherence to similar guidelines.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
US House Representative (Florida)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We are supportive of the initiative but concerned about the implementation costs.
- The policy aligns with our values, but transition logistics are challenging.
- The legislation impacts my spouse differently due to existing retirement investments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
US House Representative (Illinois)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a step in the right direction—a systemic solution to prevent stock misuse.
- I'm prepared for the necessary financial adjustments.
- My spouse's corporation ties complicate our financial decisions slightly.
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 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
US Senator (Arizona)
Age: 68 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It introduces financial security complexities, but it's manageable.
- Our main investments don't include volatile assets.
- I expect minimal impact due to the current investment structure.
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 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
US Senator (Maryland)
Age: 70 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy supports ethical governance.
- There are complexities in transitioning certain assets that could be smoother.
- I hope this sets a precedent for broader financial ethics in public offices.
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 |
US House Representative (Georgia)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's been difficult adjusting without major financial loss.
- We are still assessing the impact on our personal financial plans.
- The divestiture process seemed rushed, impacting my stress levels.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
US House Representative (Ohio)
Age: 59 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy prompts us to shift focus from direct stock trading to more stable investment vehicles.
- Execution would be smoother with clearer guidelines.
- My spouse's career in government mitigates personal financial stress.
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 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)
Year 2: $5000000 (Low: $2500000, High: $7500000)
Year 3: $3000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $5000000)
Year 5: $2000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $3000000)
Year 10: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $1500000)
Year 100: $500000 (Low: $250000, High: $750000)
Key Considerations
- The primary cost considerations will be enforcement and compliance monitoring.
- Secondary benefits in reducing financial conflicts and enhancing public trust may have indirect fiscal benefits.
- Implementation costs are low relative to other regulatory policies as the number of affected individuals is small.