Bill Overview
Title: No Government Contracts for Known Leakers Act of 2022
Description: This bill prohibits the U.S. government from knowingly contracting with persons who have previously disclosed nonpublic government information to unauthorized persons. The bill sets penalties for violations.
Sponsors: Sen. Hagerty, Bill [R-TN]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals previously found responsible for unauthorized disclosure of nonpublic government information
Estimated Size: 4000
- The bill targets individuals who have been convicted or found responsible for unauthorized disclosure of nonpublic government information to unauthorized recipients.
- Government contractors who may have employees with a history of leaking could be affected by this bill.
- There may be a preventive impact on government employees or affiliates who might consider leaking information in the future.
- The bill seeks to impact the operational capabilities of entities reliant on government contracts by restricting individuals with a record of leaking from contributing to their eligibility for such contracts.
Reasoning
- The policy aims at individuals who have been involved in unauthorized leaking of governmental information. These individuals form a small but significant group within government or affiliated organizations.
- Given the focus on contractors, the potential impact of the policy extends to private firms involved in government contracts, especially regarding their hiring practices.
- Due to public apprehension over data security within the government, there might be a general sense of increased trustworthiness in government operations with such a policy in place.
- The policy might discourage potential leaks due to the employment consequences connected to government contracts.
Simulated Interviews
government contractor project manager (Washington, DC)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I understand the need for safeguarding government information. This policy can ensure individuals on government contracts are fully vetted.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
former government employee now working in private sector (New York, NY)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see how this could protect sensitive information, but it seems punitive for those wanting to re-enter government sectors.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
data analyst at tech company (Chicago, IL)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems like it could unfairly limit career prospects for those who made mistakes previously.
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 |
cybersecurity consultant (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could ensure that we have higher standards in place, aligning business practices with national security.
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 |
government contracts attorney (Boston, MA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While the policy intends to protect, it could bring in complex litigation around what constitutes a 'known leaker'.
- Clients may face unwarranted scrutiny, negatively impacting businesses.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
IT specialist at a federal agency (Miami, FL)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm for anything that enhances trust in government systems, though operational impacts should be minimal.
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 |
social activist (Austin, TX)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could discourage whistleblowers who have ethical concerns, drawing a fine line in policy effectiveness.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
communications officer at a non-profit (Denver, CO)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There's a danger that this policy could exclude talent from roles they are otherwise qualified for.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
retired intelligence officer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this could restore some honor to federal contracting by ensuring only trustworthy individuals are involved.
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 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
academic researcher in public policy (Seattle, WA)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This presents implications around civil liberties, possibly limiting freedom for those with prior indiscretions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $25000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $35000000)
Year 2: $20000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $28000000)
Year 3: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 5: $10000000 (Low: $6000000, High: $14000000)
Year 10: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 100: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $1500000)
Key Considerations
- The policy primarily focuses on a deterrence mechanism by restricting contracts to uphold data confidentiality.
- Administration and regulation of this act could increase government regulatory enforcement costs.
- The secondary market repercussions could include increases in compliance costs for contractors, potentially influencing pricing structures.