Policy Impact Analysis - 117/S/4025

Bill Overview

Title: Ambassador Oversight and Transparency Act

Description: This bill requires the President and each individual appointed or assigned to be a chief of mission to make certain disclosures, including (1) the source and extent of the individual's knowledge related to the area in which they have been nominated to serve, and (2) specified campaign contributions. The President must also certify that any contributions made by the nominee played no role in the nomination.

Sponsors: Sen. Kaine, Tim [D-VA]

Target Audience

Population: Chiefs of mission (ambassadors)

Estimated Size: 300

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Ambassador (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 transparency is crucial, but I worry the public might misjudge some campaign contributions as inappropriate when they were within legal and ethical norms.
  • This act could actually reassure the host country of my genuine intent and professionalism.

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 7
Year 20 8 7

Non-profit Policy Analyst (New York, NY)

Age: 42 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I fully support the Ambassador Oversight and Transparency Act as it aligns with the principles of open government and accountability.
  • This policy could lead to more qualified and less politicized ambassadorial appointments.

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

Graduate Student (Boston, MA)

Age: 30 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • While it doesn't affect me directly right now, I think it sets a positive precedent for future diplomats like myself.
  • The policy can encourage transparency and merit in ambassadorial selections, which is a positive direction for U.S. diplomacy.

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 Diplomat (Los Angeles, CA)

Age: 63 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 2/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Back in my day, the process was less scrutinized but I see the merit in more transparency now.
  • Transparency might protect good ambassadors from baseless accusations and ensure helpful public understanding.

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

Political Consultant (Houston, TX)

Age: 35 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The transparency requirements might make some candidates think twice about serving, but overall, I think it's fair.
  • This framework might lead to more vetting work for campaign advisors like myself.

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

Foreign Policy Journalist (Miami, FL)

Age: 48 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 7.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • It's about time transparency in these roles was prioritized, the public deserves to know who is influencing foreign policy.
  • This act will improve trust and maybe even improve the quality of diplomatic appointments.

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 8 7
Year 20 8 7

Corporate Lawyer (Chicago, IL)

Age: 50 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • While I understand the need for this bill, I am concerned about the potential for misuse or over-interpretation of disclosed information.
  • Transparency should be paired with education to prevent misunderstandings.

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

Data Scientist (Seattle, WA)

Age: 39 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Data transparency is key in all sectors, including diplomacy.
  • Providing data on ambassadors' qualifications and contributions can help public monitoring and foster trust.

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

University Professor (Phoenix, AZ)

Age: 47 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Requiring transparency can prevent the politicization of these roles, which is beneficial for diplomacy.
  • Education about these roles is crucial so the public can use transparency effectively.

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

Retired Business Executive (Dallas, TX)

Age: 60 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 2/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This bill could enhance U.S. diplomatic efforts on a global stage by ensuring the most qualified individuals are in key positions.
  • Although I won't be directly affected, as an American I appreciate the consideration of ethics in government roles.

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

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $7000000)

Year 2: $4500000 (Low: $3500000, High: $6500000)

Year 3: $4500000 (Low: $3500000, High: $6500000)

Year 5: $4600000 (Low: $3600000, High: $6600000)

Year 10: $4800000 (Low: $3700000, High: $6700000)

Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $7000000)

Key Considerations