Bill Overview
Title: Fair Elections Now Act of 2022
Description: of 2022 This bill establishes the Freedom from Influence Fund, which shall provide funding to Senate candidates who meet specified conditions and agree to abide by certain requirements, such as limits on types of campaign funding sources. The bill also imposes a tax on certain U.S. government contracts.
Sponsors: Sen. Durbin, Richard J. [D-IL]
Target Audience
Population: People in the United States
Estimated Size: 330000000
- Senate candidates who will have access to the Freedom from Influence Fund if they meet certain conditions.
- U.S. voters who may be influenced by the changes in campaign funding limitations and sources, affecting their choice perception.
- Taxpayers or businesses directly involved in certain U.S. government contracts that will now be taxed as per the bill.
- The broader U.S. electorate whose elections will now be subject to potentially different influence patterns as a result of this legislation.
Reasoning
- The Fair Elections Now Act impacts a wide range of people, from Senate candidates to the general electorate, thereby requiring interviews representing diverse demographics and roles.
- Given the constraints on budget, candidates who do not receive significant PAC funding or are against such funding will likely benefit the most.
- The legislation may lead to different electoral outcomes as voter perceptions could be reshaped, especially if more candidates participate under fewer funding constraints.
- Government contractors and taxpayers directly involved in contract-related taxes could experience a financial impact and could have varying opinions depending on their views about political campaign funding.
Simulated Interviews
Senate Candidate (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Potentially levels the playing field for new candidates.
- Worried about fundraising under new limits.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Political Strategist (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could change campaign strategies significantly.
- Might reduce reliance on social media heavy funding drives.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Small Business Owner (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 38 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased taxes might strain my business.
- But supportive of fair elections principles.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Retired (Des Moines, IA)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Hopes more candidates will focus on issues rather than funding.
- Skeptical about enforcement of fund rules.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Activist (Seattle, WA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act could be a huge success for fair elections.
- Excited but critical about actual outcomes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Lobbyist (Dallas, TX)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Clients are worried about new donation rules.
- Unsure how existing influence networks will adapt.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Banker (Chicago, IL)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- New regulations might limit our business model.
- May open up new, transparent financial services.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
College Professor (New York, NY)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Important step forward if correctly implemented.
- Worried about legal loopholes exploited by well-funded candidates.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Software Engineer (Boulder, CO)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Interested to see technology adapt to new campaign finance laws.
- Concerned about reduced transparency from independent groups.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Government Contractor (Miami, FL)
Age: 57 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- New taxes could impact bottom line but see the value in fairer elections.
- Believes in transparent documentation of election funding.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $40000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $50000000)
Year 2: $45000000 (Low: $35000000, High: $60000000)
Year 3: $47000000 (Low: $37000000, High: $65000000)
Year 5: $48000000 (Low: $38000000, High: $70000000)
Year 10: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $75000000)
Year 100: $60000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $85000000)
Key Considerations
- The uncertainty regarding the uptake of the Freedom from Influence Fund by candidates may lead to variance in projected costs.
- The economic environment and future changes in government contracting volumes could impact both revenue from the imposed tax and the financial sustainability of the fund.
- Potential administrative challenges in overseeing compliance with new funding limitations and tax obligations.