[BostonCard]

Not to quibble (much), but were they Federal forms for a GS job? Are you aware of the possible legal implications of making an misrepresentation? At one point my wife was considering it. These forms basically sealed the deal of "no way". We are far from "rich", but even for the average person it is a big PITA. Not to mention that she would have been required to sell a bunch of stock with what she thought was a big upside. 

Listen, I think we are simultaneously arguing two different but related things.  The first is whether federal disclosure and divestment requirements are too onerous.  While I think there is a good reason they exist, I am willing to entertain that they may be overly restrictive; it certainly sounds like it in your wife's case.

The second point, which I am arguing, is whether Slaoui specifically should be exempt from them.  Now, I get that if you already think the requirements are too onerous, you might be more sympathetic towards someone skirting the rules.  The flip side of that is two-fold.  First, why do we insist that people like your wife fill out the forms and divest of their stocks, but allow people like Slaoui to take a "time honored dodge".  More importantly, people hired to lower level positions are not going to sign off on multi-billion dollar deals, so the stakes are higher in Slaoui's case.

My experience is that about 90% of public servants accept less money and added headaches because they believe in serving their country.  90% of the remainder are doing so temporarily knowing that they will be able to get a much better paying job in industry after they leave government service, but do faithfully serve while they are in government; they just have one foot out the door.  The remaining 1% are basically looking to loot the government to benefit themselves, their family, or their friends.  And unfortunately, because you don't know who's who, everyone gets "treated like a criminal before they even work there."

For someone like me, I have almost everything in index funds, and I was just required to disclose the funds (not their individual components).  For someone like Slaoui, he almost certainly has an accountant that can prepare the documents for him.

Yes, but why do it? You are doing your country a favor and they are treating you like a criminal before you even work there. Not only that, but if somebody doesn't like how a contract award went, they can still sue because you knew what the index fund owned from "talk on the street".

Lawsuits are an issue for sure. However, as the example you cite shows, the Government can't insulate themselves from these suits even if everything "looks" on the up-and-up.

That's the thing, there was a reasonable concern that everything wasn't on the "up and up".  It just wasn't a financial conflict of interest at the center; it was a question of whether there was undue influence out of a personal grudge.  Now, this was a case where no amount of regulation would have fixed; there was no financial conflict of interest and in any case, the President isn't subject to those restrictions.  But, having inserted himself into the conversation, Amazon could file a lawsuit and allege improporiety.

An aggrieved loser in the Operation Warp Speed race might be able to turn around and challenge the allocation of funds on the basis of a conflict of interest.  That strikes me as an avoidable risk.  Moreover, this will involve far more than just a single winner or loser; it is possible that multiple vaccines will emerge and then things like selecting the price the government pays and the allocation of doses.  Let's say a company he own's stock in is one of several companies to be successful at the end and gets awarded a contract for 100 million doses at $20 a piece.  Will Slaoui push to get that down to $19 a piece?  That price difference would be worth the taxpayer vastly more than even a market rate salary.  And it is not something that a different company will challenge in court.  So, I don't think disclosure alone is enough.

BC

[BostonCard]

Not to quibble (much), but were they Federal forms for a GS job? Are you aware of the possible legal implications of making an misrepresentation? At one point my wife was considering it. These forms basically sealed the deal of "no way". We are far from "rich", but even for the average person it is a big PITA. Not to mention that she would have been required to sell a bunch of stock with what she thought was a big upside. 

Listen, I think we are simultaneously arguing two different but related things.  The first is whether federal disclosure and divestment requirements are too onerous.  While I think there is a good reason they exist, I am willing to entertain that they may be overly restrictive; it certainly sounds like it in your wife's case.

The second point, which I am arguing, is whether Slaoui specifically should be exempt from them.  Now, I get that if you already think the requirements are too onerous, you might be more sympathetic towards someone skirting the rules.  The flip side of that is two-fold.  First, why do we insist that people like your wife fill out the forms and divest of their stocks, but allow people like Slaoui to take a "time honored dodge".  More importantly, people hired to lower level positions are not going to sign off on multi-billion dollar deals, so the stakes are higher in Slaoui's case.

My experience is that about 90% of public servants accept less money and added headaches because they believe in serving their country.  90% of the remainder are doing so temporarily knowing that they will be able to get a much better paying job in industry after they leave government service, but do faithfully serve while they are in government; they just have one foot out the door.  The remaining 1% are basically looking to loot the government to benefit themselves, their family, or their friends.  And unfortunately, because you don't know who's who, everyone gets "treated like a criminal before they even work there."

For someone like me, I have almost everything in index funds, and I was just required to disclose the funds (not their individual components).  For someone like Slaoui, he almost certainly has an accountant that can prepare the documents for him.

Yes, but why do it? You are doing your country a favor and they are treating you like a criminal before you even work there. Not only that, but if somebody doesn't like how a contract award went, they can still sue because you knew what the index fund owned from "talk on the street".

Lawsuits are an issue for sure. However, as the example you cite shows, the Government can't insulate themselves from these suits even if everything "looks" on the up-and-up.

That's the thing, there was a reasonable concern that everything wasn't on the "up and up".  It just wasn't a financial conflict of interest at the center; it was a question of whether there was undue influence out of a personal grudge.  Now, this was a case where no amount of regulation would have fixed; there was no financial conflict of interest and in any case, the President isn't subject to those restrictions.  But, having inserted himself into the conversation, Amazon could file a lawsuit and allege improporiety.

An aggrieved loser in the Operation Warp Speed race might be able to turn around and challenge the allocation of funds on the basis of a conflict of interest.  That strikes me as an avoidable risk.  Moreover, this will involve far more than just a single winner or loser; it is possible that multiple vaccines will emerge and then things like selecting the price the government pays and the allocation of doses.  Let's say a company he own's stock in is one of several companies to be successful at the end and gets awarded a contract for 100 million doses at $20 a piece.  Will Slaoui push to get that down to $19 a piece?  That price difference would be worth the taxpayer vastly more than even a market rate salary.  And it is not something that a different company will challenge in court.  So, I don't think disclosure alone is enough.

BC