While stories of sexual abuse in the hallowed halls of Congress, bought off by tax dollars with sealed with a non-disclosure agreement, caught a little bit of interest, it was dwarfed by the Stormy Daniels story, with a president buying the silence of a porn star over his affair that, remarkably, didn’t seem particularly disturbing to most people. The problem was the non-disclosure agreement, the contractual clause that kept the deed secret.

California, home of Harvey Weinstein and Asia Argento, had enough of it.

The California Legislature passed two bills last week aimed at helping sexual harassment victims and the bills are now awaiting Gov. Jerry Brown’s signature to become law. One bill, AB 3080, would ban confidential agreements regarding harassment and mandatory arbitration agreements in employment contracts, which are often used to prevent sexual harassment and assault victims from seeking justice.

The other, SB 820, would prohibit nondisclosure agreements that prevent the “disclosure of factual information” in sexual harassment, assault and discrimination settlements. The bill would still allow settlement agreements in sexual misconduct cases and allow the victim’s name to remain private, but the name of the perpetrator cannot be concealed.

Cue the syllogism. But then, there are a litany of flagrantly obvious unintended consequences that flow directly from the fix. It seems almost impossible that the lege didn’t realize this, but pandering to the unduly passionate has its immediate advantages, while consequences come down the line.

Contrary to the beliefs of people who feel that unicorns prance on rainbows, there is only one reason why anyone would agree to settle a claim of sexual harassment: to stem the potential reputational damage to the accused. No, people don’t pay money because of regret for the terrible things they did. Nor do they settle because of fear of huge damage awards. There is rarely more than a pittance to be had, with no provable economic damages and only rhetorical pain and suffering. Hurt feelings may be good enough for Facebook likes, but not for a sustainable jury verdict.

The NDA is the crux of the settlement. And, this is a critical aspect to the problem, it doesn’t matter whether someone did the dirty or not. It may prove a wise business decision to pay off an accuser, even if the accusation is completely false or wildly exaggerated, to avoid the far more expensive harm to reputation and career.

“By banning secret settlements in cases of sexual assault, sexual harassment and sex discrimination, California will effectively eliminate one of the main tools that perpetrators have used over the years to silence victims and deny them justice,” California Sen. Connie Leyva, who sponsored SB 820, said in a statement.

This isn’t necessarily false as far as bad dudes buying silence, although the “deny them justice” piece doesn’t pass the sniff test. There is nothing that precludes the victim of a sexual assault from going to the police. But if they choose not to, and prefer, you know, cash instead, it’s hard to blame the “perpetrator” for standing in their way.

And that’s the key to the many consequences of this shallow reform, that while NDA’s protect the perpetrator, they serve the “victim” as well. And if the law precludes a non-disclosure clause, or permits the victim to grab the loot and then run over to the National Enquirer and tell all, then why bother?

There is a question whether such a law creates an impediment to an individual’s right to contract, to reach any agreement of their choosing at arm’s length with another party. What business is it of the state to tell them what they can and cannot agree to do? But then, that’s the essence of progressivism, to regulate personal choice  so as to align with the notions of what scolds tell you is acceptable for your own good. They know better than you.

But the flip side of the concern involves the power dynamics between the parties. If a wealthy and powerful man buy she silence of a poor and powerless woman, is it really an arm’s length transaction? Has he taken advantage of someone who can’t do much to protect herself? Is it okay to rape as long as you have enough money to overwhelm your victim’s free will?

The problem with legislating a solution that precludes an NDA is that it might help some victim to refuse a big payoff, although the same could be said of her simply refusing the big payoff because she’s a strong woman, but it will make it worthless to settle claims with everyone else.

And while there is no empirical basis of which I’m aware to suggest whether there are more oppressed women coerced into taking huge money for their silence than woman who are totally fine with having their silence bought for the right price, the option will no longer be available.

Is this progress? There is a tacit implication in this reform that the more important interests at stake are those of the public, whether because everyone loves a prurient story about a celebrity or to alert other potential victims to stay far away from some bad dude. And there is some merit to the idea when it involves a crime like rape or sexual assault. When it’s a matter of sexual harassment, a vagary that may offend one person and mean nothing to another because they don’t lose their shit over a dirty joke, the need to alert the public isn’t a strong argument.

Regardless, what of the actual “victim”? She’s lost in the sauce here, as the California lege has stolen all her leverage. The only thing she had to sell was her silence, and now she’s got nothing to offer. Sure, she’ll get likes on Facebook, but that doesn’t pay the bills.

Consider the consequences: Stormy Daniels would be left to dance at strip clubs for dollar tips. Michael Avenatti would be sitting in an SRO instead of a green room, litigating his firm’s bankruptcy and his disciplinary grievances instead of holding court at MSNBC. And Darth Cheeto would still be president with the blessing of the Moral Majority. Is that the world you want?