By Anietie Anii-Bassey
Two senators from opposite ends of the political spectrum are reviving a long-running effort to prohibit members of Congress from trading individual stocks, renewing a push that enjoys broad public support but has repeatedly stalled amid partisan maneuvering and competing proposals on Capitol Hill.
Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Republican Sen. Ashley Moody of Florida are set to introduce legislation that would bar lawmakers and their immediate family members from buying, selling or owning individual stocks while in office.
The proposal reflects growing bipartisan momentum to address concerns that elected officials may be profiting from access to nonpublic information gained through their official duties.
The new bill enters an already crowded field of reform efforts in both chambers of Congress. Multiple proposals aimed at curbing stock trading by lawmakers have been introduced in recent months, underscoring the political appeal of the issue but also complicating the path to agreement.
In the House, Republican leaders are backing a separate measure that critics argue falls short of meaningful reform, while other lawmakers are attempting to force votes on stricter alternatives.
“There’s an American consensus around this, not a partisan consensus,” Gillibrand said in an interview, arguing that lawmakers and senior government officials should not be allowed to personally profit from decisions that affect markets and industries nationwide. “Members of Congress should not be making money off the backs of the American people.”
Concerns over congressional stock trading have intensified in recent years following ethics inquiries and criminal investigations into lawmakers accused of using privileged information to guide personal investments. Although no sweeping ban has yet passed, candidates from both parties have increasingly pledged during campaigns to end the practice, creating rare bipartisan alliances on an issue that resonates strongly with voters.
In the House, tensions over how far reform should go are already on display. Republican Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida is seeking to bypass party leadership by gathering signatures for a discharge petition that would force a vote on her bill to ban stock trading outright. The effort has drawn significant Democratic support but remains short of the number of signatures needed to succeed.
House Republican leaders, meanwhile, have advanced an alternative proposal that would prohibit lawmakers and their spouses from purchasing individual stocks but would allow them to retain investments they already own.
The bill would also require public notice before stock sales. Critics have described the approach as insufficient, arguing it leaves open the door to conflicts of interest and undermines public trust. Although the measure has advanced through committee, its future remains uncertain.
The Senate legislation introduced by Gillibrand and Moody mirrors a stricter House proposal sponsored last year by Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, a Republican, and Rep. Seth Magaziner of Rhode Island, a Democrat.
That bill, which attracted a large number of co-sponsors, would impose a blanket ban on individual stock trading by members of Congress. Several House Democrats, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, have publicly criticized leadership-backed alternatives, saying they fail to deliver the reform voters expect.
Under the Gillibrand-Moody proposal, current members of Congress would be given 180 days to divest from individual stock holdings after the law takes effect. Newly elected lawmakers would have 90 days from being sworn in to do the same.
The bill would also prohibit ownership or trading of certain other financial assets, including securities, commodities and futures, further tightening restrictions designed to eliminate potential conflicts.
“The American people must be able to trust that their elected officials are focused on results for the country, not on profiting from their positions,” Moody said, emphasizing that restoring confidence in Congress is central to the effort.
The legislation would exempt the president and vice president, a provision that is likely to draw criticism, particularly from Democrats who argue that ethical standards should apply equally across branches of government.
Gillibrand acknowledged the concern, saying she believes the president should ultimately be held to the same standard but described the bill as a pragmatic step forward.
“I don’t think we have to allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good,” she said, arguing that the proposal reflects a bipartisan compromise that could realistically move through Congress.
Whether the bill will gain traction in the Senate remains an open question. A similar measure introduced in 2023 by Gillibrand and Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri failed to advance out of committee, highlighting the difficulty of translating public support into legislative action.
Even so, the issue remains politically potent. Moody is seeking election to her first full term in the Senate after being appointed to the seat, while Gillibrand oversees Senate Democrats’ campaign strategy. Both lawmakers argue that public pressure is building.
“The time has come,” Gillibrand said. “There’s a drumbeat of people across the country who want this done, and Congress should finally listen.”
Original article
Comments