BY EMMANUEL OGBONNA
Two senators from opposite parties are reviving a long-running effort to bar members of Congress from trading stocks, renewing a debate that has broad public backing but has repeatedly faltered amid disagreements on Capitol Hill over how far the restrictions should go.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, a Democrat from New York, and Sen. Ashley Moody, a Republican from Florida, are preparing to introduce legislation that would prohibit lawmakers and their immediate family members from trading or owning individual stocks. The proposal represents the latest attempt to translate widespread voter frustration over congressional stock trading into binding law, as concerns persist that elected officials may profit from information gained through their official duties.
The measure adds to a growing list of bipartisan proposals in both chambers aimed at tightening or eliminating lawmakers’ ability to trade individual equities. While that activity has generated unusual agreement across party lines in principle, competing bills and differing standards have complicated efforts to settle on a single approach that can pass both the House and Senate.
Gillibrand said the issue transcends partisan politics and speaks to basic public trust in government. She argued that Americans broadly agree that elected officials and senior government leaders should not be able to personally profit from decisions that affect markets and industries nationwide.
Concerns about stock trading by lawmakers have intensified over the past several years as reports and investigations highlighted cases in which members of Congress bought or sold shares while working on legislation or receiving briefings that could influence stock prices. Although such transactions are legal under current rules if properly disclosed, critics say the practice undermines confidence in Congress and creates the appearance of conflicts of interest.
Both parties have leaned into that frustration during campaigns, with candidates frequently promising to ban stock trading by lawmakers once elected. Those pledges have created rare bipartisan alliances, even as disagreements persist over the scope and enforcement of any ban.
The bill being introduced by Gillibrand and Moody closely mirrors legislation introduced last year in the House by Rep. Chip Roy, a Republican from Texas, and Rep. Seth Magaziner, a Democrat from Rhode Island. That House proposal, which has attracted 125 co-sponsors, would impose a sweeping ban on members of Congress buying or selling individual stocks altogether.
In the House, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida has attempted to force a vote on that bill by pursuing a discharge petition, a procedural move that bypasses party leadership. Her effort has gathered 79 of the 218 signatures required, with most of the support coming from Democrats, signaling strong interest but falling well short of what is needed to compel a floor vote.
House Republican leaders, meanwhile, have backed a different approach. Their alternative proposal would bar lawmakers and their spouses from purchasing individual stocks but would allow them to keep stocks they already own. It would also require public notice seven days before a lawmaker sells a stock. That bill advanced out of committee this week, a development Luna described as progress, though its ultimate fate remains uncertain.
Democrats critical of the leadership-backed House bill say it does not go far enough. Magaziner and several other House Democrats, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, said in a joint statement that the proposal fails to deliver the meaningful reform needed to restore public trust.
The Senate legislation from Gillibrand and Moody would require sitting lawmakers to divest their individual stock holdings within 180 days of the bill taking effect. Newly elected members would have 90 days from being sworn in to divest. Beyond stocks, the bill would also prohibit ownership and trading of certain other financial assets, including securities, commodities and futures, significantly narrowing the range of investments lawmakers could hold.
Moody said the goal is to ensure voters can be confident that elected officials are acting in the public interest rather than shaping policy with personal financial gain in mind. She emphasized that Congress’s authority over federal spending makes it especially important that lawmakers avoid even the appearance of conflicted incentives.
One provision of the bill is likely to draw criticism: it would exempt the president and vice president from the restrictions. Similar carveouts have sparked objections in the past, including during debate over legislation regulating cryptocurrency activities by members of Congress that did not apply to the president.
Gillibrand acknowledged that the exemption is not ideal and said she believes the president should ultimately be held to the same standards as lawmakers. Still, she argued that the proposal represents a meaningful starting point that reflects what is currently achievable through bipartisan compromise.
She said lawmakers should not let the pursuit of a perfect bill derail progress on reforms that could command broad support and move the issue forward after years of inaction.
Whether the legislation will advance remains an open question. A similar bipartisan bill introduced in 2023 by Gillibrand and Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri stalled in committee and never reached a vote. That history underscores the challenge of turning popular sentiment into enacted law.
Even so, the issue carries political weight. Moody is running for her first full term in the Senate this year after being appointed to the seat, while Gillibrand leads Senate Democrats’ campaign efforts. Both senators suggested that momentum is building as voters across the political spectrum demand stricter ethical standards for lawmakers.
Gillibrand said the pressure to act is only increasing, describing a growing sense that the time has come for Congress to finally address an issue that has lingered for years.
Original article
Comments