SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
campaign legal center
Senate Advances Bill Banning Politicians From Stock Trading—While Giving Trump a Big Carveout
"Voters have a right to know that their elected representatives are acting in the public's best interest and are not motivated by their personal financial interests," said the general counsel at the Campaign Legal Center.
Jul 30, 2025
The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Wednesday narrowly voted in favor of advancing a bill that bars politicians at the federal level from trading stocks—with one highly notable exception.
As reported by Politico, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) joined with all Democrats on the committee to advance a bill to ban stock trading by elected officials. However, to get Hawley's vote, Democrats had to agree to create a carveout for U.S. President Donald Trump and to apply the stock-trading ban only to future presidents.
Business Insider reported that, as written, the legislation "would ban members of members of Congress, the president, and the vice president from buying stocks immediately upon enactment, and would block them from selling stocks beginning 90 days after that."
"It would then require lawmakers to divest entirely from their stock holdings at the beginning of their next term, and it would require the president and vice president to do so beginning in 2029—after President Donald Trump's current term," the outlet explained.
Hawley took heat from fellow Republicans on the committee for advancing the legislation, including Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), who accused his Missouri colleague of demonizing the wealthy.
"I don't know when in this country it became a negative to make money," said Scott. "How many of you don’t want to make money? Anybody want to be poor?"
Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) said that she wished that the law didn't have a carveout for Trump, but nonetheless supported advancing the bill and she described herself as "willing to make the good work instead of waiting for the perfect."
The bill's advancement out of committee earned plaudits from some government reform advocates. Craig Holman, a government affairs lobbyist with Public Citizen, encouraged the full U.S. Senate to take up a vote on the package while also explaining the proposed legislation's importance.
"Members of Congress frequently have access to nonpublic information about economic and business trends and are in a position of power to influence those trends," he said. "That is why the American public—Republicans, Democrats and Independents alike—has called for this type of legislation ever since a series of insider trading scandals erupted over the last several years."
Kedric Payne, the vice president and general counsel at the Campaign Legal Center (CLC), similarly praised the bill's advancement while also explaining why current transparency rules were no longer adequate.
"To prevent corruption and conflicts of interest, CLC has long called on Congress to update the STOCK Act, which merely requires members to disclose their transactions, and fully ban stock trading by sitting legislators," said Payne. "In the absence of these stronger rules, we've seen congressional stock trading proliferate. This has led to repeated examples of ethical violations and questionable financial activity, including during global health emergencies and times of great economic uncertainty."
Payne further emphasized that "voters have a right to know that their elected representatives are acting in the public's best interest and are not motivated by their personal financial interests."
The legislation advanced by Hawley and the Democrats was originally named after Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the former speaker whose highly profitable stock trades have come under scrutiny in recent years.
Even though the bill has now made its way out of committee, it still faces an uncertain future in the full U.S. Senate where Republicans currently hold a 53-47 majority and where Democrats would need to win over some additional Republican converts on top of Hawley. And even should it pass the Senate, it's uncertain whether the legislation would be able to pass the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear GOP Effort to Further Gut Campaign Finance Law
Watchdogs say the spending coordination limits that Republicans are challenging were put in place to "guard against the corrupting effect of large campaign contributions."
Jun 30, 2025
The Supreme Court is taking up another Republican legal case seeking to erode campaign finance law and give more power to the wealthy donors seeking to influence elections.
On Monday, the court agreed to hear a challenge to campaign finance restrictions which limit the ability of party committees to directly coordinate spending with individual candidates. The anti-corruption group Public Citizen argues that this provision was put in place to "guard against the corrupting effect of large campaign contributions."
The challenge was brought by the National Republican Senatorial and Congressional Committees, as well as the 2022 campaigns of two Ohio Republican congressmen: former Sen. JD Vance, who has since become vice president, and former Rep. Steve Chabot, who lost his re-election bid in 2022.
The case seeks to overturn rules implemented in the Federal Election Campaign Act in 1971, which put strict limits on the ability of party committees to spend money in coordination with specific candidates. The Democratic National Committee will defend the rule before the court after filing a motion to intervene.
The rules were put in place, in part, to stop wealthy donors from using parties to get around rules about coordinating individual spending with candidates.
Under current law, how much coordinated spending parties can undertake is limited by the population of the state or district in question. At most, parties can coordinate nearly $4 million worth of spending for a single Senate candidate and $127,200 for a single House candidate.
The Republicans bringing the challenge have argued that the limits on coordinated spending violate the First Amendment.
The Campaign Legal Center, which has argued before the court against weakening these rules, has described them as a powerful bulwark against corruption.
"Since the party coordinated spending limits were enacted in the 1970s, these limits have checked the corruptive effect of large contributions flowing through party committees to candidates and prevented the quid pro quo exchanges that such contributions would otherwise facilitate," they wrote last year in a policy page arguing against the GOP challenge.
"Because the limits allow political parties to spend only a prescribed amount of their money in direct coordination with a candidate," the Campaign Legal Center continued, "they moderate the risk that a party committee could effectively pass on every big donation—or six-figure check collected via joint fundraising—to the donor’s chosen candidate in the form of coordinated expenditures."
"This case has nothing to do with the First Amendment and everything to do with Republicans' obsession with creating a government by and for billionaires," said Brett Edkins, a spokesperson for the progressive advocacy group Stand Up America.
In 2001, the Supreme Court upheld coordination limits in another case brought by Republicans: FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee.
In that case, often described as the Colorado II decision, the majority ruled 5-4 that "a party's coordinated expenditures, unlike expenditures truly independent, may be restricted to minimize circumvention of contribution limits."
Since then, however, the Supreme Court has helped the Republican Party chip away at laws that kept powerful donors in check.
Most notably, in the 2010 Citizens United v. FEC case, they ruled that political spending is a form of protected speech and that individuals could spend unlimited amounts of money influencing the election process, so long as it was not directly coordinated with candidates and instead done through "independent expenditure only" committees, more commonly known as super PACs.
"In the 15 years since the Supreme Court's abysmal Citizens United decision opened the floodgates to unlimited corporate and billionaire campaign spending, the corruption of American politics has gone from bad to worse," said Jon Golinger, a spokesman for Public Citizen.
Despite the supposed wall of separation, most candidates now rely on super PACs for large amounts of their political communication and organizing. In 2015, a report by Public Citizen titled "Super Connected" found that 45% of super PACs spending over $100,000 directed that spending toward a single candidate.
The amount of election-related corporate spending directed to these largely unaccountable entities has exploded in recent years. According to OpenSecrets, outside spending reached an unprecedented $4.5 billion in the 2024 election, compared with just $555 million in 2008, the last presidential election year before Citizens United.
The top three individual spenders—the Mellon family, Elon Musk, and the Adelson family—spent a combined $369 million to help Donald Trump win the presidency.
"The right-wing supermajority on the Court already dismantled decades of campaign finance protections in Citizens United, and now they’re poised to gut what few remain, inviting billionaires to bankroll candidates through political parties with no limits," Edkins said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Win for Government Ethics' as George Santos Sentenced to 7 Years for Fraud
"Now more than ever, a commitment to transparency and accountability is key to ensuring that candidates and elected officials serve the public, not their own interests," said one campaign finance reform advocate.
Apr 25, 2025
Government ethics watchdogs on Friday said the sentencing of former Republican congressman George Santos to more than seven years in prison for fraud was a victory for "the many voters and donors who were deceived" by the disgraced lawmaker.
"Santos' brazen fraud and misconduct, which included serious violations of federal campaign finance laws, was an affront to his constituents, his donors, and the integrity of our democracy," said Saurav Ghosh, director of campaign finance reform at the Campaign Legal Center. "The fact that he was held accountable should speak loudly to anyone contemplating similar actions aimed at exploiting the democratic process for personal gain."
Santos received his 87-month sentence from U.S. District Judge Joanna Seybert in the Eastern District of New York eight months after he pleaded guilty to two felony counts and admitted to using his campaign fundraising operation for personal gain.
The former New York congressman, who flipped a blue seat in a Long Island district in 2022 and was charged by prosecutors just months later, admitted to submitting false reports to the Federal Election Commission, stealing financial and personal information from elderly and cognitively impaired donors to fraudulently charge their credit cards, and using campaign contributions for luxury shopping and a hotel room in Las Vegas.
"The robust enforcement of campaign finance and ethics laws is critical to ensuring that our democracy works for everyday Americans, not politicians' personal interests."
Seybert said during the sentencing that Santos had committed "flagrant thievery" during his brief political career.
He is required to report to prison by July 25 and was also ordered to pay more than $373,000 in restitution.
"This accountability for his pattern of unethical and illegal conduct is a win for government ethics," said Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
Ghosh praised "the diligent enforcement efforts of the Office of Congressional Ethics, which helped bring about this result."
"Now more than ever, a commitment to transparency and accountability is key to ensuring that candidates and elected officials serve the public, not their own interests," said Ghosh. "The robust enforcement of campaign finance and ethics laws is critical to ensuring that our democracy works for everyday Americans, not politicians' personal interests."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular