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
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) talks to reporters during her weekly news conference at the U.S. Capitol on December 15, 2021 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
A Ban on Congressional Stock Trading Is a No-Brainer
This is so obvious it's amazing we even have to debate it.
Jan 27, 2022
There's no good reason for elected officials to trade individual stocks at all. Unless you have special insider knowledge, buying and selling individual stocks is a terrible way to get rich. It's gambling, plain and simple. That's why many Americans with retirement accounts prefer to invest in index funds--which are tied to the performance of the entire stock market
But many members of Congress continue to invest in individual stocks, and some do quite well. How do they do it?
"Members of Congress are elected to represent the interests of the people, not the money in their brokerage accounts."
Consider this: just before the economy crashed in 2008, several lawmakers frantically shifted their holdings to "safer" investments. This frenzy came just after private meetings with Treasury officials who had warned that an economic disaster was imminent.
I imagine most of you weren't invited to these meetings--I certainly wasn't. But those lawmakers were--and likely chose to act on that information.
When this story came to light, people were naturally outraged. After immense public pressure Congress passed the STOCK Act in 2012. The act required lawmakers to disclose their stock sales, and those of their spouses, within 45 days. By forcing these transactions to be public, the hope was that lawmakers would stop making questionable trades.
And it worked. Well... partially.
In January 2020, a handful of senators--including Richard Burr, Dianne Feinstein, and Kelly Loeffler--all made significant trades after receiving a classified briefing on Covid-19, well before the public knew the full extent of the threat.
Few, if any, lawmakers have faced serious consequences for violating the spirit or the letter of the law, as insider trading is notoriously difficult to prove.
In 2021 alone, news outlets identified 43 lawmakers who failed to properly disclose their trades. Their punishment? Nothing. Lawmakers are supposed to face a paltry $200 fine for failing to report on time--but congressional ethics officials usually waive it.
There is an obvious solution to all this: bar members of Congress from trading individual stocks.
The proposed Ban Conflicted Trading Act does just this. Lawmakers would have six months after being elected to sell their individual holdings, transfer them to a blind trust over which they have no control, or hold onto them until they leave office without trading them.
But Congress has yet to hold a vote on this bill, even though 67 percent of Americans agree it's a good idea to prevent members of Congress from trading individual stocks.
As usual, follow the money: a majority of lawmakers are millionaires, who likely get a sizable chunk of their wealth from investments and trades. So they won't support this bill unless there's enough public outcry to make them.
That's where you come in.
With distrust in government near an all-time high, even the appearance of a conflict of interest hurts our democracy. Members of Congress are elected to represent the interests of the people, not the money in their brokerage accounts.
Banning members of Congress from trading individual stocks is a no-brainer. Let's get it done.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
Robert Reich
Robert Reich is professor emeritus of public policy at Berkeley and former US secretary of labor. His latest book is the No. 1 New York Times best-seller, "Coming Up Short."
There's no good reason for elected officials to trade individual stocks at all. Unless you have special insider knowledge, buying and selling individual stocks is a terrible way to get rich. It's gambling, plain and simple. That's why many Americans with retirement accounts prefer to invest in index funds--which are tied to the performance of the entire stock market
But many members of Congress continue to invest in individual stocks, and some do quite well. How do they do it?
"Members of Congress are elected to represent the interests of the people, not the money in their brokerage accounts."
Consider this: just before the economy crashed in 2008, several lawmakers frantically shifted their holdings to "safer" investments. This frenzy came just after private meetings with Treasury officials who had warned that an economic disaster was imminent.
I imagine most of you weren't invited to these meetings--I certainly wasn't. But those lawmakers were--and likely chose to act on that information.
When this story came to light, people were naturally outraged. After immense public pressure Congress passed the STOCK Act in 2012. The act required lawmakers to disclose their stock sales, and those of their spouses, within 45 days. By forcing these transactions to be public, the hope was that lawmakers would stop making questionable trades.
And it worked. Well... partially.
In January 2020, a handful of senators--including Richard Burr, Dianne Feinstein, and Kelly Loeffler--all made significant trades after receiving a classified briefing on Covid-19, well before the public knew the full extent of the threat.
Few, if any, lawmakers have faced serious consequences for violating the spirit or the letter of the law, as insider trading is notoriously difficult to prove.
In 2021 alone, news outlets identified 43 lawmakers who failed to properly disclose their trades. Their punishment? Nothing. Lawmakers are supposed to face a paltry $200 fine for failing to report on time--but congressional ethics officials usually waive it.
There is an obvious solution to all this: bar members of Congress from trading individual stocks.
The proposed Ban Conflicted Trading Act does just this. Lawmakers would have six months after being elected to sell their individual holdings, transfer them to a blind trust over which they have no control, or hold onto them until they leave office without trading them.
But Congress has yet to hold a vote on this bill, even though 67 percent of Americans agree it's a good idea to prevent members of Congress from trading individual stocks.
As usual, follow the money: a majority of lawmakers are millionaires, who likely get a sizable chunk of their wealth from investments and trades. So they won't support this bill unless there's enough public outcry to make them.
That's where you come in.
With distrust in government near an all-time high, even the appearance of a conflict of interest hurts our democracy. Members of Congress are elected to represent the interests of the people, not the money in their brokerage accounts.
Banning members of Congress from trading individual stocks is a no-brainer. Let's get it done.
Robert Reich
Robert Reich is professor emeritus of public policy at Berkeley and former US secretary of labor. His latest book is the No. 1 New York Times best-seller, "Coming Up Short."
There's no good reason for elected officials to trade individual stocks at all. Unless you have special insider knowledge, buying and selling individual stocks is a terrible way to get rich. It's gambling, plain and simple. That's why many Americans with retirement accounts prefer to invest in index funds--which are tied to the performance of the entire stock market
But many members of Congress continue to invest in individual stocks, and some do quite well. How do they do it?
"Members of Congress are elected to represent the interests of the people, not the money in their brokerage accounts."
Consider this: just before the economy crashed in 2008, several lawmakers frantically shifted their holdings to "safer" investments. This frenzy came just after private meetings with Treasury officials who had warned that an economic disaster was imminent.
I imagine most of you weren't invited to these meetings--I certainly wasn't. But those lawmakers were--and likely chose to act on that information.
When this story came to light, people were naturally outraged. After immense public pressure Congress passed the STOCK Act in 2012. The act required lawmakers to disclose their stock sales, and those of their spouses, within 45 days. By forcing these transactions to be public, the hope was that lawmakers would stop making questionable trades.
And it worked. Well... partially.
In January 2020, a handful of senators--including Richard Burr, Dianne Feinstein, and Kelly Loeffler--all made significant trades after receiving a classified briefing on Covid-19, well before the public knew the full extent of the threat.
Few, if any, lawmakers have faced serious consequences for violating the spirit or the letter of the law, as insider trading is notoriously difficult to prove.
In 2021 alone, news outlets identified 43 lawmakers who failed to properly disclose their trades. Their punishment? Nothing. Lawmakers are supposed to face a paltry $200 fine for failing to report on time--but congressional ethics officials usually waive it.
There is an obvious solution to all this: bar members of Congress from trading individual stocks.
The proposed Ban Conflicted Trading Act does just this. Lawmakers would have six months after being elected to sell their individual holdings, transfer them to a blind trust over which they have no control, or hold onto them until they leave office without trading them.
But Congress has yet to hold a vote on this bill, even though 67 percent of Americans agree it's a good idea to prevent members of Congress from trading individual stocks.
As usual, follow the money: a majority of lawmakers are millionaires, who likely get a sizable chunk of their wealth from investments and trades. So they won't support this bill unless there's enough public outcry to make them.
That's where you come in.
With distrust in government near an all-time high, even the appearance of a conflict of interest hurts our democracy. Members of Congress are elected to represent the interests of the people, not the money in their brokerage accounts.
Banning members of Congress from trading individual stocks is a no-brainer. Let's get it done.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.