Senators Introduce ‘Restore Trust In Congress Act’ That Would Ban Stock Trading In Congress

Lawmakers Push to Ban Congress Stock Trading Amid Trust Erosion Concerns

In a move aimed at restoring public trust in Congress, Republican and Democratic senators have introduced the "Restore Trust In Congress Act", a bill that would prohibit lawmakers from trading stocks. The legislation has garnered bipartisan support as concerns over congressional ethics continue to grow.

Under the proposed law, members of Congress would be required to divest their stock holdings within 180 days of taking office, with newly elected lawmakers getting an extended period of 90 days. Family members of lawmakers would also be barred from trading stocks, a provision aimed at preventing circumvention by transferring assets to dependents or spouses.

However, exceptions would be made for "widely held, diversified investment funds like mutual funds and ETFs, as well as U.S. Treasury, state, and municipal bonds." The president and vice president would also be exempt from the legislation, although lawmakers emphasized that addressing this issue is a top priority for their constituents.

Support for the ban on congressional stock trading has been growing, with 86% of Americans polled in 2023 expressing support for such a measure. A similar bill was previously introduced by Reps. Chip Roy and Seth Magaziner, but it stalled. The new Senate bill has gained traction, with Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand and Ashley Moody as its primary sponsors.

Critics, however, have raised concerns that forcing lawmakers to sell their stocks could deter people from running for office. House Speaker Mike Johnson echoed these sentiments, stating that such a move could discourage good people from serving in Congress.

Despite the pushback, lawmakers seem determined to address the trust erosion issue head-on. As Gillibrand noted, "The time has come. We have consensus, and there's a drumbeat of people who want to get this done."

Stock trading ban for lawmakers seems like common sense . Can't say I blame anyone for wanting to restore public trust in Congress. It's not like they're being transparent about their investments already . And yeah, the exceptions for mutual funds and bonds might be a bit of a stretch, but at least it's a start.

I think what's concerning is that politicians are still making money off their connections . And we all know how 'widely held' investment funds can get . Anyway, 86% support for the ban isn't bad . Time will tell if this bill actually makes a difference in the long run .

Personally, I'd rather see lawmakers focus on actual legislation rather than their personal finances . But hey, if it helps them get re-elected, that's a different story .

idk why ppl think it's so bad 4 congress folks 2 trade stocks... like wut's the big deal? they're just tryna diversify their portfolio . but i guess it's true dat trust is low and all, so maybe banning stock trading will help restore that. btw, wouldn't it be better if they just made public their investments 2 begin w/? transparency is key, right?

OMG, 86% of Americans are all about banning congressional stock trading ! I mean, can you blame them? It seems like members of Congress just can't seem to put country over cash . The idea of lawmakers selling their stocks and taking a pay cut sounds kinda fair to me...I guess it's one way to reduce the influence of money in politics . I'm not sure about the exceptions for investment funds tho, that seems like a bit of an loophole . But hey, at least there's bipartisan support on this one! Maybe it's time for some real change ...

idk why lawmakers are being so extra about their stock trading ... it's not like they're hurting anyone with it. i mean, if ppl wanna run for office and be rich off it, that's on them, right? but at the same time, i can see how it could look sketchy... all these exceptions are just gonna make it worse . and honestly, who's even tracking how much their representatives' stock holdings change anyway? seems like a waste of time to me .

I gotta say, I'm kinda torn on this one . On one hand, it's about time someone takes aim at the ethics of our elected officials - we need more transparency in DC . But on the other hand, I don't know if banning stock trading for lawmakers is gonna solve much . What's to stop them from just getting a family member or friend to hold onto their stocks? And what about all the long-time voters who've been holding onto investments for years - gotta love a good blanket ban, right ? Still, I guess it's better than nothing .

I gotta say, it's kinda weird how some ppl can just hold onto stock after they've been in office for like 2 years... What's the point of even having laws if you're not gonna enforce 'em? The fact that people are actually gettin' paid to trade stocks while makin' decisions that affect the whole country is a huge red flag.

This whole thing is kinda weird... I mean, politicians can't even be trusted with their own investments? It just feels like another way for them to get in good with the public and distract from actual issues. But at the same time, I get why people are concerned - it's hard to trust someone who's profiting off of their position. The part that really got me is when House Speaker Johnson said it could deter good people from running for office... yeah, I can see how that would be a problem if we're not careful. We need to find a balance between holding them accountable and making sure they're still motivated to serve the country, you know?

I'm so down for this ! It's about time some accountability is thrown at those folks in Washington. I mean, can you blame us? We're sick of hearing about corruption and shady dealings on the Hill. If they're too cowardly or greedy to take the hit themselves, maybe someone needs to be a little uncomfortable with their own stock portfolio . And honestly, who wouldn't want to see some serious changes in DC? The whole thing is just so... corrupt .

I'm totally down with this idea ! It's pretty wild that some lawmakers are actually making money off the system - I mean, isn't their job supposed to be serving us? Not having them trade stocks in the middle of being our reps just seems like a major conflict of interest. And yeah, I can see how it could deter people from running for office... but maybe that's exactly what we need - some fresh perspectives! I'm all about transparency and accountability when it comes to those in power .

I'm thinking... if they make them sell their stocks, will it really stop them from trading or just make 'em more sneaky? Like, won't they just find other ways to invest in the stock market? And what about all those family members? Won't that just create a whole new set of problems? It's like trying to put a lid on a leaky bucket - you might slow it down, but it'll still keep draining! Can we really trust them after they've already broken the trust?

I'm all for it! I mean, can you really blame us for questioning our reps when we see them profiting off their insider info? It's like they're taking sides without even trying . Plus, think about it - if they have to divest their stocks, that means less conflict of interest and more transparent decision-making . And hey, 86% of Americans are on board with this idea, so I think we're onto something here . The fact that the prez and VP would be exempt is a good call too - those guys have more power than most reps anyway .

I think it's about time we got some transparency in DC . I mean, can you blame the public for losing trust when their reps are making money off the very laws they're supposed to be enforcing? It's not like they're breaking any rules... yet . But seriously, if 86% of Americans want this change, then we gotta listen. I'm all for a level playing field and accountability in politics. Family ties can get messy, but maybe that's why we need stricter rules on who's allowed to play in the game . The fact that some think it might deter good people from running is true, but shouldn't we be encouraging integrity over ego?