A key Senate committee marked up new legislation that would ban lawmakers from trading stocks. Now comes the hard part: Putting it up for a vote.

On Wednesday, a key Senate panel approved a bill that would ban lawmakers from trading stocks.

The Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee approved the legislation — known as the Ending Trading and Holdings in Congressional Stocks (ETHICS) Act — by an 8-4 vote.

Republican Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Mitt Romney of Utah, and James Lankford of Oklahoma voted against it.

“The public doesn’t think we should profit from having information that they don’t have, and we shouldn’t” Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, one of the key sponsors of the bill, told reporters in his office on Tuesday.

It’s a sweeping bill — but it wouldn’t take full effect until 2027 Under this bill, members of Congress — along with the President and Vice President — would be banned from purchasing stocks and cryptocurrencies beginning 90 days after the bill’s signed into law.

Then, on March 31, 2027 — two and a half years from now — a more complete ban takes place. Those same politicians, as well as their spouses and any dependent children, would have to sell off all of their stocks within 120 days after that.

  • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
    88·
    4 months ago

    Will take me some time to fully digest this but I do wonder if this is too far.

    Apply same trading rules as the private sector? Sure. Limit trades to broad market index funds only? Sure. No trading period? Um, okay, fine. No trades for any family members and sell off all shares? Like wow. Nuclear option. That would actually discourage me from running for Congress and I don’t have $10k in investments (retirement funds aside).

    I take back what I said given that the bill excludes ETFs and mutual funds (not mentioned in the article). Also, after reading the article again I do think it’s not strict enough. A fine for violations? So now we’re back to making corruption a fee-based service. The penalty should be $1000 for each day the stock is held plus the absolute difference between the purchase and sale price (I don’t want them to get the tax benefit either).

    • Godort@lemm.ee
      251·
      4 months ago

      If your goal in running for Congress is to make a profit from stock trading using information you have access to that the public does not, you probably should be discouraged from running.

      • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
        7·
        4 months ago

        This is literally illegal for anyone in the private sector (and most public sector employees too I wager). Why not just extend the rules to include them?

      • Pronell@lemmy.world
        22·
        4 months ago

        But it goes further than that and forces liquidation of such investments.

        So you can’t be swayed by your own financial interests, but it also limits greatly your ability to invest in your own future.

        Edit: I’m not making an argument, I’m looking at what the proposal would do to see why some think it goes too far.

        • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
          5·
          4 months ago

          I’m kind of with you.

          I understand the inherent conflict of interest, but that’s going to be the case no matter what. If they can’t own stock, does that mean they’re all going to end up holding real estate and pressured to help that market break more instead?

          I can’t imagine removing their legitimate investment options is going to result in people taking less bribes.

          I’ve been told lower down that they’re still allowed to have mutual funds, so my objections are pretty much gone. That’s good enough to have reasonable growth without cheating.

          • Pronell@lemmy.world
            2·
            4 months ago

            One could make a good argument that their money should be invested in bonds.

            That’s just off the top of my head though, I’m not a finance guy.

            • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
              22·
              4 months ago

              That basically locks any normal person from being able to afford to run for congress.

              You can’t save for retirement with the growth rate of bonds.

              • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
                41·
                4 months ago

                You can with mutual funds though - and those are allowed. It seems well targeted to just eliminate strategic stock picking.

              • Pronell@lemmy.world
                1·
                4 months ago

                It used to be that a blind trust was deemed acceptable, so what changed? Are they not as blind as advertised?

      • NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth
        27·
        4 months ago

        Cool cool, and what about these people’s retirement funds?

        Not every congressperson is a long term person.

        This would really fuck over the average person trying to become a congressperson.

        Not all of them are dynasty

    • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      4 months ago

      The penalty should be $1000 for each day the stock is held plus the absolute difference between the purchase and sale price (I don’t want them to get the tax benefit either).

      Make it triple the absolute difference, plus the base fine. And have that fine specifically go to the DOJ budget. Give them a financial incentive, since it’s clearly worked extremely well at getting the cops to go after the drugs.

      Otherwise it again is still just a service fee if they get caught.