Oregon Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley, Michigan Senator Gary Peters, Georgia Democratic Senator Jon Ossoff and Missouri Republican Senator Josh Hawley are outlining a new version of a measure dubbed the "ETHICS Act," Ending Trading and Holdings in Congressional Stocks. Peters, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committee, pledged his panel would take up the bill in his committee later this month.

Hawley Senate bill bans lawmakers from trading stocks https://t.co/22cvJhbxW9

— Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) July 11, 2024

Members of Congress are elected to serve the public—not our stock portfolios.

We have bipartisan momentum behind the ETHICS Act to ban lawmakers from buying and trading stocks. It erodes public trust and invites corruption—let’s get this bill passed! pic.twitter.com/GcCjxkADTt

— Senator Jeff Merkley (@SenJeffMerkley) July 11, 2024

The ETHICS Act is new, comprehensive legislation to prevent conflicts of interest by banning members of Congress, their spouses, and their children from owning or trading stocks. I’m working to get this done.

— Senator Jeff Merkley (@SenJeffMerkley) May 8, 2023

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/1171/text

Do you support this legislation?

They can buy the vanguard/schwab/fidelity S&P500 fund and that's it.

"But, it's a blind trust." - N. Pelosi

I do, but let's not kid ourselves, they will find a way to get around it. Instead of Nancy Pelosi being the greatest stock trader in history, it will now be her niece or nephew.

Yep love it. Those in Washington are there to serve and not be served. This should extend to all intimidate family as well. Lots of these clowns made big bucks on Pharma back in the days of Covid. Much of their decision making may have been based on lining pockets with big Pharma-- for example.

Let them buy whatever they want. Just force them to publically announce any stock/bond/commodity purchase 2 weeks in advance.

TheMasterplan said:

---

They can buy the vanguard/schwab/fidelity S&P500 fund and that's it.

---

Politicians would find a way around it - like they always do - whether by relatives or shell companies/charities. But I'm in favor of making it harder to leverage knowledge & influence for personal enrichment.

They should be restricted from voting on legislation regarding ANY capital investment they actively control. If that means they all have to place investments under independent management while they are in congress, or that they must simply not be in congress so they can pursue personal business, so be it.

Congress was never meant to be a career, let alone a lucrative one, though everyone knows that public "service" has always been a path to wealth. We could at least minimize the worst excesses of undue influence or conflict of interests against the public.

On one hand, it seems like overreach - we are supposed to have citizen legislators and they need to be treated with the same freedom and expectations as anyone else.

After you stop laughing, continue reading.

At this point, nearly none of them are "citizen legislators," they are professionally politicians. In addition, government spending (ie their purview) represents routinely over 40% of US GDP. In short, they created the problem and this is one way (hopefully) to deal with the perverse incentive of being a "professional politician." Obviously, the other would be reduce the size and scope of the Federal Government but I didn't intend to make you laugh out loud 2x in the same post.

We shouldn't be at the point where Representatives don't follow the laws that "common" people do.

If they want to trade.....make them report in real time.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

They should be restricted from voting on legislation regarding ANY capital investment they actively control. If that means they all have to place investments under independent management while they are in congress, or that they must simply not be in congress so they can pursue personal business, so be it.

Congress was never meant to be a career, let alone a lucrative one, though everyone knows that public "service" has always been a path to wealth. We could at least minimize the worst excesses of undue influence or conflict of interests against the public.

---

That "independent management" is currently their wife/husband. And they get huge fees for "running" these investments.

Well, to be fair, they are very accurate in their investment decisions.

Duhhh

No self directed accounts. Force them through an independent fiduciary that has some control over all transactions.

My FA will let me blacklist individual companies for various reason. The most common being if you work for a company that matches 401k in company stock you wouldn't want additional purchases of that company in another account making you overweight. I don't personally have any blacklisted. But I cannot order them to buy XYZ with funds under their management.

That's still insider trading and is illegal and I believe would be totally subject to prosecution .

I support Congressman and Senators or their financial advisors ( on their behalf )not being able to trade in any individual stocks and bonds during their time in office and probably no industry specific funds or etf's either . Broad based index funds would be ok imo.

Index funds only. They don't need to be able to trade individual stocks. Too much room for insider trading.

They don't allow civilians to do it, so why is it even a question?

TheMasterplan said:

---

They can buy the vanguard/schwab/fidelity S&P500 fund and that's it.

---

The only problem with that is that the S&P 500 is no longer representative of the market as a whole because the top 10 stocks make up 30% of the risk & return.

I would let them own index funds of at least 100 positions. Allow them to buy balanced & bond index funds because an 80 year old should not only be in the S&P 500.

Or, allow them hire a money manager through a blind trust.

I used to be in favor of plans like this.

But my NANC fund is killing it (up 32% in one year), so now I'm on the fence.

Throw in term limits and we are cooking

They can buy whatever stock they want, if they annually balance the budget.

At a minimum they should be forced to wait to sell until a company's employee stock trading window is open. Regardless, it's obvious that Congress is doing insider trading and it should be illegal like it is for all Americans. For crying out loud the determine policies to help those companies they invest in, and have dinners with their lobbyists.

Do you think using a blind trust or having their investment activity controlled by someone else who is acting as a fiduciary is going to change anything? These criminals will do a wink wink nod nod and whoever is managing the money will still make the investments these criminals are making now.

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

Index funds only. They don't need to be able to trade individual stocks. Too much room for insider trading.

---

What if I own stock (or heaven forbid equity in company that takes off) and then I run for congress, am I able manage my own property?

curious what more laws do if they are never enforced.

hoopla said:

---

Oregon Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley, Michigan Senator Gary Peters, Georgia Democratic Senator Jon Ossoff and Missouri Republican Senator Josh Hawley are outlining a new version of a measure dubbed the "ETHICS Act," Ending Trading and Holdings in Congressional Stocks. Peters, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committee, pledged his panel would take up the bill in his committee later this month.

Hawley Senate bill bans lawmakers from trading stocks https://t.co/22cvJhbxW9

— Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) July 11, 2024

Members of Congress are elected to serve the public—not our stock portfolios.

We have bipartisan momentum behind the ETHICS Act to ban lawmakers from buying and trading stocks. It erodes public trust and invites corruption—let’s get this bill passed! pic.twitter.com/GcCjxkADTt

— Senator Jeff Merkley (@SenJeffMerkley) July 11, 2024

The ETHICS Act is new, comprehensive legislation to prevent conflicts of interest by banning members of Congress, their spouses, and their children from owning or trading stocks. I’m working to get this done.

— Senator Jeff Merkley (@SenJeffMerkley) May 8, 2023

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/1171/text

Do you support this legislation?

---

Lets see what is says first.

There will for sure be loopholes in it that will be exploited.

And good luck getting that passed to include family. While I get the point, I would not want to be limited in what stocks I can buy b/c some distant family member was in congress.

Yes. The are privy to too much insider information and should be not allowed to trade stocks. They should be serving the people and not their wealth.

That's probably the smallest piece of the pie. More likely they get more through undisclosed partnerships; trusts, and other financials that are cloaked in privacy. I'm pro privacy but when it comes to those who legislate, they should disclose all financial positions. Enough with the tax returns, more transparency is needed for Congress.

Detmersdislocatedshoulder said:

---

curious what more laws do if they are never enforced.

---

This is right. There are already laws against insider trading and they break these laws daily. Why not just uphold the existing laws and start serving up jail time or freezing funds?

vansprinkle said:

---

Detmersdislocatedshoulder said:

---

curious what more laws do if they are never enforced.

---

This is right. There are already laws against insider trading and they break these laws daily. Why not just uphold the existing laws and start serving up jail time or freezing funds?

---

I'd be ok with them trading direct, with the disclaimer that they have to publicly file any purchases or divestments of stock at least 24 hours prior to making the trade. Current regulation from STOCK act is within 45 days after making the trade, which is an eternity in the stock market. Technically the same act is supposed to prevent them from using insider knowledge to do it, but that's about as worthless as a turn signal on a BMW.

We already have this toothless/ignored law. It needs tightening.

Stock Act of 2012

Ghost Mech said:

---

We shouldn't be at the point where Representatives don't follow the laws that "common" people do.

If they want to trade.....make them report in real time.

---

Agreed.

No public servant should make a career out of being a politician, and they sure as f*k shouldn't get rich off of it.

Quote:

---

Do you support the new legislation banning lawmaker stock trading?

---

Not yes. But hell yes.

aggiebrad94 said:

---

TheMasterplan said:

---

They can buy the vanguard/schwab/fidelity S&P500 fund and that's it.

---

The only problem with that is that the S&P 500 is no longer representative of the market as a whole because the top 10 stocks make up 30% of the risk & return.

I would let them own index funds of at least 100 positions. Allow them to buy balanced & bond index funds because an 80 year old should not only be in the S&P 500.

Or, allow them hire a money manager through a blind trust.

---

No industry specific funds for them, all family members, or any people who actively participate in any endeavors with them.

Only broad market ETF's or funds.

Sims said:

---

On one hand, it seems like overreach - we are supposed to have citizen legislators and they need to be treated with the same freedom and expectations as anyone else.

After you stop laughing, continue reading.

At this point, nearly none of them are "citizen legislators," they are professionally politicians. In addition, government spending (ie their purview) represents routinely over 40% of US GDP. In short, they created the problem and this is one way (hopefully) to deal with the perverse incentive of being a "professional politician." Obviously, the other would be reduce the size and scope of the Federal Government but I didn't intend to make you laugh out loud 2x in the same post.

---

We require independence of financial auditors, that model can easily be applied to congress. It cares for dependents and family members. It is tracked and reported for all audit firms.

He'll I'd even add an incentive package to their comp plan. They get a x% bonus for a balanced budget and a debt:GDP ratio of less than 1. Plus a x% bonus for every 1% the market grows.

fc2112 said:

---

I used to be in favor of plans like this.

But my NANC fund is killing it (up 32% in one year), so now I'm on the fence.

---

I am for the ban and certainly not defending Nancy, but I looked at the NANC holdings. It's top 6 holdings which are almost half of the fund are the Magnificent 7 minus TSLA (#19). No big stretch or stock picking on inside information there. The Magnificent 7 has been a popular moniker for NVDA, MSFT, AMZN, AAPL,CRM, GOOG and TSLA. And 4 of those were part of FANG which has been commonly referenced on CNBC for years.

So, you could get the same "information" by flipping on the TV to CNBC, Fox Business or Bloomberg.