House of Representatives Ken Buck (R-Colorado), Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington), and Matt Rosendale (R-Montana) have joined together to introduce the "Bipartisan Ban on Congressional Stock Ownership Act."
The legislation will prohibit members of Congress and their spouses from owning and trading stocks and goes well beyond other proposals to ban stock trading in numerous ways.
The proposed legislation includes the following:
- Bans members of Congress and their spouses from owning and trading individual stocks, bonds, commodities, futures, and other securities including an interest in a hedge fund, a derivative, an option or other complex investment vehicle. Widely held funds, such as mutual funds and ETFs, will not be banned as long as those funds do not present a conflict of interest and are diversified.
- A civil penalty of up to $50,000 will be established for each violation to be enforced by the Department of Justice and the U.S. Office of Special Counsel.
- A transition period will be allowed for lawmakers to divest their holdings and come into compliance, including a similar period for newly elected members starting when they’re sworn in, and allows deferral of taxation on gains from investments that they and their spouses are forced to divest.
It’s past time for Washington to do the right thing and ban Members of Congress from using their elected position to enrich themselves. Members of Congress receive information that the public does not, it is inappropriate for elected officials to then turn around and invest or buy stocks using that insider information.
The American people must have trust that Congress uses this information only to conduct official business, not benefit a stock portfolio. I’m proud to work in a bipartisan manner with Congresswoman Jayapal and Congressman Rosendale on this important issue to restore some faith and trust in Congress.Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colorado)
Only two in ten Americans trust that our government is working in their best interest. Members of Congress are elected to serve the people, not our own financial interests. As long as members and their spouses are allowed to trade individual stocks – the door to corruption remains open. This legislation is a long overdue, necessary step to raise the ethical standards of Congress and restore the people’s trust in our work.Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington)
We’ve made strides to ensure that Congress returned to an honest and properly functioning legislative body – ending insider trading by Members is another crucial step that will restore public confidence in our institutions. It’s unacceptable that so many career politicians abuse their office to enrich themselves rather than putting the interests of the American people first.Rep. Matt Rosendale (R-Montana)
A number of lawmakers introduced legislation in the last Congress to ban members from trading stocks, but none of the proposals passed.
The effort gained initiative after news surfaced that several lawmakers had allegedly violated existing laws meant to prevent conflicts of interest when it comes to investing.
The House came close to holding a vote on similar legislation last September, but Democrats ultimately scrapped the plans, saying there was not enough time to evaluate the proposal.
Visit The Sharyl Attkisson Store today
Unique gifts for independent thinkers
Proceeds benefit independent journalism
Bill Andrews says
This Article ? It makes more sense in terms of economics and taxes despite what bad lobbyist Brain washed others in life into believing in mathematics and economics ? Example ; Little jonny created and founded a New Drugs And seeked the advice of others How much should he sell each Bottle of this new economic Marvel constant ? Should little Jonny take the advice of other Greedy people and sell each bottle for Hundreds of dollars or more, to a selected few who can afford it ? Or should little Jonny sell each bottle for 25 Dollars a bottle to a much more wide range of people on Earth each week ? "Hmm ? Ok let's think this out ? If little Jonny can sell each week to lower pricing to say 4 Billion people instead of only a few hundred= and on this Earth has over 7 Billion people what path in life should Jonny take in his new economic Dynamo Marvel to make more money long term stocks with ? Mathematics New Economic Speed Bump Constant ???
We need to keep it simpler. Pass a Constitutional Amendment to the effect of:
No government agent, employee, department or other entity, whether elected or appointed shall exempt themselves from the laws, rules, and/or regulations duly passed or enacted, unless it's necessary to fulfill an essential function of government. Essential function exemption shall be determined by an oversight board staffed by non-government officials with knowledge of each departments functions and duties.
tom chase says
Should also include members of the family, being immediate, should not be allowed as well. This only might affect members of Congress. They can still do business as usual via their family members including spouses. Have the restriction uniform with penalty teeth. They would probably be glad to pay a 10K fine and make 100K.
They get paid enough and includes all the benefits. If they think this is harsh, don't be a Congress member. and be a self serving person, not important constituents.
Yes...family members are handy agents for laundering.
They didn't have time to evaluate the proposal last time because they were busy handing out billions from another bill they didn't read.
My old representative, Abigail Spanburger has been fight for this for two years. If she was still my rep, I would cross party lines and vote for her, on this one issue alone. I am tired of people running for office, going to DC, and becoming very very rich. That should never the reason to run, and I think it has something to do with why people stay there, now, for decades.
Harold H says
There are to many politicians on the take with insider trading tips that this will never make it to the floor for a vote. It would be the same as asking them to vote term limits for themselves. Do you honestly think they would? I’m betting $1000 they won’t.
Regulating Wall St is like wrestling in a snake pit. The root cause of the problem isn't DC politicians playing the Wall St casino game--it's the casino economy that cultivates the mindset to exploit and profit from the existent eco-finance model. The other key factor has to do with the FED and its relationships with BIS/DAVOS--and WEF. As the well-known saying goes (coming from a gangster): 'The best way to rob a bank is to own one.'
If this gap is plugged another one will be exploited until we have honorable Congressional members.
Gary L Riedl says
Hmmm. Never gonna happen. Which legislatures would get rid of a profitable opportunity for themselves? "The House came close to holding a vote" In other words - The answer is, no one.
They can own stocks, as long as they owned them when they were elected.
But while in office, they cannot buy or sell stocks.
Should have been done a very long time ago so there is no conflict of interest. And, to add to it, no pensions for them or lifetime HC. Go get a job in the private sector if you want all that