More than two dozen House lawmakers are demanding that Speaker Nancy Pelosi allow legislation barring congressional stock trading to come up for a vote.
The push to ban stock trading by members of Congress has gained bipartisan momentum since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The rise in support has been fed by several high-profile cases in which lawmakers appeared to make lucrative trades based on issue-specific insight gleaned from their official duties.
The lawmakers told Mrs. Pelosi, California Democrat, on Monday via letter that new legislation was desperately needed in light of “recent misconduct.”
“There is no reason that members of Congress need to be allowed to trade stocks when we should be focused on doing our jobs and serving our constituents,” they wrote. “Perhaps this means some of our colleagues will miss out on lucrative investment opportunities. We don’t care. We came to Congress to serve our country, not turn a quick buck.”
The letter was signed by 27 lawmakers in total, including 25 Democrats and two Republicans. It was led by Rep. Jared Golden, a moderate Maine Democrat. Mr. Golden pointed to the wide swath of ideological support the letter received from Democrats and Republicans alike.
Signatories included moderate Democrats like Mr. Golden as well as progressive firebrands, including Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan. The GOP sponsors, meanwhile, were centrist Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, a staunch conservative and ally of former President Donald Trump.
“Rashida Tlaib and I don’t often agree,” said Mr. Gaetz. “But when we do, America should totally go that direction.”
The lawmakers urged for Mrs. Pelosi to allow a vote on both the Ban Conflicted Trading Act and the TRUST in Congress Act. The first bill would bar members of Congress and their spouses from being able to trade stocks outright. The TRUST in Congress Act would require lawmakers and members of their immediate family to place their assets in a blind trust.
“At a time when public confidence in Congress is low, holding ourselves to this standard would be an important step to earn back their trust,” the lawmakers wrote.
Mrs. Pelosi initially opposed the ban, arguing that in a “free market” country it would be inappropriate to impose such restrictions. Her stance softened after polls showed that nearly 75% of voters across the country favored the ban.
“To give a blanket attitude of ‘We can’t do this’ and ‘We can’t do that’ because we can’t be trusted, I just don’t buy into that,” she said. “But if members want to do that, I’m OK with that.”
Advocates of the ban say that current insider trading laws, enforced by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), as well as the STOCK ACT — which already bars lawmakers from using nonpublic information for private profit — are insufficient.
Many point to the case of Sen. Richard Burr, North Carolina Republican, as proof.
Mr. Burr came under fire for selling some $1.72 million worth of stock in hospitality companies shortly before the onset of the coronavirus pandemic in February 2020.
At the time, Mr. Burr was chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and had access to confidential briefings about the coming severity of the pandemic. Mr. Burr has argued that the briefings made no impact on his stock transaction.
The Department of Justice investigated the matter and did not pursue charges. That matter however continues to be investigated by the SEC.
Despite often being cited by advocates of the stock ban, Mr. Burr has shown an openness to the idea himself.
“I wouldn’t wish for anybody to go through what I have gone through,” he said.
Reform proponents also cite the case of Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm. Throughout her first year in office, Ms. Granholm acknowledged last month that she failed at least nine times to report selling stock in a green energy company within the legal time frame, as required by existing disclosure laws.
The Department of Energy did not respond to requests for comment on this story.
• Haris Alic can be reached at halic@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.