We see that you have javascript disabled. Please enable javascript and refresh the page to continue reading local news. If you feel you have received this message in error, please contact the customer support team at 1-833-248-7801.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Other View: Stock-trading bans for Congress are common sense. So why won't they do it?

OPED-CONGRESS-STOCK-TRADING-EDITORIAL-DMT
The U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, D.C.
Richie Lomba/Dreamstime/TNS
We are part of The Trust Project.

Under the heading of "How is this not already illegal?" comes the latest effort in Congress to prohibit sitting lawmakers from trading stocks. In an era of rock-bottom public trust in the institutions of government, ending this inherently shady-looking scenario shouldn’t garner a single “no” vote.

It’s an old issue that has taken on added relevance since early 2020, when the U.S. began descending into a pandemic that most Americans didn’t know would be the economic tsunami it became. But members of Congress had better information, getting closed-door briefings about the approaching public health catastrophe and the society-altering response that would be necessary.

Also Read
More than half a million privately owned parcels of coastal property — the kind of property generally held by the well-heeled — could be underwater by 2050.
Do whatever is necessary to protect the will of the people.

Several sitting members dumped investments just before a stock market plunge that they were in a position to see coming while most other investors weren’t. Newly unsealed FBI documents show that Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., for example, abruptly sold more than half of his and his wife’s holdings right before the soaring market suddenly collapsed under the impact of economic shutdowns. Then-Sen. Kelly Loeffler, R-Ga., meanwhile, suddenly bought stock — in a remote-meeting technology company that was about to become one of the few market winners of the pandemic.

People have gone to prison for circumstances that look this much like insider trading. But none of these pandemic profiteers did. Some are still in office. Ethics probes by their own colleagues were ultimately dropped. No wonder Congress’ approval rating is under 20% these days. The only mystery, in fact, is how it is that almost one-fifth of Americans still give these shameless self-dealers the benefit of the doubt.

It’s not that no one in Congress has proposed stock-trading bans. They’ve actually become a relatively popular idea, drawing support from such politically disparate voices as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo. Congressional leaders in both parties say they’re in favor — because, really, who could reasonably oppose it?

ADVERTISEMENT

And yet it keeps not happening.

The latest effort is a public letter from a bipartisan group of House members pressing congressional leaders to embrace a set of reform “first principles.” The letter pulls no punches, stating bluntly that the goal is to ultimately pass legislation “to end insider trading by Members of Congress.” It would require members, their spouses and dependents under 18 to either divest their holdings or put them in blind trusts, standard mutual funds, U.S. Treasury bills or other forms that would prevent the holders from having direct control over the investments.

These now-familiar ideas are such common sense that to find a member of Congress today willing to openly oppose them would be difficult. But as long as congressional leaders offer platitudes toward reform without actually bringing it to the floor, Americans are justified in assuming they’re still putting their portfolios above their public duty.

©2022 STLtoday.com
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

What to read next
Trump’s courtroom comeuppance ultimately would serve Americans of all political stripes because it would affirm a concept that badly needs affirmation: That no person is above the law.
Republicans have made their point. They got the attention they wanted. Now it’s time to engage Democrats to solve the problem.
It's now possible to imagine going to the park for great meal, taking a stroll on a boardwalk through restored wetlands, and then attending a play or musical performance at a lakeside amphitheater.
What’s the difference between those oppressed by the Castros and their successor and desperate Venezuelans fleeing a socialist dictatorship built by Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro? Politics.