Lawmakers write the rules that move markets. They vote on defense contracts, drug pricing, tariffs, and bank regulation, then trade stocks in the very companies those votes affect. They also sit in closed-door briefings that the public never hears.

You say disclosure is the simpler fix, but we already have it. The STOCK Act of 2012 requires lawmakers to publicly disclose their trades? No member of Congress has ever been prosecuted under it. And violations often end in a waived $200 fine. You also say owning a stock isn’t insider trading. That is true, and I never said it was though. my claim is about conflict of interest, and that exists before anyone breaks a law. a lawmaker holding shares in a company they regulate has a personal reason to vote one way, whether or not they act on that. Lastly though, lawmakers aren’t “just like everyone else” Most stockholders don’t write tariff rules or sit in closed briefings. A ban on individual stocks doesn’t really single anyone out, and it doesn’t stop lawmakers from investing. Index funds are still allowed.

You’ve conceded the briefings point, and that’s the heart of my case. Lawmakers have access the public doesn’t, and that makes their stock trading a conflict,, On visibility, I’d rather not need that whatsoever. Disclosure only lets us watch a conflict, and we’ve watched for over a decade with no prosecutions to show for any of it. If a lawmaker holds a broad fund, there’s nothing sinister for the public to see. That’s the whole point of the ban? Also a ban also doesn’t mean secrecy. Lawmakers can still disclose their funds and trusts. My proposal replaces watching conflicts with removing them, and the two aren’t mutually exclusive. And lastly, you call disclosure simpler, but simple isn’t the necessarily the same as working. A guardrail that’s never been enforced is just a sign.