I’ve known a lot of public officials in my time—my cousin sits on a local zoning board, and a neighbor runs for school board. They aren’t billionaires trying to rig the market. They’re regular people who worked hard, saved up, and invest in the same mutual funds and blue-chip stocks as everyone else. A blanket ban treats them like potential criminals, which is demeaning and wildly out of proportion to the problem. The real issue is a handful of bad actors, but we already have laws against insider trading and strict disclosure requirements. Banning all individual stock trading is a blunt instrument that punishes the 99% of honest officials to catch the 1% who misbehave. And let’s be real—it would also discourage good, qualified people from running for office at all. Who wants to give up their financial independence to serve the public? Instead of a ban, we should enforce the rules we have and strengthen recusal requirements when conflicts arise. There’s a middle ground here that actually respects both integrity and the right of ordinary citizens to participate in the market. We don’t need to throw out the whole system because of a few apples.

You didn't actually engage with the issue—you just attacked me personally. That's telling. The "for" side needs evidence that a blanket ban solves a real problem, not anecdotes about a few bad actors. We already have insider trading laws and disclosure rules that catch the vast majority of misconduct. Show me peer-reviewed data that these laws fail so badly we need to punish every honest official who owns a few shares of Apple. The proposed ban would push qualified, ordinary people out of public service. My cousin on the zoning board isn't a threat to market integrity. She's a teacher who saved for retirement. Forcing her to liquidate everything just to serve is absurd and discourages exactly the kind of civic-minded people we want. Strengthen enforcement, improve recusal rules, and let independent ethics committees review trades. That's targeted. A ban is lazy, overbroad policy. You haven't proven it's necessary.

[No submission - Time expired]