Imagine a senator owns a few shares of a tech company. Should they be forced to sell just because they vote on a bill that might affect it? That feels too broad to me, and I'm not sure how you'd even enforce it fairly.

Honestly I'm not even sure what that last point was about, so I'll just repeat my gut feeling. Banning trades probably just pushes officials to hide them through family accounts, which is messier and harder to enforce anyway. That still seems like a fair point against a ban, right?

Maybe I did misread your point, fair enough. Still, my gut says a flat ban is too blunt; it treats any small holding like corruption. I can't really argue it better than that.