I believe that lawmakers should be banned from trading individual stocks because it prevents them from creating unjust laws that serve their own self interest in gaining monetary value from stocks rather than using their power to serve the people.

Firstly, disclosure of trades is only reactive to issues rather than preventing the root cause, which is politicians trading stocks. It only reveals conflict after it has already happened. It does absolutely nothing to prevent a lawmaker from passing laws that actively boost their own portfolio. Additionally, even in a world where disclosure is instant, the average American could never match the amount of information a lawmaker has giving them an unfair advantage. Also, even when we are to enforce those laws, the fine for violating the Stock’s Acr is only a mere $200. That’s hardly a deterrent at all. $200 is nothing to a rich politician and when the laws aren’t enforced they can gain millions of dollars. This is exemplified by the fact that it is extremely difficult to prove insider trading as prosecutors need to prove within reasonable doubt that a lawmaker is trading through non public information. Your claim about how citizens would want ‘talented people’ running for office also is bogus. If someone trades stocks through knowledge they gained through means that they wouldn’t have had if they weren’t in a position of power, it doesn’t show talent, it shows corruption, and we both know that the people want a less corrupt government.

Just like how not everyone going on a plane is a terrorist, but the TSA is vital to the security of passengers and flight crew, creating restrictions on trading stocks for politicians prevents bad actors from using their power from personal gain. Even the most ethical lawmaker could subconsciously pass a law that helps grow their portfolio, so why take that risk. Additionally, just because a politician could tell their spouse or friend to buy stocks doesn’t change the fact that we should put limitations on lawmakers. Your argument is basically saying, “They’re going to trade maliciously so why try to stop them.” The argument is inherently flawed and you need to understand that. Finally, why can’t we have prohibition and enforcement? There are many politicians like Nancy Pelosi and Donald Trump who are blatantly insider trading but no one can charge them with anything because it is extremely difficult to prove that they are using insider information. Without stopping lawmakers from trading entirely there will always be someone who passes a law that makes them millions of dollars or hears about the government passing laws that put tariffs on countries which will make their portfolio lose millions of dollars in value.