Isn't it a bit much to tell lawmakers they can't own stocks like anyone else? I get that the other side worries about conflicts, and that's fair, but a flat ban feels heavy-handed; maybe disclosure is enough and voters can judge. I'm not sure how else to put it.

I still think a flat ban could backfire practically, because it might push out people who already manage money and make serving feel like a penalty. My opponent's concern about conflicts is fair, and I don't really know how to argue past it, but I'd rather see disclosure than a sweeping rule.

[No submission - Time expired]