The other side assumes every official is one trade away from corruption, and that banning stocks fixes that. But if that were true, we'd also have to ban them from owning rental property, holding crypto, or even choosing their kids' college—all things that create conflicts the same way. The real answer is disclosure, recusal, and existing ethics enforcement, which actually catch bad actors. Banning individual stocks just chases the appearance of scandal while punishing honest public servants for a problem we already have tools to solve.

Take a city council member who inherited three shares of the local utility from her grandmother. Under your ban, she either sells a decades-old holding or quits public office. If that's the standard, then we'd also have to ban officials from owning homes near development zones or having spouses who work at any regulated business. The actual problem—trading on insider information—is already illegal. Disclosure and recusal catch real misconduct. A blanket ban just punishes honest people and pushes them into blind trusts or index funds, which doesn't make them more ethical, just less invested in the economy they're supposed to oversee.

[No submission - Time expired]