Picture this: a city council member in a small town. She's an accountant, owns a few stocks in her retirement account. She has to vote on a contract for a new water treatment plant. Under a ban, she can't sell her stake in a company that might bid. So she either votes with a conflict she can't clean up, or she sits out, and the town loses her expertise. That's the real-world mess this creates. I get the concern—insider trading is a serious problem. But a blanket ban is a sledgehammer when we need a scalpel. We already have laws against trading on non-public information. The issue isn't that officials own stocks; it's when they act on secrets. Strengthen enforcement, improve disclosure timing, and make conflicts transparent. A ban would also backfire. It deters qualified, non-wealthy people from public service. If you're not rich, your investments are your savings. Forcing everyone into blind trusts or index funds shoves the cost of ethics onto the middle class. And we'd have a harder time recruiting good people, which is a deeper conflict we'd all pay for.

[No submission - Time expired]