Is there actual peer-reviewed evidence that public officials trading individual stocks leads to worse policy outcomes, or are we just assuming that? Because that's the real question. We already have disclosure requirements and recusal rules. If someone trades on non-public information, that's insider trading — prosecute them. A blanket ban punishes everyone for the actions of a few hypothetical bad actors. It also makes public service less attractive to people who've built careers in investing or business. Forcing everyone into blind trusts sounds clean, but it doesn't erase influence; it just hides it. Show me data that this creates measurable corruption, not just vibes. Until then, we're overcorrecting with a shiny rule instead of enforcing the laws we already have.

[No submission - Time expired]