I believe lawmakers trading individual stocks creates a conflict of interest because their job is to make decisions that benefit the public, not decisions that could personally benefit their investments. First, lawmakers have access to information and influence that ordinary citizens do not. They help shape laws, regulate industries, and make decisions that can affect the value of companies. Even if a lawmaker never uses confidential information illegally, the possibility that their personal investments could benefit from their official decisions creates a serious ethical concern. Second, it creates a problem of public trust. How can citizens feel confident that a lawmaker is making decisions for the good of the country if that same lawmaker could financially benefit from those decisions? Even the appearance of a conflict can make people question whether their representatives are serving the public or their own financial interests. Finally, existing disclosure rules do not completely eliminate the problem. The STOCK Act requires covered officials to report certain stock transactions, but lawmakers are not generally prohibited from owning or trading individual stocks. Transparency helps people monitor their representatives, but knowing about a potential conflict after a trade does not prevent it from happening. To be clear, I am not claiming that every lawmaker who trades stocks is corrupt. I am arguing that public office carries special responsibilities. Lawmakers should be held to a standard that minimizes both actual conflicts of interest and reasonable doubts about their motives. Ultimately, public service should be about serving the people, not creating opportunities for personal financial gain. Requiring lawmakers to use diversified investments or independently managed blind trusts would help protect public confidence and ensure that their financial interests do not undermine their public responsibilities.

[No submission - Time expired]