To me, the real question is whether lawmakers should profit from the same system they oversee. The other side might call it fair game, but they write rules that affect stocks, so trading individual stocks feels like a conflict of interest. I am not sure how to argue it more than that.

Imagine a lawmaker on a committee drafting rules about drug prices, and they buy stock in a pharma company the week before. My opponent says it's fair game, and maybe that's a fair point, but it still feels wrong to me. I can't really explain why beyond that.

Really this isn't about whether trading stocks is legal, it's about whether people can trust that laws are made for everyone. My opponent's point is fair, but I still feel lawmakers shouldn't be picking stocks they also regulate. I don't know how to argue it better.