Should lawmakers be banned from trading individual stocks?

Honestly, banning lawmakers from trading individual stocks seems like it would mostly create a paperwork mess and push trades into funds or family accounts, so the real problem might just move somewhere harder to see. I get the concern, but I am not convinced a flat ban fixes much. That is just my gut feeling.

Round 2

ST

stuartstu3FOR

I think if you want lawmakers , it doesn't matter what their title is to not old shares , you have to be very careful , you know , lots of people who are defined as lawmakers own shares , and it doesn't automatically mean they are corrupt or using a way of making dishonest money

SO

Socratic_SamAGAINST

My opponent has a fair point that public trust matters, and I agree transparency is good. But a flat ban still feels like it mostly creates paperwork and pushes trades into funds or family accounts, so the problem just goes somewhere harder to see. I am not sure how to argue it better.

Round 3

ST

stuartstu3FOR

The people you have to meet most aware of is, of course, people taking advantage of their position, whatever title they hold to make money dishonestly, but that happens so much in the world that I don't think just a sane lawmakers would make a big difference. I think you are more talking about an educational thing to teach values and honesty.

SO

Socratic_SamAGAINST

I still think a flat ban mostly shifts trading into funds or family accounts, so it looks cleaner without really being cleaner. My opponent makes a fair point that owning stocks is not automatically corruption, and I am not sure how to argue past that, but banning it just feels like the wrong fix.

More POLITICS debates

Start here:POLITICS debate topics·Debate an AI·Practice debating