Imagine a lawmaker buys a few shares in a boring company, then votes on a bill that might affect it. That looks bad, sure, but there are already insider trading rules. A total ban feels too broad to me.

Isn't it possible a blanket ban just pushes trading into blind trusts and complicates things without really fixing the trust problem my opponent worries about? I get my opponent's concern, honestly. But I still feel like clearer disclosure rules might be enough, though I am not sure how to argue it.

I get why my opponent wants a ban, and I admit the trust worry is fair. But I still feel like a ban is a big hammer. Maybe just make them disclose trades quickly and leave it there. I do not know, that seems simpler.