Did you know a 2017 study found members of Congress actually underperform the stock market compared to average investors? If the insider trading fear were really that big, you'd expect them to outperform. The conflict of interest concern is real, but a blanket ban is the wrong fix. It's a blunt instrument for a city as diverse as this one. Public officials include everyone from the president to the local water board member. Should a city councilperson in Queens have to dump their small stake in a local bank? That’s their retirement money. Blind trusts are expensive and often overkill for most positions. And honestly, it drives talented people away from public service—people who aren't rich and actually rely on their investments. We already have strong anti-insider trading laws. The better play is enforcing them, not punishing everyone for what a few bad actors might do. Let's regulate the behavior, not the person.

I hear you on the access to sensitive information point—that's a legitimate problem, and the examples from India show how bad it can get when there's no accountability. But that's an argument for stricter enforcement, not a blanket ban. We already have the STOCK Act in the US, which is designed to tackle exactly this. The issue is that it's not being enforced rigorously, and there are loopholes. The answer is closing those loopholes, not making it illegal for everyone to participate in the market. Also, think about how this plays out in the real world. Public officials aren't just senators and presidents. They're housing authority board members, school district treasurers, local judges in places like Chicago or LA. These people aren't rich—they have modest portfolios, maybe a 401(k) or some shares in their local utility company. A ban would force them into costly blind trusts or force them out of public service altogether. That's not how you build a diverse, responsive government. We should use modern tools—automated disclosure, AI monitoring for unusual trades—to watch the behavior, not punish everyone for the possibility of bad behavior. Enforce the rules we have. Banning stocks entirely is just lazy policy.

[No submission - Time expired]